Economics

  • Thread starter Rallywagon
  • 490 comments
  • 13,026 views

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
23,263
United States
Anoka, MN
RokkitShipp
So your saying the education rates are been at the same rate the whole time?

Nope, as bad as it is the education system now is much better than it has been in the past.

And stick to what I post, not what you think I meant. In return I will do the same for your posts. That sound like a deal?

None of that is asking about skills to living wages.

Probably because I was solely talking about the amount of people living below the poverty line now compared to the past.
 
9,397
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
Nope, as bad as it is the education system now is much better than it has been in the past.

And stick to what I post, not what you think I meant. In return I will do the same for your posts. That sound like a deal?
But you where responding to a question about living wages and gave that answer, I don't see how it's not a relavent question to ask.

Probably because I was solely talking about the amount of people living below the poverty line now compared to the past.
So you didn't answer the question?
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
Trades will also become increasingly automated.

Maybe driving. But it kinda depends on what you call a trade. If you're thinking factories, sure. If you're thinking plumbing, electrical, HVAC, automotive repair, autobody, most construction trades, and a lot of livestock/farming work, those are actually better protected against automation than a lot of white collar jobs, like software development, travel agent, real estate agent, and even doctor/nurse.

I'd argue that if you were going to pick one single full time employee's worth of work to replace with software, and it had to be a doctor or a plumber, it'd be easier to generate that kind of output for the doctor app than the plumber app.
 

ryzno

Slowest of the Fastest!!
Premium
5,547
United States
Dahlonega, GA
ryzno
God, I hope so, I'd love to be able to buy a house. Crap shacks in Salt Lake go for well over $500,000 and if you want anything resembling a decent house in an OK area, you're looking at close to a million. I'd love to be able to get a modest home for somewhere right around $275,000.
Is GA on your mind? ;)
 
600
Ireland
Ireland
Live within their means until they can locate a better job.
When one is living paycheck to paycheck one can't save much. That's what it means. We've already gone over why 53 million people can't "locate a better job". The solution is to pay better wages to ensure nobody is 'working poor'.
Not really, the percentage of people living in poverty in the U.S. has been in the 11-15% range for quite awhile.
That's according to the federal poverty guidelines. For a single person it's 12.5k, while for a family of four it's under 26k. It's the same no matter where one lives. I'm not familiar with the cost of living over there, but i'm going to go out on a limb and say the poverty guidelines are way under the cost of living in any urban area. Depending on which article one reads, there are more, or fewer people who should be categorised as being below the poverty line.
And they will be created as needed, much like how the IT industry has grown from non-existent to one of the largest job categories in a matter of a few decades.
"They will be created as needed" is about as vague as it gets. 44% of Americans work in low skilled, low wage jobs. These jobs are probably most at risk of being automated, There won't be 50 million replacement jobs. That's before we even begin to think about the amount of skilled jobs that are also at risk of being automated. Slightly ironically, the IT industry is developing computers that will put their creators out of work.
They may become slightly more automated but unless we tear down every existing structure and re-built with automation in mind human labor will make up the bulk of trade work. Even the houses being built today aren't exactly the same even if they seem so from the outside due to customers wanting things where they want them or deciding they want to add something 3/4ths of the way into the build.
It's hard to predict the future but automation will affect all trades, albeit some more than others, and some sooner than others.

Maybe driving. But it kinda depends on what you call a trade. If you're thinking factories, sure. If you're thinking plumbing, electrical, HVAC, automotive repair, autobody, most construction trades, and a lot of livestock/farming work, those are actually better protected against automation than a lot of white collar jobs, like software development, travel agent, real estate agent, and even doctor/nurse.

I'd argue that if you were going to pick one single full time employee's worth of work to replace with software, and it had to be a doctor or a plumber, it'd be easier to generate that kind of output for the doctor app than the plumber app.
I would agree that many other jobs may be automated before many trades. I referred to those two industries specifically because they were already part of the conversation. Having said that, I think it's hard to envision that automation won't result in fewer traditional trades jobs in the future.
 
