Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers • Hacker News Board

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#111

Post by coldtea » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

Bucephalus355 wrote: post #19

netcan wrote: post #10

" middle-class life to those without a college degree " Anytime you start delving into what has changed for a subset of people, over decades, the most important piece of the puzzle is decided ding who qualifies for the subset. I mean concepts like "middle class" or "without a college degree." A lot more people get degrees, in 2018. Does the graduates/nongraduates segment still represent a comparable group of people?…

You make very good points above. I really enjoyed college, especially my liberal arts classes. That being said, with AWS Certs going for between $75-$300 how long do colleges think they can survive? If you were a 22 yr old who studied from zero-level computing knowledge for 12 months and got the AWS Solutions Architect Pro cert (somewhat possible assuming 2 hours / day) I can already guarantee you’d receive a written…

>That being said, with AWS Certs going for between $75-$300 how long do colleges think they can survive?

Well, colleges used to be for the elites (either rich or very talented) to learn science and to do research.

It wasn't meant for vocational training for the general salaried worker. Now it's mostly that.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#112

Post by motohagiography » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

I find the tone of articles like these to be patronizing.

Let's be clear, the hollowing out of rural economies is a direct and explicit effect of trade policy, and not some accident of economics and markets.

The precise dynamic in this article is that where previously cities provided capital and farms provided food, with a spectrum of services in between - with globalization, cities no longer depend on their regional rural partners, and can meet demand for food and goods using cheap international suppliers, financial flows of hot money, and massive debt funded deficits.

Unskilled labour and manufacturing don't have a problem when countries enact policies with a national interest because tariffs and anti-dumping rules create a price preference for nationally produced goods and services.

It has almost nothing to do with the skills or qualifications of rural workers. This is policy. The Bloomberg author's false lament for these "left behind" workers is nothing but sanctimonious cant.

edit: tl;dr: what's more likely to prevail, a system of globalization or the interests of rural people? I know where I will place my bet.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#113

Post by WhompingWindows » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #12

The top 1% of American's own more wealth than the bottom 90% and this concentration is only increasing. Soon no cities regardless of size will deliver for low skilled workers as there will simply not be enough of the proverbial pie to go around. As wealth is concentrated and rents and property values rise the vast majority of this country will (does?) live paycheck to paycheck. This is unsustainable and will either n…

I don't disagree, but the wealth disparity is different than the income disparity. On the one hand, a wealth disparity can be directly passed down, and repealing the estate tax will only deepen this trend. On the other hand, reducing income inequality may help with the here-and-now, helping families to BUILD wealth while not also living paycheck to paycheck. So, IMO, we should tackle both income inequality via progressive taxation, and we should tackle wealth inequality by instating a much stronger estate tax that prevents a landed gentry, a permanently wealthy and insulated class of millionaires and trust fund babies.

There is also something to be said for personal choices of the non-wealthy. I see many in my lower-middle class city with new luxury BMW or Benz ($30-50k) vehicles, who are living in $120k condo units. I see many people with shiny massively spec'd out trucks that they never used to haul anything and just park at their office job. What would the country look like if average people saved more and invested some of their lifestyle splurging?

So, while the tax structure and skill gaps are big, we can also say consumers need to be much smarter and more modest if they want to build wealth and improve their station.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#114

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

rafiki6 wrote: post #87

landryraccoon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t buy this. Are saying if you get college a degree in Chemical Engineering you wouldn’t be far more productive as a Chemical Engineer than if you only went to high school? Or in say, physics or chemistry or botany?

No the commenter is saying that having completed a degree in chemical engineering serves as a signal to your productivity. It does not in fact determine how productive you actually are.

Observation: college graduates are more productive laborers in the work force.

Hypothesis A: college coursework actually increases a student's future work productivity.

Hypothesis B: the least productive laborers are unable to be admitted to a college, or unable to graduate. The admissions and graduation filters thus raise the productivity average in the pool of graduates.

Hypothesis C: businesses with the most productive workers tend to prefer college graduates. Workers without degrees appear to be less productive because the only jobs available to them have inherently lower productivity.

Hypothesis D: productivity is measured differently for some workers, based in part on whether they have college degrees.

Hypothesis E: some workers are able to influence the measurement of productivity, such that productivity originating from other workers is reassigned to them, and those cheating workers tend to have degrees.

Hypothesis F: workers with degrees tend to have debts, and are forced by necessity to be more productive in order to first pay them off, and then later save enough for retirement with a shorter savings window.

Hypothesis G: workers with degrees are more productive because the past correlation generates an expectation that they be more productive.

The observation could have complex cause, and all of the above may be true.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#115

Post by jtolmar » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

purplezooey wrote: post #56

swampthinker wrote: post #2

My tinfoil hat theory is that this is being caused by the increasing concentration of wealth. Which is being enabled by increasing levels of automation and efficiency.

The only tinfoil part is the last sentence. It's being enabled by decades of policy dominated by the benefactors of such wealth.

Automation replaces the need for labor with a need for capital. That's labor in the form of whatever has been automated (by definition of automation), and capital in the form of machines, software, or whatever - it's capital if you can buy it and keep it. This increases the power of capital over labor. Because the top 0.1% are all capitalists, not laborers, this increases wealth concentration.

