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

Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 225 posts

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#111

Post by krrrh »

sliverstorm wrote: post #59
surfmike wrote: post #5

People's perceived needs grow but that is not the whole story. Many people now are spending almost 50% of their pre-tax income on housing, and most of that is the price of land and goes to landlords. It seems that landlords inevitably capture a big chunk of people's salary increases. Additionally in the US your health insurance is generally tied to your job; even after Obamacare you probably have to work to pay for y…

Many people now are spending almost 50% of their pre-tax income on housing, and most of that is the price of land and goes to landlords. 1) That's really not a countrywide thing 2) It's not specifically the landlords, it's whoever was already there. A landlord who bought in just recently is not rolling in dough. The people who capture the gains are the people who got in fifty years ago and sold & moved, or the landlo…

It’s not just the natural state in a competitive housing market. The locations with the greatest rise in housing costs tend to have a higher degree of regulatory capture, NIMBYism, and less competition and investment in housing. One reason for the migration to the southeast over the last decade is that housing costs have risen more in line with inflation than other areas. It’s just much easier and less expensive to invest and build.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#112

Post by bluntfang »

barry-cotter wrote: post #21
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment ignores the fact that wages have stagnated while productivity has skyrocketed.

Wages have stagnated but total compensation hasn’t. The cost of health insurance in the US has gone up a lot and most jobs have health insurance.

you know that you pay for health insurance that your job provides, right?

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#113

Post by cjalmeida »

etr-strike wrote: post #49
lazyjones wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If housing costs went way down and health insurance were universal, I suspect many people would feel much less need to work so many hours. Housing costs are directly related to the area per person and the location. If people expect to live in much larger flats or houses compared to e.g. the 19th century and in expensive urban areas, they will have to pay the price.

That’s a cute theory, but housing costs are much more related to the cost of money. When the federal reserve makes money cheap, asset prices increase. Since mortgage rates are at historic lows, people simply borrow as much as possible until their monthly payment is at some threshold. If you want housing prices to return to historic norms, you need to ask the Fed to first return the cost of money to normal.

Not sure why you are being downvoted. The historically low fed rates and economy growth are the main drivers of increased house prices globally.

Buying a house has always been the preferred investment. When you make that easier, it's only natural prices will rise.

IMO, the only feasible way to minimize this trend is economic decentralization.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#114

Post by walshemj »

hfhdnenen wrote: post #72
chillwaves wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just some weird anecdote. I work at an architecture firm where the employees have deliverables and bill to clients, we all work really really hard. I work between 45-50 hours a week of real work. One any given Saturday or Sunday you will find dozens of people in my firm working. They are not just pretending. I have worked at a job you describe where people do not do much, but I would hardly say that is the no…

I’m leaving architecture proper (staying in the design field, but working independently) for this reason. My labour is billed to clients at three times my hourly rate, I receive no benefits as a contracted employee (paid as a consultant), and regularly work overtime to execute someone else’s concepts. The latter would not be an issue if the industry-wide quality of work were better here in Canada, but the overwhelmin…

That's why I don't understand the poor rates so called contractors get in the USA and Now Canada certain types of employers try this on in the UK but they wont get the best candidates by offering straight time for a 4-6 month contract - instead of 3x

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#115

Post by walshemj »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #44
etr-strike wrote: post #27

The Federal Reaerve actually thinks productivity is too low: http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fed-productivity-idUSL1N1... Would be a dream to work just 40 hours per week.

It's also worth noting that 2 of the Fed's main goals are 1. Achieve maximum employment 2. Maintain stable prices Both of which are counter productive to the goals of automation. This seems like the root of the problem to me, as the Fed is a "super admin" of the economy.

not from a political point of view

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#116

Post by walshemj »

torstenvl wrote: post #25
megiddo wrote: post #11

Inflation, taxes, and regulatory burden. Savings have been systematically eroded for 50+ years. Total taxation is now 40+% of GDP. Private sector workforce participation is dropping. Regulatory burden dramatically increases health care, housing, and transportation costs. All of these policies have worked to keep you in the office.