Last edited:

Joey D

Swedespeed
Premium
44,029
United States
Holladay, UT
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
Is GA on your mind? ;)

We've thought about the south, but I think the humidity would literally kill me. When I was in Michigan in November, the humidity in the winter was enough to make me miss the arid western desert. The housing prices are appealing though as is the fact that it's not cold and snowy very much.
 

FPV MIC

Premium
3,120
Australia
Australia
GT-MIC
When one is living paycheck to paycheck one can't save much. That's what it means. We've already gone over why 53 million people can't "locate a better job". The solution is to pay better wages to ensure nobody is 'working poor'.
We have two distinctly different groups of people that live paycheck to paycheck here in Australia. The ones already mentioned that are truly in that situation due low wages, and then there's the second group, the ones that have high paying jobs that could choose to live within their means and not live paycheck to paycheck but do so of their own choice.

This second group seems to need/want the latest and greatest of everything, ultra large house, big 4wd with a Merc/BMW parked next to it, big screen tv in every room, most up to date mobile, Foxtel & Stan & Netflix, etc etc. at the cost of huge debt and maxed out credit cards. This second group do it for whatever reason, possibly appearances, so I have no sympathy for them at all when it comes to not having a buffer. The first group have no choice, so I do feel for them.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
We have two distinctly different groups of people that live paycheck to paycheck here in Australia. The ones already mentioned that are truly in that situation due low wages, and then there's the second group, the ones that have high paying jobs that could choose to live within their means and not live paycheck to paycheck but do so of their own choice.

This second group seems to need/want the latest and greatest of everything, ultra large house, big 4wd with a Merc/BMW parked next to it, big screen tv in every room, most up to date mobile, Foxtel & Stan & Netflix, etc etc. at the cost of huge debt and maxed out credit cards. This second group do it for whatever reason, possibly appearances, so I have no sympathy for them at all when it comes to not having a buffer. The first group have no choice, so I do feel for them.

Both groups have a choice. The second group comes from the first group (often) and is simply used to living at the edge.
 

FPV MIC

Premium
3,120
Australia
Australia
GT-MIC
Both groups have a choice. The second group comes from the first group (often) and is simply used to living at the edge.
Yes, both can make a choice later in life, they just seem to come from different starting points, with one being a much harder slog than the other. Perhaps this harder slog is what's better prepared many of us that don't live in McMansions (as they're commonly known as here) but now own our own homes outright because we lived within our means.

The second group I speak of is more often than not from white collar, college educated backgrounds while the first group is generally from a blue collar background whose parents couldn't afford the luxury of college (15% housing interest rate and all) like myself. That second group should be better equipped to deal with this sort of situation, and yet they're not due to their excesses.
 
600
Ireland
Ireland
Both groups have a choice.
Individuals have a choice but it's not as simple as choosing it. We know there are many factors that inhibit upward mobility. We also know that better jobs cannot be offered to every low paid worker, should they all make that "choice".

The second group comes from the first group (often) and is simply used to living at the edge.
Often is a vague term but I'm interested in reading about this. Have you a link?
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
Individuals have a choice but it's not as simple as choosing it. We know there are many factors that inhibit upward mobility. We also know that better jobs cannot be offered to every low paid worker, should they all make that "choice".

Better jobs can be offered to every low paid worker who can earn it. That's because you create your own value when you work. The working world is not a pyramid scheme, you actually create the wealth you are paid. If you can create more, you can have it.

Often is a vague term but I'm interested in reading about this. Have you a link?

Lottery winners have a strong correlation with bankruptcy. Going from paycheck to paycheck to winning millions might seem like a solution, but when you're used to living on a few hundred, you have no sense of when you're getting close to the bottom. Unless you make a concerted effort, your financial habits follow you. It happens to me occasionally as well. I've written about it countless times on this site. I can look some of those up if you're actually interested and not just trying to be snarky.
 
600
Ireland
Ireland
Better jobs can be offered to every low paid worker who can earn it.
That reads like a tagline to a terrible reality show, The Apprentice Factor. Trump and Cowell present the future.

