Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 694 posts

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#681

Post by jiggunjer »

Scea91 wrote: post #617
jiggunjer wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So, everyone spends money, no limits on it" . Not true, there are limits (e.g. in the form of leverage ratio caps) and not everything borrowed is immediately injected back into the economy (that might bump inflation too much). Imagine if banks couldn't 'print their own money', then businesses would depend on people investing to get funding and demand far outstrips supply. So we'd have economic contractions on a mass…

How does a regular bank print money?

The parent comment alluded to this. They operate in a trust-based network with other banks. So when they add X to an account (e.g. a loan) and that person tries to spend it by transferring it to another account at another bank, the bank is effectively in debt with another bank. This inter-bank loaning system can run on this virtual cash mechanism as long as the person who borrowed X manages to pay it back over time.

You can probably guess this puts banks in a very privileged position. Hence the high requirements for being able to start a bank of your own, and the government regulation intended to control inflation and fraud.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#682

Post by solidsnack9000 »

Chris2048 wrote: post #669
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we accept the need for people to be janitors, we must accept that becoming a janitor is not a "mistake", it's a useful thing that we all want to see happen for some people. We can't on the one hand say, that we need people to do this job and on the other hand say, "tough luck" to those that do it.

Becoming a janitor is not a mistake. Having so few options that janitor is all you can be, along with many other people (competition), is the mistake. If everyone had better options, fewer would be willing to be janitors, and the need for janitors would cause janitorial wages to increase. Basically, society is partly competitive.

In a vacuum, yes -- but societies can enter modalities where returns to labor are very low, relative to capital or real property. This was a phenomenon known to Smith in the 1770s. There are simply not enough alternatives to go around -- and you end up with societies where there is a massive (and unstable) gap between rich and poor.

If a position does not pay well enough for someone to have a family and raise and educate two or three children, it can be said not to pay for itself: which is to say, not to pay for its renewal from generation to generation. This is the real standard by which we must consider the wages paid to those positions, like waiters and teachers and janitors, which are perennial.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#683

Post by Chris2048 »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #682
Chris2048 wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Becoming a janitor is not a mistake. Having so few options that janitor is all you can be, along with many other people (competition), is the mistake. If everyone had better options, fewer would be willing to be janitors, and the need for janitors would cause janitorial wages to increase. Basically, society is partly competitive.

In a vacuum, yes -- but societies can enter modalities where returns to labor are very low, relative to capital or real property. This was a phenomenon known to Smith in the 1770s. There are simply not enough alternatives to go around -- and you end up with societies where there is a massive (and unstable) gap between rich and poor. If a position does not pay well enough for someone to have a family and raise and edu…

> This is the real standard..

Why is it? A job is better than welfare, therefore it has value. The requirement that jobs are 'renewable' is only required of the average job, not every job.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#684

Post by ric2b »

aoeuasdf1 wrote: post #262
jdale27 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what conclusion we are supposed to draw from that chart?

Having a currency standard based on metals is inherently unstable. Central banking has succeeded.

You can't just compare those periods and assume that currency properties are all that matters, you're comparing periods that included:

- slavery

- the civil war

- the industrial revolution

- two world wars

- huge growth in population and in the economy, which makes it inherently less volatile

- a bunch of other important events that would obviously affect currency prices

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#685

Post by loco5niner »

dredmorbius wrote: post #428
whack wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem though isn't wealth inequality, it's income inequality. If someone has a billion dollars that's invested in various stocks, and never tries to withdraw that money, leave him alone. The day he decides to sell his investments and start buying private jets, that's the time to tax him on his income. The argument against a wealth tax, is that it penalizes savers, and rewards spenders. Which is not what we…

I disagree, strongly, with your premise. First: wealth inequality is the result of persistent and pervasive income inequality. Second: there are frequently individuals with very-highly-fluctuating incomes. Performing or creative individuals in particular -- actors, writers, filmmakers, musicians, athletes -- may have a few good, and many lean years. Taxing their good periods excessively would actually be counterprodu…

> First: wealth inequality is the result of persistent and pervasive income inequality.

