Earlier quoted context omitted.
want to add the additional annual leave you get in Germany and average cost of the same health care in Dallas into that equation let alone the other benefits?
The $55k are pre-tax, and the "free" healthcare in contries with public health care are mostly paid out of those taxes. There is probably a point in there about shorter work days and legally mandated overtime pay, but it doesn't add up to 40k per year. Honestly, the more I look at this, the more it seems like there are hidden mechanisms that keep pay below market value in many European countries. E.g. wage collusion…
Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
201–210 of 225 posts
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd love to see what are those extra benefits worth $40k yearly. How about 35hour work weeks and the fact that overtime is paid? If you factor that into account and add to the healthcare and extra vacation days I'm pretty sure those fictional $40k/yearly fade out rather quickly. And by the way, average income means jack shit when the income distribution is so lopsided, particularly when discussing issuez linked to…
free university, public transit, health care, old age payments, pensions. But the tax rates are higher so 55k is really 32k. You are better off working part time in the US.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a nitpick, but I think you are using the marginal tax numbers instead of the actual tax rate, and not applying all the complicated deductions available to US people. Texas: $95k pre-tax falls into the marginal 28% bracket, but after subtracting 401k + IRA deferral ($18k + $5.5k), $95k falls to AGI of $71.5k. Then after subtracting standard deduction ($6.35k for single 30y, no children), personal exemption ($4.05…
Hm, this is interesting to me -- if your example is representative, US income tax rates are often quoted at the marginal rate, whereas European taxes (higher on a percentage basis) are quoted at the net rate, skewing the perception in the direction of European taxes sounding lower than they really are. Of course, there's both deductions and non-income taxes also, which complicate the issue. In Norway, the total tax p…
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has generally been the standard argument since Keynes (and others) first turned out to be spectacularly wrong. We just consume more. But, I see this argument differently these days. In tech stuff, we definitely have more stuff. A phone+plan for every person over 13. Laptops for most people. But, you can't function without these. It's not really a discretionary spending. A student (for example) is at a disadvanta…
> you can't function without [a phone > + plan once you're 13yo, and laptop]. > It's not really a discretionary > spending. Even if I give you that a network connected phone is something a teenager absolutely must have, that still leaves the fact that most people vastly overspend on these items. Yes you might need a smartphone and a laptop for school, but those are going to cost at most $200 used, but people conflate…
This would obviously be good because we would be valuing things closer to the actual benefit that they bring, but its not the case that we can ALL just have dirt-cheap few-year-old laptops.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take on the problem (predates Graeber's book though): http://250bpm.com/blog:44 TL;DR: Firms are not people and can't strive for efficiency. Only individuals can. Once the financial incentives of individuals are misaligned with the financial incentives of the firm, the firm is going to lose (and pay for useless jobs).
I liked a lot your analogy with altruism. Wish I had thought of that one myself ;-) I probably disagree with the notion that people actively seek to create bullshit work for themselves, initially. I think a lot of bullshit jobs is something people realize they are doing after the fact when it is hard to change careers or find another job. They then engage in a sort of cover up operation to avoid losing that bullshit…
It's a matter of rationalization IMO. You have no job. Then you get an offer. The job seems to suck and be useless so you come up with reasons why it matters. That way you can both put food on the table and keep self-esteem.
> So part of the solution is also to stop valuing work so dam high.
That may be already happening:
"Beginning in 1973, the GSS showed a card to the person being interviewed and asked, “Would you please look at this card and tell me which one thing on this list you would most prefer in a job?” The card had these choices:
* High income * No danger of being fired * Chances for advancement * Working hours are short; lots of free time * Work important and gives a feeling of accomplishment
"After the subject gave his first priority, the interviewer ascertained which were his second, third, fourth, and last priorities. The item was given in almost every survey from 1973 through 1994. Then the GSS dropped it for the next twelve years, perhaps because the answers had been so consistent. Among prime-age whites, the most popular first choice was always work that “gives a feeling of accomplishment,” getting an average of 58 percent of the votes in each decade. The two least-chosen first choices were always short work hours (averaging 4 percent) and no danger of being fired (6 percent).
"In 2006, the GSS resurrected the question, and the results were startling. The 58 percent that had always voted first place to work that “gives a feeling of accomplishment” was down to 43 percent. First-place votes for short working hours more than doubled to 9 percent. “No danger of being fired” doubled to 12 percent, with another 13 percent ranking it in second place.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I doubt even a middle-middle class family could attain their standard of living, within 100 miles of where they lived. Their house was around 1200 sq ft, 3 bedrooms, and is valued at $500k today.