It's true but it doesn't really mean anything if there aren't enough jobs. If there was only one job per million applicants it would still be jobs for those who earn them.
you actually create the wealth you are paid.
That's not a fact but it becomes more true the less regulated the market is. We can determine what people are paid if we so wish. For example the EU subsidises industries like agriculture.

Lottery winners have a strong correlation with bankruptcy. Going from paycheck to paycheck to winning millions might seem like a solution, but when you're used to living on a few hundred, you have no sense of when you're getting close to the bottom. Unless you make a concerted effort, your financial habits follow you. It happens to me occasionally as well. I've written about it countless times on this site. I can look some of those up if you're actually interested and not just trying to be snarky.
It's not something I've considered before. The lottery winner stories certainly exist but surely people from all walks of life have lived beyond their means and lost their money needlessly. There are plenty of stories of people working their way up and using their money responsibly. From memory, I think I have read about a link between getting a life changing amount of money in a short space of time and then wasting that money, but there's no reason to think that those lottery winners share characteristics with people who work their way to wealth. Without data we don't know whether any correlation exists.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
It's true but it doesn't really mean anything if there aren't enough jobs. If there was only one job per million applicants it would still be jobs for those who earn them.

Jobs don't just get divvied up by those in charge. There is no such thing as "one job per million applicants". If there are a million applicants that can create value, then there are a million jobs for them.

That's not a fact but it becomes more true the less regulated the market is. We can determine what people are paid if we so wish. For example the EU subsidises industries like agriculture.

It's true that government can use force to create jobs and forcibly divert value to the jobs it forcibly creates. That doesn't really change anything we've talked about.

It's not something I've considered before. The lottery winner stories certainly exist but surely people from all walks of life have lived beyond their means and lost their money needlessly. There are plenty of stories of people working their way up and using their money responsibly. From memory, I think I have read about a link between getting a life changing amount of money in a short space of time and then wasting that money, but there's no reason to think that those lottery winners share characteristics with people who work their way to wealth. Without data we don't know whether any correlation exists.

I have experienced it, and I have watched the experience take hold in those around me, especially my parents. You get used to a certain type of budget, a certain size of account, an amount of cushion, an amount of monthly and total savings. And then when you exceed that, you get spendy. It's natural. If you want to build wealth beyond it you have to grow your mental threshold for savings as your savings grows... which is why some extremely rich people are trying very hard to become even more extremely rich, and some people never try to save at all (and everything in between of course). Anyway, that's (one reason) why lottery winners so often go bankrupt. They have no concept of needing that much money, and so they spend it.
 
600
Ireland
Ireland
Jobs don't just get divvied up by those in charge.
Of course not. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

There is no such thing as "one job per million applicants". If there are a million applicants that can create value, then there are a million jobs for them.
It's a hypothetical. There simply cannot be a situation where every low skilled worker can a get better job.

If there are a million applicants that can create value
Currently there is no scenario where some people will not be low paying jobs no matter what they do. It's a consequence of an unregulated market.

I don't have any issue with the system (although I do think it's the government's job to ensure low paid workers get a living wage), just the insistence that this choice exists for everyone when we know that there are many social and environmental factors that prevent some people from making that choice or even realise that the choice is available to them. People who manage to make the choice and succeed are outliers.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
Of course not. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

You seem to misunderstand where jobs come from. I took a guess at where you thought they came from.

It's a hypothetical. There simply cannot be a situation where every low skilled worker can a get better job.

It's a hypothetical that is nonsensical in terms of the market. There simply can be a better situation where every worker can get a better job. Because every worker can get a better job today. They just don't. The value you create also creates demand.

Currently there is no scenario where some people will not be low paying jobs no matter what they do. It's a consequence of an unregulated market.

Define low-paying. It is not a consequence of an unregulated market.

I don't have any issue with the system (although I do think it's the government's job to ensure low paid workers get a living wage)

I'm against minimum wage (we have a thread on that).

just the insistence that this choice exists for everyone when we know that there are many social and environmental factors that prevent some people from making that choice or even realise that the choice is available to them. People who manage to make the choice and succeed are outliers.