"it's not what you earn it's what you keep" - someone on the internet

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#686

Post by solidsnack9000 »

Chris2048 wrote: post #683
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a vacuum, yes -- but societies can enter modalities where returns to labor are very low, relative to capital or real property. This was a phenomenon known to Smith in the 1770s. There are simply not enough alternatives to go around -- and you end up with societies where there is a massive (and unstable) gap between rich and poor. If a position does not pay well enough for someone to have a family and raise and edu…

> This is the real standard.. Why is it? A job is better than welfare, therefore it has value. The requirement that jobs are 'renewable' is only required of the average job, not every job.

It's worth asking what it means for it to be required by the average job. Being renewable doesn't seem to admit of a lot of variation -- things are or aren't (but we could discuss something more formal for this and that would affect the remaining analysis).

Accepting the idea that renewability is either slightly more than 1.0 or slightly less, if the "average job" is renewable it suggests most of the common jobs have to be renewable in practice.

We could argue this in another way, which is to say that the average "career life course" or let's just say "life course" has to be renewable. This is where we encounter the idea that people should be setting themselves up for promotions -- but most people don't get promotions. It's not how life works. Promotions don't address the concern for the average life course.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#687

Post by conanbatt »

pjmorris wrote: post #602
conanbatt wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have barely scanned these articles, but even if I agreed that tax collection is what gives currency most of their circulatory value, thats no reason to have taxes, let alone making them higher.

Something's got to circulate. There's not enough bitcoin+gold+barter-able commodities to go around, so fiat currency is necessary to the economy as it stands. If you agree that taxes give currency most of its circulatory value, you have to figure out what else would give it value if taxes were taken away.

there is more than enough bitcoin/gold/barterable commodities to go around.. they are divisible objects like any other. And any bank could run its own bank notes, as it was in the past.

Having taxes to have circulatory value sounds pretty dumb to me.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#688

Post by Chris2048 »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #686
Chris2048 wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the real standard.. Why is it? A job is better than welfare, therefore it has value. The requirement that jobs are 'renewable' is only required of the average job, not every job.

It's worth asking what it means for it to be required by the average job. Being renewable doesn't seem to admit of a lot of variation -- things are or aren't (but we could discuss something more formal for this and that would affect the remaining analysis). Accepting the idea that renewability is either slightly more than 1.0 or slightly less, if the "average job" is renewable it suggests most of the common jobs have…

The job dynamic are likely a predator-prey style relationship of supply vs demand.

The main features of janitorial work is few barriers to entry. There is fair demand, but there is plentiful supply which is why it is relatively low paid.

If Janitors could only replace Janitors, then being "non-renewable" would reduce supply, increasing wage, and maintaining balance.

In reality, the main feature of Janitorial work is most people otherwise lacking qualifications can do it; i.e. anyone. So it's not true that the renewability of janitorial work has a direct affect on supply.

Instead, it depends on overall supply of unskilled labour.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#689

Post by pjmorris »

RealityNow wrote: post #680
pjmorris wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is counteracted by the fact that employees now have the option of walking away from their jobs I don't see how either a UBI or a job guarantee limits employees from walking away from their jobs. The presence of a job, or an income, hasn't stopped many people from starting their own thing. > But either way, I think a UBI is necessary so that people have the option of working for themselves rather than being for…

UBI doesn't limit employees from walking away from their jobs, it enables them to. > The option to work for yourself isn't taken away by a jobs guarantee. Obviously. Job guarantee programs however still don't allow you to truly walk away from your job unless you're able to financially support yourself, whereas a UBI does.

Yep, I misread your point, and mis-responded.

A UBI that's actually enough to replace a job has the benefits you describe, at the cost of UBI times the population. A UBI that's not enough to replace a job doesn't have the benefits you describe, has the negatives I describe, and costs almost as much.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#690

Post by solidsnack9000 »

Chris2048 wrote: post #688
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth asking what it means for it to be required by the average job. Being renewable doesn't seem to admit of a lot of variation -- things are or aren't (but we could discuss something more formal for this and that would affect the remaining analysis). Accepting the idea that renewability is either slightly more than 1.0 or slightly less, if the "average job" is renewable it suggests most of the common jobs have…

The job dynamic are likely a predator-prey style relationship of supply vs demand. The main features of janitorial work is few barriers to entry. There is fair demand, but there is plentiful supply which is why it is relatively low paid. If Janitors could only replace Janitors, then being "non-renewable" would reduce supply, increasing wage, and maintaining balance. In reality, the main feature of Janitorial work is…

Isn't the question one of the renewability of unskilled labor?

Where does the unskilled labor come from?

Post reply on HN