What happened to wages?

[rah]

I specifically said not mandated. The increase in productivity and retention should be the motivating factor in giving them more say in the matter.
Yeah, I know, slightly idealistic, but then it's real and not done for show.

 

[civvver]

A lot of it can be accomplished with the correct tax policy. Tax breaks for hiring workers vs buying robots that can be depreciated and written off. Tax breaks for profit sharing vs stock buybacks and dividends. More taxes on capital gains and investment vs payroll taxes. It's pretty expensive for companies to hire w2 workers. It's a delicate balancing act though, I don't have answers, but I'm not a politician or economist, I shouldn't be expected to have answers.

 

[rah]

Tax breaks for hiring workers vs buying robots that can be depreciated and written off.

I don't see a big enough tax break to offset the savings.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't see a big enough tax break to offset the savings.

Robots don't make sense in every situation even today. There are a lot of marginal uses for them that only make sense when additional incentives like depreciation write-offs are factored in.

 

[El_Machinae]

Refusing to build robots makes no sense. The actual trick is creating alternative employment.

 

[rah]

Yeah, we're not going to stop companies from using robots. But as throughout history, technology eliminating jobs usually creates other jobs. It may not be one to one or may require a different skill set but we've survived it before despite all the doomsayers at the time. Of course, someday, they may be right.

 

[El_Machinae]

We are at an interesting transition when it comes to new employment. The trend that automation creates jobs is only true when the cost of retraining is less than the cost of building a new robot to perform the new job. The cost to retrain is linear. The ability to design the next robot is exponential.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There's a piece of advice my father gave me that has served me well in life so far: Secure your finances first, even if that means working jobs you hate for years at a time. Then, once you have secured your financial future, you can start worrying about living your dreams.

The version I heard was: marry the first time for money and the second time for love.

Strengthening workers is one approach, but to that we could add changing the rules of corporate governance. Now, the rules favor shareholder returns/benefits over everything else. If you change those to include both worker benefits and customer benefits, then the entire structure changes to one of broader benefits fort a larger corporate family.

 

[rah]

My father said, "you can fall in love with anyone, so they might as well be rich"

 

[civvver]

Yeah, we're not going to stop companies from using robots. But as throughout history, technology eliminating jobs usually creates other jobs. It may not be one to one or may require a different skill set but we've survived it before despite all the doomsayers at the time. Of course, someday, they may be right.

I'm saying we stop companies from using technology or buying stuff over paying people. I used robots as an example because they can directly compete with hires. But why is it we give write offs for equipment and such, capital basically, but no such writeoffs for hiring? Maybe in some cases we do, I don't know all corporate tax laws, but mostly it seems very costly to hire people. You have to pay the employer portion of FICA, you have to pay for office space often, you have to pay health benefits if you're a large company etc. It's also why a lot of companies have trended away from direct, w2 hires and now hire freelancers and 1099 contractors.

My father said, "you can fall in love with anyone, so they might as well be rich"

My wife is dirt poor. Her parents however are quite wealthy... can you say retirement plan? Jk I want them to live a long time. They are awesome.

 

[rah]

Yeah, and just another time I didn't follow his advice. But 34 years later, I still made the right decision.
She got a decent windfall when her parents died. But there were other brothers, sisters and nieces so not that big.

 

[Socrates99]

Part of the reason there's such a negative reaction to the "they should have chose better" mentality is because it's a common deflection using the micro (individual) to deflect from the macro (society as a whole) problem. When someone points out that, statistically, wages are stagnant and real wages (what you can buy with that money) is going down people who dont want to acknowledge the problem turn to individual choice rather than admit there's a problem.

My wife's a nurse. During the recession (and even quite a few years before it, since "recession" hit the Rust Belt a little earlier than everyone else) people pushed going into nursing, hard. It was a good paying, in demand field. Eventually there was a surplus in the area. The hospital my wife works at (along with nearly every regional hospital) got rid of LPNs who were making good money at the hospital because they could replace them with the now plentiful RNs. LPNs had to seek employment at old folks homes and dr offices taking a $5-7 pay cut and oftentimes worse benefits. Even my RN wife had to go back to school since she feared the hospital would move to requiring a BSN out of its employees. When people mention a family member in school for nursing in that proud hopeful way people talk about those that "make the right decisions" my wife tsks and rolls her eyes because she's seen prospects drop.

My mother in law is one of those LPNs. She went from a very good job with a hospital affiliate to bouncing around from nursing home to nursing home. There was even a brief period where she took a CNA position because she simply couldn't find anything better.