Total taxation is at 26% of GDP in the U.S., 34% in much of the rest of the developed world. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes...

is that including health care costs? I don't think so from what my expat friends tell me

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#117

Post by krrrh »

purple-again wrote: post #16
dominotw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing price increase just doesn't go to landlords. It goes to City and state coffers via tax. Chicago had two housing tax hikes in 2017, for example. Edit: Added links > For homeowners in Chicago, the average increase is 10 percent. https://rebootillinois.com/2017/06/13/big-property-tax-hike-... > Summary over past couple of decades https://d2dv7hze646xr.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015...

Confused by the downvotes here. In almost all of America (looking at you Cali) the property taxes are reassessed yearly to the value of the home. This is how we want it. The three blocks in every direction surrounding a middle school shouldn’t be populated by 80 year old retirees.

The increase in city budgets is somewhat independent of the value of houses. If the price of every home in Chicago doubles overnight it doesn’t mean that Chicago would require twice as much revenue to deliver city services. Property taxes are based on assessed values because they are collected relative to other property in the same jurisdiction, not on an absolute basis.

Other factors should have a bigger effect. For instance if crime halved overnight, the city could reduce its policing budget and lower property taxes, regardless of property value changes.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#118

Post by cjalmeida »

collyw wrote: post #96
sliverstorm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people now are spending almost 50% of their pre-tax income on housing, and most of that is the price of land and goes to landlords. 1) That's really not a countrywide thing 2) It's not specifically the landlords, it's whoever was already there. A landlord who bought in just recently is not rolling in dough. The people who capture the gains are the people who got in fifty years ago and sold & moved, or the landlo…

1) It seems to be a worldwide thing. I see the same in most major cities Europe.

It's due to economic centralisation. The level of wealth in Paris and London is disproportionate to the rest of UK or France.

This doesn't happen in Germany for instance. Rent in Berlin and Hamburg (1st and 2nd largest cities) is quite reasonable. Reason is economic activity in Germany is quite decentralized.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#119

Post by bandrami »

psyc wrote: post #62
bandrami wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Back in the 1950s, an 850 square foot home for a family of 4 was respectable middle class housing; today that wouldn't even be legal in some states, let alone socially considered "middle class". Standards of living are just incomparably higher today than 50 years ago

I'm not sure you're comparing apples-to-apples here. My grandfather drove trucks for the city, and my grandmother worked part-time in a factory. They didn't reach high-school. They had 3 kids, always owned their own homes, in a major metro, owned two cars, and always had "modern" appliances and electronics for their time. They felt little or no economic insecurity, and never expressed that they felt they were lacking…

> Which socio-economic class of today would you compare them to?

Well, that's my point: I'd compare them to the lower-middle or "working" class. Your grandparents had a lower inflation-adjusted income (speaking in general here; obviously there will be exceptions) than truck drivers and part-time factory workers today (though today's need a high school diploma whereas your grandparents didn't).

That's why I mentioned the house size: they owned a house that -- in most cases -- would be so small that it couldn't sell on today's market. They owned a car without air conditioning or an entertainment system. You can own a tiny house and a featureless car for very little money today. But people aren't satisfied with the standard of living that satisfied your grandparents.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#120

Post by y_u_no_rust »

notahacker wrote: post #98
Daishiman wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Marx's writings around the working day are built on the assumption that wages will be set at the level necessary for the worker to survive long enough to turn up to work the following day rather than according to the perceived value of their labour time by the highest bidder, and that because of this near-universal day rate for undifferentiated "labour power", employers' main route to improving profitability would…

American retail workers might have a tough lot but the economics behind it is the precise opposite of the Kapital model: the retail outlets pay people by the hour and the workers need the long hours because they can't afford their family/debt/house/consumerism on 40 hrs per week at minimum wage and sometimes take additional jobs because retailers won't offer them enough shifts, rather than the retailers paying people…

well hopefully american retail will burn to the ground in short time, I know Im doing my part.. imo the true path to the revolution is to bring on so much unemployment there will be no way to avoid it

that's been the plan right?

Post reply on HN