This isn't inherent to automation, but it is how we've structured our society to respond to automation.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#116

Post by rsync » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

robhunter wrote: post #110

rafiki6 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I'm not sure anyone actually denies this. College education was something only upper class folks could receive (especially a liberal arts degree with dubious value in society) due to it's expense. With the emergence of things like state schools, the barrier became lower. But the fact of the matter is higher paying jobs required college degrees, and the best chance for most people at a middle class lifestyle are…

> College education was something only upper class folks could receive (especially a liberal arts degree with dubious value in society) due to it's expense. With the emergence of things like state schools, the barrier became lower. This is not factually correct - tuition at non-state schools increased 10X in the last 30 years, way ahead of the pace of inflation. College education is significantly much less affordable…

>> "College education was something only upper class folks could receive ... due to it's expense."

> "This is not factually correct - tuition at non-state schools increased 10X in the last 30 years, way ahead of the pace of inflation."

You are only considering the monetary cost of college which has, indeed, skyrocketed.

However a more significant cost in the era you are both speaking of was the cost of not working immediately after high school - especially when that same social class very likely had started a family, or had a family they were coming from that needed support.

People coming from a high SES background could afford four years of non-earning, etc.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#117

Post by mattnewton » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

robhunter wrote: post #110

rafiki6 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I'm not sure anyone actually denies this. College education was something only upper class folks could receive (especially a liberal arts degree with dubious value in society) due to it's expense. With the emergence of things like state schools, the barrier became lower. But the fact of the matter is higher paying jobs required college degrees, and the best chance for most people at a middle class lifestyle are…

> College education was something only upper class folks could receive (especially a liberal arts degree with dubious value in society) due to it's expense. With the emergence of things like state schools, the barrier became lower. This is not factually correct - tuition at non-state schools increased 10X in the last 30 years, way ahead of the pace of inflation. College education is significantly much less affordable…

Part of the reason it exploded though is there seems to be a bottomless supply of student loans, I am guessing because of how hard they are to forgive unlike regular debt. So many teenagers are encouraged to borrow whatever the schools ask by virtually everyone they know so that they can get their degree, and lenders will gladly give them 30k a year to study zoology or some other field with a rough job market.

The result is college is more attainable to people across the social stratum. And then degrees are less rare, commanding a lower premium while the people holding them have more debt.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#118

Post by Wowfunhappy » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

Dirlewanger wrote: post #105

grawprog wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who's been on employment insurance before. I can't understand the appeal of ubi. Getting a small amount of money to do nothing is excruciating. It's really not a fun way to live.

It's not meant to be solely sustainable. Lots of people get this wrong though, which means the name Universal Basic Income probably isn't the best name for it. Maybe Universal Supplemental Income? Could very well be the idea needs a rebranding before a larger adoption ever happens.

I actually do see it as solely sustainable, in the scenario I outlined.

If the world gets to a point where it doesn't make sense for everyone to have a job—because there aren't enough jobs to be done—we'll want to let some people live in relative comfort without working, at all. Less comfort than the people who do still have jobs, but enough that it's a real choice.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#119

Post by shams93 » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

robhunter wrote: post #110

rafiki6 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I'm not sure anyone actually denies this. College education was something only upper class folks could receive (especially a liberal arts degree with dubious value in society) due to it's expense. With the emergence of things like state schools, the barrier became lower. But the fact of the matter is higher paying jobs required college degrees, and the best chance for most people at a middle class lifestyle are…

> College education was something only upper class folks could receive (especially a liberal arts degree with dubious value in society) due to it's expense. With the emergence of things like state schools, the barrier became lower. This is not factually correct - tuition at non-state schools increased 10X in the last 30 years, way ahead of the pace of inflation. College education is significantly much less affordable…

Its even more stark when you look at University of California. My first year at UCI in 1990 tuition was $80, 5 years later my last year of tuition had leaped to $10,000. By the time all my student loans were paid I had paid off $750,000, there's a lot a person could do with that money. Baby Boomers with their $80 a year tuition were able to buy homes, invest in the market. There was a decision made in the 90s to transform education from an investment in society from the top down to a system of indentured servitude.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#120

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

moorhosj wrote: post #29

Bucephalus355 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make very good points above. I really enjoyed college, especially my liberal arts classes. That being said, with AWS Certs going for between $75-$300 how long do colleges think they can survive? If you were a 22 yr old who studied from zero-level computing knowledge for 12 months and got the AWS Solutions Architect Pro cert (somewhat possible assuming 2 hours / day) I can already guarantee you’d receive a written…

==I really enjoyed college, especially my liberal arts classes.== I think this highlights the true question. Do colleges exist to promote education and intellectual curiosity or to train workers? According to PEW, Americans believe colleges are for work training: "Americans are split on the main purpose of college, with 47% saying it is to teach work-related skills and 39% saying it is to help a student grow personal…

Wasn't "education and intellectual curiosity" a way to increase people's productivity? (Not even a way, wans't it supposed to be the best way?) Because that's the reason colleges are funded by the government.

There's something very broken with our modern society.