What happened to wages?

[Socrates99]

But at what point do we start blaming the individual for poor life choices that lead to financial insecurity? Because a lot of the time people just make straight up stupid choices that have lifelong consequences. And this isn't about picking what field to go into. I'm talking about quitting a job when you can't afford to because that job isn't "making you happy" or whatever. Or "I'm not going to invest because I don't trust the stock market". Nevermind that the overall trend of the stock market has been an upward one, despite short term dips.

I just can't agree with the mentality that one's destiny is not in their own hands. Can everybody be super-wealthy just because they want to be? No. Is it easy to get wealthy? Definitely not. But by taking the time to sit down and just do some damn life planning and start thinking long term instead of seeking instant gratification, you can carve out a pretty decent life for yourself.

You're still pointing to individuals and blaming them for the overall problem. If everyone went to college for a minimum of 2 years the good jobs would all require bachelors degrees and we'd have janitors with degrees. I agree there are some sleazy *******s out there but we're talking an extreme minority.

When people point to the working poor and say "they should have done what I did, then they'd be fine" they're ignoring the fact that if too many people made those same "correct choices" itd only be the lucky ones that'd be fine. Some of those that made those good decisions would still wind up earning a living with a shovel in their hands.

Nobody thinks you should get rich pushing a mop, waiting tables or whatever unskilled job it might be. Just that the floor be a little higher, meaning if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to meet basic needs like childcare, healthcare, housing, education, etc.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If everyone went to college for a minimum of 2 years the good jobs would all require bachelors degrees and we'd have janitors with degrees.

We are not that far off from that situation. Some economists now say to stay away from cities if you have a non in-demand degree as you can't expect to make enough to pay back the loans. Before, the universal advice was 'get a degree and move to the city' because it was always a net win for the worker. Now, it's not necessarily true so you wind up with PhD baristas and barkeeps.

And anyways, education should be available and free so degree obtainment should become less of a economic choice and more of a personal one. There's no moral justification for someone like me living like a king just because I 'chose right' while other people starve while busting their asses for tips and whatnot. It's obscene. And it gets more obscene when you look at the vast trove of wealth that a tiny sliver of people are sitting on that they got by exploiting the ass busters.

Nobody thinks you should get rich pushing a mop, waiting tables or whatever unskilled job it might be

I kind of do actually. If we confiscated Bezo's and other's billions, we could get close to making everyone instantly rich.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

My wife is dirt poor. Her parents however are quite wealthy...

Is this referencing her staying home with your kids instead of drawing a salary from a job?

 

[rah]

There's no moral justification for someone like me living like a king just because I 'chose right' while other people starve while busting their asses for tips and whatnot.

I'm willing to bet that quite of few of those living like a king (those upper middle class) spent a part of their lives busting their asses for tips and whatnot.
I have slept on a park bench. It was certainly motivation to make better choices. Yes, luck can come into play. Even most wealthy movie stars started out waiting tables.
Yes, I'm not talking about rich peoples kids, because they don't count here, they were just lucky.

For the hypothetical, if everyone had degrees the demand for people for jobs that didn't require them would probably increase.

 

[Socrates99]

Is this referencing her staying home with your kids instead of drawing a salary from a job?

Sounds like an old Ron White joke.

I'm willing to bet that quite of few of those living like a king (those upper middle class) spent a part of their lives busting their asses for tips and whatnot.
I have slept on a park bench. It was certainly motivation to make better choices. Yes, luck can come into play. Even most wealthy movie stars started out waiting tables.
Yes, I'm not talking about rich peoples kids, because they don't count here, they were just lucky.

For the hypothetical, if everyone had degrees the demand for people for jobs that didn't require them would probably increase.

Or people with degrees would be stuck doing them and the only change between this hypothetical and now is that those unfortunate enough to get stuck with those jobs would have poverty level wages AND student loans.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm willing to bet that quite of few of those living like a king (those upper middle class) spent a part of their lives busting their asses for tips and whatnot.

And there's a huge chunk of people who will bust their asses and never escape grinding poverty.

