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

361–370 of 511 posts

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#361

Post by hollerith »

thunky wrote: post #295
hollerith wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The investors entering the market today will make prices go up today, but have the effect of reducing prices in the future (either or renters or buyers, depending on how to investor chooses to recover his investment). Investment in housing in past decades has reduced the price families need to pay now. There a zero investors in housing who are not out to either provide housing for rent or to eventually sell housing.…

> The investors entering the market today will make prices go up today, but have the effect of reducing prices in the future The flaw in this argument is that it assumes markets are perfectly efficient, when in reality they are affected by several factors. > there are strong barriers to the creation of new housing Right, this is one of those factors. Others include land limitations, interest rates, government incenti…

I've been talking about the helpfulness or harmfulness of investors' buying housing, which your comment does not address AFAICT.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#362

Post by grecy »

vel0city wrote: post #330
grecy wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a percentage of income that 78/480 is probably less in the monthly payment than the 10/30 or at least in the same ballpark, since interest rates back then were probably much higher for the 10/30 loan, assuming equal percentage down payments and same terms and what not.

Back in the day when Dad earned $10k/year and saved 30% he had the full house price in ten years ($30k), so it was much easier to have a much larger percentage as a downpayment, or in fact, not get a loan at all.

Now saving 30% a year of a $78k income means you have to save for 20 years to have the full price of the house. ($480k), so you're forced to get a loan, and likely a much bigger loan

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#363

Post by nradov »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #148
bbarn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard the argument that a negative effect of the post WW2 "feminist" movement (by that I mean women in the work force) has had the long term effect of causing prices to simply adjust to the dual income household, to the point that now it is a necessity. It is a privileged family today that can afford to live comfortably on only one salary.

Theres another level to this going on in certain places too. Its not enough to have both partners working. Now in places like the bay area if you want to be competitive in the housing market, both partners have to be working high income jobs not just working at all. Even if you have a great title, if your partner doesnt, you will be lapped by people who have vastly more buying power than either of you can ever muster…

The best thing that most younger people in the Bay Area can do to improve their quality of life is to move somewhere else. Decades of bad government and an influx of grifters have eroded the advantages it once had. You might take a temporary income hit by leaving but most regular workers will end up better off in the long run.

We can argue about what should be done to improve the situation in the Bay Area, but realistically any major changes will take decades to work through the political process. That's going to be too slow to matter for any younger people who are trying to build a decent life right now.

As for dating, the skewed gender ratio in "Man Jose" also makes things difficult in a way that transcends economics.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#364

Post by carlosjobim »

kaashif wrote: post #254
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…

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.

This point of view is simply not true. The return on labour was massively much higher for previous generations outside of the US as well, including in countries bombed into dust.

Educate yourself on history, there is a world outside the United States. There are struggles that have nothing to do with race relations in the United States.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#365

Post by bt4u »

optimalsolver wrote: post #354
coldtea wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

People that pine for the 50s are def suspicious.

[dead]

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#366

Post by projektfu »

spamizbad wrote: post #129
projektfu wrote: post #70

From a small business perspective, turnover is a lot higher, and a lot more of it is because the employees are simply not doing their jobs and have to be let go. I think this is the tight labor market at work, actually. Good workers are being retained because there is enough demand for them. If they move, they are not on the market, they're recruited and cherry picked. The available ones responding to ads have usuall…

> From a small business perspective, turnover is a lot higher, and a lot more of it is because the employees are simply not doing their jobs and have to be let go. Many of these small businesses were tying up a ton of talent. During COVID, their workers left to go work for larger companies and (in the case of the service industry) took office jobs. To add to this, a number of these small businesses engaged in PPP fra…

Maybe, so it kind of sucks to be the business that reduced hours (=revenue) during COVID and used the PPP loan to keep paying full time employees while they're working part time. Being an essential business, we didn't close. Now that things are back, it's hard to find employees, even with increased wages.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#367

Post by kelnos »

jack_pp wrote: post #222
kjkjadksj wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work from home is literally an employee subsidized office. Who pays for the internet? You do. Who pays for the electicity? You do. Who pays for water? You do. Who pays for the ac during the heat of the day? You do. Who pays for square footage dedicated to a desk? You do. Who fixes networking it related issues? You do. Who is the custodian and building maintainer? Also you. Companies save money hand over fist by shove…

You already have those things. Network rarely like maybe once a year goes down at home, if your company doesn't provide food then you either order and the cost is the same or you can cook and it's cheaper. You are right, companies save money and you save commute time. It's win/win. That's if you like working from home which I don't.

> You already have those things.

That depends. Many people, especially those who live in cities, do not have the square footage in their home for a home office, or even a desk.

When you think about it, having a dedicated office building is likely to be a more efficient use of space than everyone dedicating a portion of their home to office space.

I wouldn't give up WFH, but let's not pretend it doesn't add costs to the employee. Sure, it can also remove costs, but the result isn't always a net positive.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#368

Post by carlosjobim »

alisonatwork wrote: post #242
muro wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First it was "support a family of five", then "luxurious lifestyle" then "humble lifestyle". Except for the "luxurious" one, it was possible pretty much at any time in human history, including now.

The post I am responding to mentioned providing a family of five with a self-owned house, a car, a couple of vacations per year and a comfortable retirement. To many people around the world - still today - that would be considered a luxurious lifestyle. You are right that it's possible for one person to support a family. For most people working in the tech industry here on HN they could probably figure out a way to d…

> But is it realistic for all families everywhere to be able to support themselves with just a single worker?

Yes, because a single worker today is maybe fifty or a hundred times more productive than a worker in the past, thanks to modern equipment.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#369

Post by projektfu »

javcasas wrote: post #261
projektfu wrote: post #70

From a small business perspective, turnover is a lot higher, and a lot more of it is because the employees are simply not doing their jobs and have to be let go. I think this is the tight labor market at work, actually. Good workers are being retained because there is enough demand for them. If they move, they are not on the market, they're recruited and cherry picked. The available ones responding to ads have usuall…

> a lot more of it is because the employees are simply not doing their jobs and have to be let go You are trying to find a cheap and good employee at the same time. Those tend to be scarce. Yet you keep scrapping the bottom of the barrel, and finding low quality. Have you considered a change of other parameters of your search? For example, the budget or the availability required.

Yes, the only way to hire is to ask people who have jobs to come work for you. And to raise prices to keep the lights on.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#370

Post by mstipetic »

welshwelsh wrote: post #185
usrbinbash wrote: post #53

It's pretty simple really. If the reward from working is barely enough to cover the necessities, then there is technically no difference between working as a free citizen, and being forced to work as an indentured servant, other than a vague notion of freedom, which in that case is the freedom to decide between working and living on the streets. And people don't like being indentured servants. History should have mad…

A working man can still support a family of five, buy a house, a car and a vacation once or twice a year. He just needs to be realistic. House: you can still find houses with plenty of room for ~$100k. It just needs to be in an affordable area: think McKeesport, not San Francisco. Car: for $5k you can get a 2005 Ford Focus or Honda Civic. They're reliable cars that will get you from A to B perfectly fine, easy to rep…

A society that views children as cost has things very backwards. They are the prize and the whole point of this game.
Post reply on HN