That's rather unlikely. The average new home size in 1960 was less than 1000 sq ft (it's over 2500 sq ft today), and pretty much all existing stock at that point was under 1000 sq ft. Meanwhile, most urban apartments were SROs or what would today be called studios. Over the decades, the houses got additions and the apartments had interior walls knocked out and got combined. Our obsession with floorspace is one of the big drivers of housing being so expensive.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to consider the wealth of respective countries and cities. E.g. my native Norway which is more similar to the US in GDP per capita has developer salaries closer to the US. Not only is Germany poorer than the US, but Berlin is among the poorer cities in Germany. Hence I don't think it says much about the results of unions. Norway has equally strong unions as Germany and close to 80% of Norwegian workers are u…
From [1], cost of living in Oslo is way higher than Dallas. They're more in line with NYC or SFA. The avg salary is only about $65k [2]. Quite disappointing. I checked and dev salary in the rest of Germany. Not very different from Berlin. Switzerland does pay handsomely. But, unlike neighbors, unions have quite minor role. And labor laws are way more lax than France or DE. About prevalece of manufacturing in Germany,…
Engineers and software developers are if anything members of what could be more called trade groups. These groups don't negotiate or push for salaries on behalf of members, nor do they do things like organize strikes.
To test you hypothesis I think you have to look at several countries in Europe at similar GDP number and compare salaries. Then you'd have to compare between those of different GDP numbers and see whether GDP or unionization rate correlates most with salaries.
I got to point out however that such a task is momentously difficult, because differences in how things are recorded and rated. As an example I just remembered several other factors in addition to the previous mention that I forgot.
1) The salary quoted in Norway, is the money workers get after special income tax is deducted by the employer. This is about 14%. So a 65k salary is more like 75k if you consider this tax.
2) High living expenses in Norway is heavily influenced by a very high VAT tax of 25%.
Sure that doesn't mean the money is suddenly in your pocket but it means it doesn't just disappear. It goes to cover extensive welfare services, which e.g. Americans would have to pay for out of pocket.
In essence it is hard to compare very high tax regimes with extensive welfare benefits to one with low taxes and few benefits.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#208Earlier 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 be…
> 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…
And not just retail workers, they are only one of the canaries in the coal mine.
>Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more?
Because lowering the work hours of laborers who provide more profit by more hours worked, over the short run or the long run, was not the intention of allowing economic progress to begin with.
The ones employing those workers are supposed to benefit by increased leisure time for themselves, not reduced hours for the workers, even when financial rewards are more liberally dispensed across the board as economic progress occurs.
The purpose of the US Federal Reserve was to better control economic progress not for the benefit of workers or the general citizenry, but for the bankers themselves, largely those in the Northeast with the oldest money. This was particularly important to them after major deposits of precious metals were discovered and exploited in the west. (Which is one of the major reasons why SV is where it is.) Hard currency or especially gold when the dollar was based on it could not have been allowed to continue to be held by working citizens or the potential power shift could have been too much to enable the growth of their capital gains to continue to outpace labor.
Before the Federal Reserve took control, economic progress was much more out-of-control in a way that was not was as bad for workers who in bad times could still always work for subsistence, compared to pure capitalists who were subject to non-increasing gains, reduced gains, or gasp actual losses even when they were in what was supposed to be the least risky investments.
After decades of control and supposedly harmless gradually increasing financial incentive for laborers, union power became too great anyway by the early '70's so Nixon & the Fed put a stop to it by inflating the currency in a way that would never had been possible if citizens had been allowed to retain gold or hard currency. Gold was for banks only for decades up until that time.
Gold could only be re-allowed to the public after it was fully decoupled from the dollar.
They don't want you to work for mere subsistence (especially on your own farm or business) nor allow enough collective wealth to accumulate among the workers, since either extreme reduces the incentive to put in as many of the hours which lead to Wall Street profits.
This trickles down right through SV to any new company whose ultimate outcome is an IPO through a Northeastern stock exchange.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure Tax Policy Center can be trusted? Those numbers seem very low for Ireland. I'm willing to be wrong but something seems very off here.
Ireland is a notorious tax haven.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Americans were as physically fit as they were 50 years ago, would healthcare still be expensive?
Probably not as expensive, but still much more expensive than it need be. We've got a bunch of perverse incentives where it's cheaper for the patient to choose the option that's more expensive for the payer. Straightening those out would be a small first step, but complexities of the system and incumbent powers have made it pretty difficult.
I can sympathize with this because I remember needing a medical procedure that I was forced to travel to a different country to solve, it wasn't even about the money but a case where I the patient was given poor information and then ignored, I actually took the doctor to the board over it in the end, and they ultimately provided a correct solution but it was easier in the end just to travel abroad to fix it.