 

[rah]

If they do nothing about it, no they probably won't. I'm not saying that doing something is a guarantee, but there is a choice involved.

 

[civvver]

Is this referencing her staying home with your kids instead of drawing a salary from a job?

Nah cus we share money. We have all joint accounts, separate credit cards only in our names.

I was actually referring to when I met her and she was a second year english teacher with a take home check of $1000 every two weeks and her monthly rent plus utilities was $1300. Although my pay wasn't much better at the time- in 2009 I took a temporary 14% pay cut for 9 months cus of the company's financial situation. Rather than lay off workers en masse they cut everyone's pay to get through the down turn.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If they do nothing about it, no they probably won't. I'm not saying that doing something is a guarantee, but there is a choice involved.

Rah,

Do you really think all those struggling people working 2 jobs are not making choices and doing what they can to make things better? I repeat previous posts, but we have a housing crisis because people are moving to chase higher salaries and a loan crisis because people are getting credentials to compete in the job market.

Wages are so low that it is destroying opportunities for people to get themselves out of poverty.

 

[civvver]

plus I imagine it's borderline impossible to train for a new job, move to a new city all while also having to work to afford rent, without some major support from friends or family.

 

[rah]

Yeah, I was lucky to have some friends. I graduated with a poly sci degree and took a job for dirt wages not in my major. No way I could afford to live in the city so I moved in with a couple of buds far enough away that we could afford. It took a few years before I could acquire the creds to get a better job in the tech field.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

I dump on you because you insist on writing dumb stuff like this. Despite your continued protests that you understand the macro problem, you write stuff like this which shows you really don't. You don't approach this issue from a policy or macroeconomic perspective, you approach it from the perspective that individuals who fail to make virtuous or "smart" choices need to be punished because that's the moral order of the universe. This is standard conservative garbage: confuse Old Testament morality with macroeconomics.

Yes, Lex is right that it's not for everyone but many more people could develop the skill than he thinks

Yet another evidence that you just don't grasp what I've been saying. I'm not saying "it's not for everyone" or that most people are incapable of developing the skills.

Unemployment is 3.6% right now which is about equal to the low in the late 60's. In the 50's it got below 3%. And in the 50's, there was a much larger share of women not participating in the workforce who wouldn't have counted toward unemployment numbers which means we're employing a larger chunk of adults now than then.

I do think underemployment is a big issue right now.


https://www.google.com/publicdata/e...m=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&hl=en&dl=en

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

look at that u-6 number

 

[rah]

I dump on you because you insist on writing dumb stuff like this. Despite your continued protests that you understand the macro problem, you write stuff like this which shows you really don't. You don't approach this issue from a policy or macroeconomic perspective, you approach it from the perspective that individuals who fail to make virtuous or "smart" choices need to be punished because that's the moral order of the universe. It's just the standard conservative garbage that people who make the "wrong" choices need to be punished.

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.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

Better choices can lead to better outcomes...for individuals...sometimes...but that isn't what I'm talking about at all. I don't care about that discussion. Better career choices cannot increase wages in the economy as a whole. We are trying to have a discussion here about better policy choices and you have been derailing it for pages and pages now.

@hobbsyoyo I can't believe I forgot 5) is using policy to increase levels of employee ownership, employee governance of firms, and broad-based profit-sharing!

 

[rah]

I don't really care what you're talking about. I already agreed with you and even offered some suggestions. Which you seem to keep ignoring.
So we don't have anything to discuss on that matter. And thread drift never happens here, geeze.
So stop bringing it up.

 

[uppi]

I kind of do actually. If we confiscated Bezo's and other's billions, we could get close to making everyone instantly rich.

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.

 

[civvver]

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.

80k per year or one time deal? One time deal we would blow through it so fast!

 

[Estebonrober]

80k per year or one time deal? One time deal we would blow through it so fast!

housing market would blow up that’s for certain

 

[uppi]

80k per year or one time deal? One time deal we would blow through it so fast!

One time deal.

 

[Naskra]

everyone would get around $80k

The figure would be close to zero - the historical average of cash proceeds form peasant revolts.