I guess I'm an outlier... and my wife... and my sister.... and her husband.... and... gosh... I'm having more trouble thinking of people who aren't than people who are. It's almost like the people who don't make that choice and "fail" are outliers.
 
600
Ireland
Ireland
You seem to misunderstand where jobs come from. I took a guess at where you thought they came from.
Weird, I've not said anything about "where jobs come from".

It's a hypothetical that is nonsensical in terms of the market. There simply can be a better situation where every worker can get a better job. Because every worker can get a better job today. They just don't. The value you create also creates demand.
You not understanding it doesn't make it nonsensical. It's a myth that every worker can get a better job today. Any worker can, but every worker can't.
Define low-paying.
You do't need me for that.

It is not a consequence of an unregulated market.
It's a real and observable consequence.

I'm against minimum wage (we have a thread on that).
I'm shocked :lol: Joking aside, minimum wage is a bit of a cop out. At best it only hides the problem for a period. However it is an acknowledgement that the problem exists.

I guess I'm an outlier... and my wife... and my sister.... and her husband
Now you're getting it...

gosh... I'm having more trouble thinking of people who aren't than people who are. It's almost like the people who don't make that choice and "fail" are outliers.
...I spoke too soon. You're aware of the concept of anecdotal evidence, right?
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
Weird, I've not said anything about "where jobs come from".

You're shutting down and digging in. This is the part of the conversation where you've closed your mind and just fight. I'm not interested in this part of the conversation. Come at it openly and honestly. I might normally try to do this dance, but I haven't got time for it now.

You not understanding it doesn't make it nonsensical. It's a myth that every worker can get a better job today. Any worker can, but every worker can't.

You made the claim, you back it up. I call BS.
 
600
Ireland
Ireland
You're shutting down and digging in. This is the part of the conversation where you've closed your mind and just fight. I'm not interested in this part of the conversation. Come at it openly and honestly. I might normally try to do this dance, but I haven't got time for it now.
A bizarre position to take. Utter nonsense. Assumptions like this make it very difficult to conduct a conversation with you.

You made the claim, you back it up. I call BS.
The evidence is the relative lack of economic mobility over generations.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
I didn't say it did.

And you wonder why I question your ability to have an open discussion and not just dig in and defend. This is pointless. Your mind is shut. You're not engaged. You're not trying to have a discussion. Why did you even bother to respond?

I presume... that by this you mean that workers can create more value, but that they won't be paid it, and that it doesn't lead to whatever you call a "better job". If I'm wrong, this is even more evidence that you're not trying to have a discussion, instead leaving me guessing at what you're trying to say in order to try to make sure that whatever position you're taking internally lands on the weakest possible opposition. Instead you should be steelmanning your opposition to test your own position.

To say what you've said above, you must somehow think that the amount of value that a worker creates is not correlated or is necessarily at least to a degree separate from how much they are paid or whether their job is "better". This misunderstands economics, deeply.
 
5,669
Simcoeace
And you wonder why I question your ability to have an open discussion and not just dig in and defend. This is pointless. Your mind is shut. You're not engaged. You're not trying to have a discussion. Why did you even bother to respond?

Says the most closed-minded person on GTPlanet. Oh, the irony. :rolleyes:
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
Says the most closed-minded person on GTPlanet. Oh, the irony. :rolleyes:

If you think I'm closed-minded, I'm not sure you understand what it means. It does not mean that you never change your mind (and one of my posts in the global warming thread was one of the more clear examples of someone here changing their mind), it means that you don't listen to and consider what you're being presented with. And if you think that fits me, I'll say citation needed.

Edit:

Are you still mad about bit earlier where I said you were trying to pull age rank on investing strategy and accused you of trying to start a pissing contest. That was mostly in jest... mostly...
 
600
Ireland
Ireland
And you wonder why I question your ability to have an open discussion and not just dig in and defend. This is pointless. Your mind is shut. You're not engaged. You're not trying to have a discussion. Why did you even bother to respond?

