291–300 of 451 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that I can't determine where his country's wealth comes from if he doesn't state his country. Also I'm skeptical f this person actually even being from the region. For example, if he is from Norway most of his wealth is derived from oil.
Im from Denmark, none of the money is derived from oil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, while it's important that the minimum wage is $24/hr (or $15/hr), none of these results tell us whether the better way to do that is to mandate that employers pay that full wage, or for the government to fill in the blanks with a UBI/NIT funded by progressive taxation.
If productivity is going up, why would we subsidizing their employers by paying part of their wage?
Is there any evidence that whole-workforce productivity applies equally to minimum wage jobs? If not, the claim seems unsustainable. Completely anecdotally, improvements in labor productivity due to automation (etc) are less likely to be impactful in jobs like waiting tables, delivering newspapers or flipping hamburgers. That anecdotal evidence is backed by research that shows that service sector productivity tends t…
Why would we tie minimum wage to worker productivity OR inflation?
What is the minimum wage trying to accomplish in the first place?
It seems obvious to me that we have to index it to the living wage instead.
A full-time job needs to cover: one half of a 2-bedroom apartment in the outskirts of town, plus food, bills, and basic medical expenses. If it doesn't cover this, then this person is going to rely on government programs.
And if the government programs aren't there, they'll be coming home each night after a full day of work and watching their kid get skinnier, seeing their CEO collect multimillion dollar bonuses in the news, and you can be damn sure they won't stand for it. They'd unionize, protest, and demand higher compensation.
Our social safety nets are an important part of our society, but when they're required and used by full-time employees, it's something of a taxpayer subsidy for the corporations who can now pay their employees less than what's required to live.
And if a job can't be done profitably for a living wage, we need to let that job go. Automate it, outsource it, let the companies that depend on this exploitative labor pivot to new business models, or let them wither and die. The jobs are going to leave eventually anyway - we might as well accelerate the push toward a modern labor economy that's already underway. We can funnel the productivity gains from automation into education, to allow the displaced a chance to retool and learn a new skill, and to bulk up our social safety nets for those who are too old to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What makes you feel that Software developer salary is linked to computing power? In fact, even if we were to consider it a fair comparison, computing power, if measured by Moore's law has doubled every 2 years. Software Engineer salaries have lagged far far behind. Honestly, I don't think there is any relation between developer salary and computational power. I was just reaching for a possible explanation for this[1…
That graph is not very well laid out; in order to see the effect it purports to show, you'd want to scale the SWE salary to all salaries to compare them; otherwise, you're just looking at "SWE is paid more than most occupations" → "SWE is still paid more than most occupations". Both clearly experienced growth, but did SWE experience more growth, or did it grow proportionally? The SWE line in that graph grows by ~74%,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My graph also shows median income, and it clearly shows it has not stagnated, but risen, and not by any small amount.
Median (average) measures are the refuge of the scoundrel. Refuting the (willful) abuse of statistics is like trying to refute numerology with reason.
There's a lot of reasons for this but one of the largest is the near invisible (to me) structural shift from direct hire to contractors for jobs at the lower end of the wage/salary spectrum. There is a fantastic long form article that articulates this better than I can at: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millenn... The portion relevant to this discussion: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could wa…
I agree, this is one of those slow moving trends that you just don't see but has really large effects after decades of compounding. It used to be normal for companies to have much larger work forces and to in-source all tasks, even if they were not a core competency. Now the emphasis is on lean everything, to only focus on your niche, and outsource as much as possible. Remember IT departments? It's all been outsource…
An interesting outcome is that is becomes more difficult to rise to high levels unless that is what you’re optimizing for early. Ironically, this creates the same pressure that makes high levels so competitive and potentially miserable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those displaced (50% in the example above) can go and provide services in another area... Why should only the pin producers get 4 hour weeks. What about those have to toil in the field for 8 hours a day to produce food? So for the sake of fairness, no one should get to work less hours? It's pretty clear that Russell's sentiment is that this should be expanded to society as a whole.
Sure people can work less hours, but right now people choose to want more things - better healthcare, larger houses, more entertainment and choose to work more hours. Certain areas are clearly broken - education, medicine, and housing -- but that's largely due to government interference.
That has not been proven. If anything the opposite. I'm sure that a significant portion of the population would choose less time at work over non-essential consumption given the choice. There's a reason that full-time working hours are always changed universally - having the leverage and the economic base to individually request part-time is a privilege. Furthermore there's usually a disproportional economic punishment when one's working hours doesn't reach some "full-time" threshold, not to mention the likely social punishment like having a harder time to get promoted and similar.
People like to assume that people choose non-essential goods over leisure but for some reason they are never very keen on trying to prove it by giving workers the choice without undue punishment.
A good experiment could be to allow people to choose to whether they'd like to get their raise (or if lucky, convert the yearly bonus) in time or money, or perhaps some split.
> but that's largely due to government interference.
Only in the US it seems.
And if they had kept up since 1949, minimum wage would be $4.22 an hour. Two can play the game of cherrypicking troughs and peaks. Additionally, average productivity is not minimum wage productivity. They are separate statistics, and the bulk of the efficiency gains have not been made at the burger flipper level, but at higher levels, where there have been huge gains in pay. The productivity gains in engineering and…
>Someone stocking shelves in 2020 is about productive as someone stocking shelves in 1968. This is not completely fair. There are countless innovations that have allowed these low skill jobs to have an increase in efficiency and productivity. One example, when I was a teen and worked retail I remember we would all have to spend hours going around the store counting every product on the shelves in order to do our rout…
There’s a much higher barrier to entry as a software engineer than a shelf stacker. The breakdown of returns to labor vs capital will always favour capital (absent regulatory intervention or shortage of unskilled labor) for commodity-type work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not cherry picking when wages have been stagnant for the last 40+ years.
Wages have not stagnated. Disposable income adjusted for inflation is up enormously since 1968, while at the same time, the average number of working hours per year is at an all time low. This is according to data collected by the federal reserve. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=rKwm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wages have not stagnated. Disposable income adjusted for inflation is up enormously since 1968, while at the same time, the average number of working hours per year is at an all time low. This is according to data collected by the federal reserve. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=rKwm
I wonder how this chart would look if it factored in living expenses.