The choice shaming is silly because if everyone made those choices there would be a glut in formerly "hot" fields driving the wages of those "correct" choices down. There is no field with infinite growth. It also ignores jobs that currently pay "entry level" poverty level wages that absolutely require adults who are not in school to do them like Lexicus alluded to.

We as a society expect good service at restaurants and bars that serve alcohol, at 24 hr gas stations, 24 hr stores, 24 hour fast food. Those are just the most visable ones. There are contractors inside industrial plants that make terrible wages. Laborers on construction sites that dont get healthcare. Techs in pharmacies that make barely more than min wage. I could go on and on but the point is that there are a lot of positions that are important but are "wrong choices" because the pay is crap.

Even skilled trades has a similar dynamic. They may be in demand in one region but not in another. A millwright in Lordstown OH made all the right choices but still had the rug pulled out from under his feet when GM pulled out. 20 years ago skilled trades apprenticeships were hard to find in my area. You pretty much needed to know somebody. Fast forward a few years to plant closings and processes being moved and there were instances of guys committing suicide after "making the right choices." I was working out of state and one of the guys on my crew flew home early because his brother lost his job and hung himself.

Blaming individual choice for a meta problem is not the way to go.

 

[Hygro]

This is what Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act does. We used to call this fascism.

I don’t agree but I still lol’d

 

[rah]

Hmm everything I read is the high demand for nurses in the area and they're suggesting it as a excellent career choice.
But I'll bet even at a reduced rate it was a better choice than many other careers.
BUT ONE MORE TIME, yes I said it was a problem and have even recommended some possible improvements.
But that still doesn't absolve people from making bad decision.
You say you worry about over saturation. They've been saying that for 40 in the tech side and it still hasn't happened.
Fortunately I'll be retired before any possible downturn, but I'd recommend it anyone with the knack.
My personal experience is that I've hired many under-educated people and most of them now make 6 figures.
Heck I hired a programmer for a language that he had never programmed in. Within a few months he was an expert.
And yes, personal anecdote prove nothing but since they're being thrown out there.

And Lex dumps on me no matter what I post so I've gotten somewhat desensitized to it.

 

[Gorbles]

Hmm everything I read is the high demand for nurses in the area and they're suggesting it as a excellent career choice.
But I'll bet even at a reduced rate it was a better choice than many other careers.
BUT ONE MORE TIME, yes I said it was a problem and have even recommended some possible improvements.
But that still doesn't absolve people from making bad decision.
You say you worry about over saturation. They've been saying that for 40 in the tech side and it still hasn't happened.
Fortunately I'll be retired before any possible downturn, but I'd recommend it anyone with the knack.
My personal experience is that I've hired many under-educated people and most of them now make 6 figures.
Heck I hired a programmer for a language that he had never programmed in. Within a few months he was an expert.
And yes, personal anecdote prove nothing but since they're being thrown out there.

And Lex dumps on me no matter what I post so I've gotten somewhat desensitized to it.

The problem here is, even after Socrates' post, you've just gone "yeah but here's more anecdotes". We get that they're anecdotes. We're not arguing against your anecdotes. We're arguing against their relevance to US employment and wages in general.

You keep coming back to "bad decisions". There's no point to it, because nobody is defending bad decisions. It's a non-argument. You can claim specific posters dump on you nomatter the topic, but that's not a counterargument in general to everyone offering their arguments. And certainly, people are going to "dump" on you if you insist on talking about a problem that nobody else is defending.

 

[rah]

People here seem to think there is some type of guarantee for a good career regardless of choices made.
Excuse me for not agreeing and showing examples of people being encouraged to make better decisions.

And yes, it seems that people are defending those that make bad decisions and that they should be protected from them.
I'll concede those that really have no decisions.

And I've said MANY times in this thread that there is a problem and offered a few suggestions that had nothing to do with CHOICES.

 

[Hygro]

Women entering the workforce has been very good corporate America but now that the transition is over I expect to see wages rise and it be good for everyone.

 

[rah]

Our global company is run by woman so they are not as disadvantaged pay wise here as in other companies.

 

[Naskra]

I don’t agree

You need to brush up on your Mussolini. Fascism is the mot juste.

 

[Hygro]

Our global company is run by woman so they are not as disadvantaged pay wise here as in other companies.

Not talking about relative pay at all. Although the ability to underpay could haven been in what I meant, I just mean total numbers of laborers changing in a short period.