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

The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

mstdn.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 511 posts

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#311

Post by usrbinbash »

Levitz wrote: post #236
usrbinbash wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument, like all arguments that somehow equate wages with inflation, would hold water if the productivity of the workforce was constant. We know that it isn't. Productivity of the workforce is ever increasing. The generated wealth simply doesn't make it to the workforce.

Doesn't it? And I don't, by any measure, mean that all of it does , but nowadays we have luxuries we simply didn't have before, are these not fruits of that increased productivity?

> but nowadays we have luxuries

Who's we?

I know I am living a privileged comfortable life, yes. I am certain many people in my chosen profession as a software dev do.

But I also know that there are alot more people struggling to provide basic necessities for their families, despite working 40+h per week. And I am not talking about cellphones here. I am talking about a roof over ones head, clothes on ones back, food on the table and medical services.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#312

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

stevezsa8 wrote: post #253
mensetmanusman wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ultra wealthy hired the best to win a game of financial manipulation that the rest of us didn’t even know was being played. The median salary would be six figure if the share of productivity gains was distributed like it was in 1970.

I think focussing on salary alone isn't a great strategy. If you doubled everyone's salary, the gain would almost certainly be absorbed by real estate or some other necessity. Regulations on maximum working hours, access to fair housing, education, healthcare etc might work better.

I agree with you that gains in income will be absorbed.

Providers of necessities can demand large portions of people’s income due to lack of supply. It’s a basic monopoly. We see that in real estate, health care, education, elderly and child care.

They can’t charge endlessly because at some point people are priced out. Homelessness, lack of education, delaying medical care until an emergency and relying on laws that non-payers cannot be denied treatment.

But they can travel up the supply demand curve and take from everybody that can still afford it, because the supply is constrained. TVs are cheap, because of competition from overseas. Land or health care prices are not.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#313

Post by phpisthebest »

grecy wrote: post #305
phpisthebest wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>a working man could support a family of five, buy a house, a car and afford vacation once or twice a year, plus save enough to retire comfortably. I would say my family history is that of a "working man" that closly fits that narraive.. My grandfather was a WWII vet, after military service was a factory worker that raised 4 kids, in their own home. Let me eliminate some of that illusory rose tint from your worldvie…

Obviously this depends entirely on the country and region. My grandfather immigrated to Australia in 1948, got a job assembling cars at the Ford plant, and worked there until he retired. My Grandmother never worked. They bought a very nice house, had two boys, never really had any debt, plenty of money in retirement. A generation later my Dad was earning $10k/year as a teacher, and my mum and dad bought their first v…

>>entirely on the country and region.

Very true...

My home when I bought it was about 2x my annual income, my home today is worth on the market about 2x my current annual income.

The average factory worker (or teacher) in my area could easily afford to buy my home in a standard 2 person income situation.

Now if you go into the new construction area's of this city, the houses there start at 2x the price of my home. I am a relatively high income earner though that is offsite by the fact I live alone so no dual income. On paper I could afford one of those homes, but I would never go that far into debt, which is why I own the home I do. I bought in a modest neighborhood and a modest home.

Currently average home prices in my area are 3.5x median household incomes, which is up from 2.25x in 2016... This is largely drive by the new construction of these high end homes fueled by low interest rates.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#314

Post by 23B1 »

hooverd wrote: post #310
etothepii wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree on #2. I think if you want to build culture you need to find people who value culture over money, and that if you don't live up to your end they can complain about the deal. If you over pay and offer better culture when the culture inevitably falters people are stuck because you over pay.

What does "value culture over money even mean?" I'd rather get paid more and work with people who are clock punching professionals than somewhere where "we're all a family".

Yeah I wasn't sure how to read that comment either.

I think it's fine to have a familial/friendly culture at work, but not in lieu of fair pay – and not in any way made mandatory. Nothing worse than 'mandatory fun time' barf.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#315

Post by kaashif »

usrbinbash wrote: post #307
kaashif wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is funny, people somehow think that a momentary episode of utter economic dominance after all other economic powers had been bombed into dust should be the norm. And the 50s and 60s weren't that great for e.g. black people or women in the US either.

Gimme a good argument why good conditions should diminish, or deteriorate, despite the fact that workforce productivity, as well as corporate margins, have been growing steadily ever since.

I don't know whether they should or not, but it's clear that there was a very unusual set of conditions and it is unsurprising it didn't last forever, right or wrong.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#317

Post by jl6 »

usrbinbash wrote: post #307
kaashif wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is funny, people somehow think that a momentary episode of utter economic dominance after all other economic powers had been bombed into dust should be the norm. And the 50s and 60s weren't that great for e.g. black people or women in the US either.

Gimme a good argument why good conditions should diminish, or deteriorate, despite the fact that workforce productivity, as well as corporate margins, have been growing steadily ever since.

It was only ever good conditions for some. If wealth redistributes faster than wealth grows, those some will experience loss while society at large experiences net gain.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#318

Post by SergeAx »

coldtea wrote: post #265
alisonatwork wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's important to note that the good old days of a working man being able to support a family of five was only true for a brief period of history in a handful of elite countries. In most of the world, and for most of human history, it hasn't been the case that any single person working 40 hours a week could provide a luxurious lifestyle for a large family. While some lament the loss of this golden age their g…

> I think it's important to note that the good old days of a working man being able to support a family of five was only true for a brief period of history in a handful of elite countries. In most of the world, and for most of human history, it hasn't been the case that any single person working 40 hours a week could provide a luxurious lifestyle for a large family. Keyword "luxurious". People first and foremost want…

Roof, food, clothes, furniture, mobile phone with internet plan, flat TV, streaming subscription...

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#319

Post by muro »

Tycho wrote: post #298
bluGill wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you are responding to didn't have Starbucks coffee every day, did have internet, cable tv, subscriptions to streaming services, a computer with a monthly subscription in every pocket. They didn't even have that option. The above is just a short list. Live like 1955 and you can support a family of 5 with, a car, vacations every year and a nice retirement. You won't have many of the other luxuries people enjoy…

Is that actually true? Subscriptions £30 pm Starbucks £40 pm Phone contract £20 pm ISP £30 pm That’s £120 pm, or £1440 annually. Doesn’t seem like it would make that much of a dent. Probably the number one thing you’d need to do is cut down on food costs, which is doable, to be fair, as it’s quite easy to spend 10x or 100x more than what you need to stay fed.

Sorry for the pedantry, but 1 coffee at Starbucks per day is closer to 120pm alone.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#320

Post by lazyasciiart »

coldtea wrote: post #267
kaashif wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is funny, people somehow think that a momentary episode of utter economic dominance after all other economic powers had been bombed into dust should be the norm. And the 50s and 60s weren't that great for e.g. black people or women in the US either.

> And the 50s and 60s weren't that great for e.g. black people or women in the US either. This argument is repeated a lot anytime someone mentions the working conditions in the 50s/60s, but how is it any relevant? Is there some natural law that says that mistreatment of blacks for example have to always go hand in hand with livable wages? And that anybody that likes the latter from the 50s/60s must also want the form…

There are enormous amounts of study on the concept that the above-average lifestyle enjoyed at that specific point in history by white men was built on the exploitation of other groups. Frequently, people who name that specific point in time as the model for how they would like the world to be are simply unaware of this tradeoff and have no idea that simply reverting society to that point would make it worse for some groups - this is why it gets mentioned when someone says "let's go back to those good times", to educate these people. Less frequently, they already know this and simply don't care, and it's always useful to give this group an opportunity to be explicit about their priorities.
Post reply on HN