I presume... that by this you mean that workers can create more value, but that they won't be paid it, and that it doesn't lead to whatever you call a "better job". If I'm wrong, this is even more evidence that you're not trying to have a discussion, instead leaving me guessing at what you're trying to say in order to try to make sure that whatever position you're taking internally lands on the weakest possible opposition. Instead you should be steelmanning your opposition to test your own position.

To say what you've said above, you must somehow think that the amount of value that a worker creates is not correlated or is necessarily at least to a degree separate from how much they are paid or whether their job is "better". This misunderstands economics, deeply.
That is not a correct presumption. I presented the best observable evidence that there are invisible barriers preventing people from simply choosing to get a better job. The evidence is that people don't make that "choice".

That in no way supports the notion that somehow every worker cannot create more value.
This ignores the observable to defend the theoretical. I pointed out that it wasn't what I said. My suspicion was that it was a deliberate manipulation of my point, so I was preparing to exit the conversation. Now it looks more likely that my suspicions were incorrect.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
That is not a correct presumption. I presented the best observable evidence that there are invisible barriers preventing people from simply choosing to get a better job. The evidence is that people don't make that "choice".

I don't understand why you think that upward mobility statistics prove that not everyone can have a better job. Perhaps if you would elaborate on why you think this demonstrates your point I could not guess at what's in your head.
 
600
Ireland
Ireland
I don't understand why you think that upward mobility statistics prove that not everyone can have a better job. Perhaps if you would elaborate on why you think this demonstrates your point I could not guess at what's in your head.
There has to be relatively low(er) income jobs. Various factors influence why people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to work low income jobs. Those barriers prevent people from choosing to do whats needed to move up the ladder. People from lower economic backgrounds are less likely to continue in education beyond second level, one of the main barriers to getting a better job. The decision not to continue in education is often financially motivated, but conforming to social norms also plays a part. Often they don't recognise that the "choice" is available to them. As they get older choosing to enact change becomes less likely. As long as social mobility is low we can predict that children being born now into lower socio-economic families are more likely to remain part of a low socio-economic group. Effectively the "choice" is already made for many.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
There has to be relatively low(er) income jobs. Various factors influence why people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to work low income jobs. Those barriers prevent people from choosing to do whats needed to move up the ladder. People from lower economic backgrounds are less likely to continue in education beyond second level, one of the main barriers to getting a better job. The decision not to continue in education is often financially motivated, but conforming to social norms also plays a part. Often they don't recognise that the "choice" is available to them. As they get older choosing to enact change becomes less likely. As long as social mobility is low we can predict that children being born now into lower socio-economic families are more likely to remain part of a low socio-economic group. Effectively the "choice" is already made for many.

I see the misunderstanding.

There does not have to be relatively lower income jobs. There is nothing in economics that requires any job to pay or be worth any less than any other job. What determines the value of a job or work performed is supply and demand in the market, and supply and demand in the market could land on all jobs being worth exactly the same amount if those jobs are supplied and demanded at the exact same rate. Ultimately...

Better jobs can be offered to every low paid worker who can earn it. That's because you create your own value when you work. The working world is not a pyramid scheme, you actually create the wealth you are paid. If you can create more, you can have it.

When you say the "choice" is already made, what you mean is that you can predict (presumably to within some statistical accuracy) how they will choose. So for example, you might be able to determine that a person from an "unprivileged" upbringing is more likely to make certain choices than someone from a more "privileged" upbringing. But this does not mean the choice is made, and any one individual might not fit the statistics. You could also, for example, determine that a particular choice is statistically likely for someone of a particular race or gender, and yet this does not mean that any individual with those characteristics has no choice in their outcome. Otherwise you really are saying that women can't be... whatever... race car drivers or pilots. Pick your generalization. And we know this is not true. So you cannot claim that people who were born into a particular situation are guaranteed a pre-set outcome, and to do so is actually (presumably) fairly offensive to the people who worked hard to demonstrate otherwise.

The choice is not made for them. And note that I don't assume that the same outcome is equally easy to attain for every person.