What happened to wages?

[Socrates99]

God damn, How many times do I have to agree that the system is broken before you stop saying this.
But to think choices don't have any impact is just dumb, or that better choices can lead to better outcomes just doesn't happen.
I've even said multiple times that sometimes it doesn't make a difference.

I didn't quote you in my earlier post because I didnt want to pile on, but the nursing anecdote was to address this idea. The thing is that this is a seperate topic. People being under compensated for work that creates value has little to do with individual choice. We keep repeating it but the answer to solving the overall poverty problem can't be individual choice because the jobs that are currently under compensated (and by proxy making some individuals absurdly wealthy) would still need to be filled regardless of individual choice. Regardless of individual choice the demand for jobs that require the "right choices" wouldn't significantly change which would devalue those "correct choices." IE if everyone who isnt doing well went into tech, tech would suddenly become a "poor choice."

Pointing out individual choice as a factor contributing to the problem is a deflection that completely ignores the actual problem.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmm, not quite. If you would take the wealth of the 0.1% and distribute it evenly to everyone else in the USA, everyone would get around $80k. This would get a lot of people out of poverty, but would not make many people really rich.

Well, intuitions break down at that point. The wealth of the 0.1% is described with market value. And people's debts are described with real dollars. Market cap isn't very real when used in huge lump sums

 

[Socrates99]

Personally I just ascribe to FDR's idea that someone willing to put in 40 hrs of work deserves "a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot."

It's not a lot to require people's right to a car (including a garage), healthcare needs along with police and fire security be met, food, shelter and educational needs be met. The fact that billionaires exist in the first place means this isn't a lot to ask. I'm not a fan of redistribution itself but providing the working class with those benefits isn't really a lot to ask. Whether through government programs or just better compensation from employers is an aspect of this discussion. Unfortunately individual choice is pretty much irrelevant to the actual problem

 

[rah]

People being under compensated for work that creates value has little to do with individual choice. We keep repeating it but the answer to solving the overall poverty problem can't be individual choice because the jobs that are currently under compensated (and by proxy making some individuals absurdly wealthy)

And I have not once said it was the solution. I have said that good choices can help you beat the odds BUT THAT IT WASN"T GUARANTEED. Geeze, I wish people could read around here.

 

[Socrates99]

And I have not once said it was the solution. I have said that good choices can help you beat the odds BUT THAT IT WASN"T GUARANTEED. Geeze, I wish people could read around here.

Bro, the problem is you've repeatedly brought it up as at least a partial solution to the overall issue. I'm all for retraining and educational programs but it doesn't change the fact that those currently in demand jobs won't always remain in demand and it wont change the necessity for poorly compensated jobs to be filled. "Good choices" by every individual would only lead to those "good choosers" working the same jobs with student debt. The only thing that made your choices "good" was the fact that the majority did not make those choices.

 

[rah]

Tech jobs have been good for almost 40 years. BRO (don't insult me with that term) You don't have to accumulate a lot of debt to get into the tech field.
That good choice (WHILE NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME) would have helped a lot of individuals.
Do you really think that tech jobs are suddenly not going to be desirable?
Despite your cute little story, nursing is still considered a hot field. At least in most cities.

 

[Gorbles]

rah, there is an incredibly irony in dismissing someone's account as a "cute little story", when defending your lived experience as something that is apparently pertinent.

It really makes me think you don't want to consider any weaknesses in your argument, and really undermines your own apparent emphasis on fairness, a lack of insults, etc, when you use dismissive wording, and actual insults like "I wish people could read around here".

 

[rah]

Just returning what I'm getting here.
My life experience was dismissed first
AND ONCE AGAIN, I have agreed that there is a systematic problem and offered a few possible solution. What part of that has no one read.
The side discussion on choices was listed as a way to work the odds a bit in your favor. It has never been presented as a global solution to the problem.
The only people saying that are you guys, not me.
So maybe you guys should lay off the insults and actually read what I'm posting with an open mind.

 

[Hygro]

Better career choices cannot increase wages in the economy as a whole.

Of course they do.

 

[Commodore]

Better career choices cannot increase wages in the economy as a whole

That may be true, but I would say the individual has no obligation to improve the economy as a whole. All the individual is responsible for is making the best possible choices for their own life.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course they do.

Nah

 

[rah]

Well technically one data point being raised does raise the average (unless offset by losses) So if one is raised and nothing else changes, then indeed the average has been raised, regardless of by how little.

 

[Lexicus]

Well technically one data point being raised does raise the average (unless offset by losses) So if one is raised and nothing else changes, then indeed the average has been raised, regardless of by how little.

The point is that of course it's going to be "offset by losses". As not every person in the US can work a tech job, for every person who does get a tech job, there is always going to be a bunch of other people who don't.

 

[rah]

One person getting a tech job doesn't necessarily impact anyone else.
Of course this is pure mathematics and I agree that over time it is being offset by losses. But those losses are happening regardless of whether that one person got a tech job.

 

[uppi]

One person getting a tech job doesn't necessarily impact anyone else.

Of course it does. Companies expect value from those tech jobs and that value has to come from somewhere.

 

[rah]

are you saying they lower someones salary in the company every time they hire a tech person? I guess I didn't understand that.

 

[uppi]

are you saying they lower someones salary in the company every time they hire a tech person? I guess I didn't understand that.

For every tech person they hire, they fire (or don't hire) three other persons.

 

[rah]

I would love to see stats that back up that claim.
I won't hold my breath.

 

[Gorbles]

Just returning what I'm getting here.
My life experience was dismissed first
AND ONCE AGAIN, I have agreed that there is a systematic problem and offered a few possible solution. What part of that has no one read.
The side discussion on choices was listed as a way to work the odds a bit in your favor. It has never been presented as a global solution to the problem.
The only people saying that are you guys, not me.
So maybe you guys should lay off the insults and actually read what I'm posting with an open mind.

Claiming that you were dismissed first is a schoolyard tactic. It isn't a defense. Regardless, I even, explicitly, said that nobody is disagreeing with your life experience. For you to attack peoples' reading comprehension before complaining about insults, after missing that I posted that . . . I dunno. Disagreeing with what you're posting is not the same as attacking you.

I can understand the feeling of arguing with a bunch of folks at once (and it's why I haven't replied every single time), but you're grouping everyone together in the most negative and dismissive way. If you agree that there is a systematic issue, and that your suggestions are in no way solutions for those systematic issues, then maybe the discussion just needs to be allowed to move on? Nobody here is particularly going to have their life changed by such advice (though I'd love if you advice did make that kind of a difference). We're discussing the systematic problem itself. You agree there is a systematic issue. There isn't much point in discussing solutions that may help individuals at a micro level, because that's not the topic.

 

[rah]

You really need to reread this thread.