There's another big aspect to this: the orientation of the economy towards growth. When you start asking "What happens when the population and the economy are in a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever", and the answers are pretty grim. Retirement systems, for example, need a certain ratio of productive workers for each retiree, and I can't figure out any math that makes sense for the n…
1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the last month. Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. People are freaking crazy.
Any decent grad department will give the grad students a tuition waiver and stipend so it's actually the opposite of a pyramid scheme. In a pyramid scheme, you pay to join the pyramid. In academia, the pyramid pays you. I spent two years in a grad department in Boston that paid me to hang out and read books and occasionally grade papers. It probably wasn't the best life decision but there wasn't any exploitation.
Yeah my MSc paid for itself. The only real cost to me was two years not in the workforce.
It is an effective strategy, my observation is that way more energy is expended in debating the term MLM by assuming it is a pejorative term and the potential legal ramifications Without a government stance on any particular viral campaign I typically try to avoid MLMs as I find them unattractive With government stance and intervention I notice that the only result is for people to understand exactly how to operate a…
From my internet researching a while ago the main difference, and why MLMs are legal, is that an MLM sells a product, whereas a pyramid scheme sells people. That is, you can make money solely by acquiring more people who pay to be apart of it, in a pyramid scheme. I'm still not sure how I feel about MLMs. If it's actually a good product maybe it's not a bad thing, but when it is not, that's where it seems to get sket…
Yes, but many/most nominal MLMs are effectively pyramid schemes in disguise. New entrants at the bottom rungs of the network are typically sold a "starter kit" by whomever one rung up the network recruited them. The starter kit is going to be some marketing materials and an initial inventory of product to sell. The marketing materials convince them they're getting a great deal on the wholesale value of the product and will make their money back in no time just by selling off the starter products (and then order/sell more and keep making more!), but the truth turns out to be that the upstream is banking on turning a mild profit selling the starter kit to the new member and doesn't care whether individuals ever buy the products, and the actual product doesn't sell very well to individuals because it's not a very good product. Then the only realistic way to make back the starter kit money is to sell more starter kits to another layer of idiots who think they'll be able to sell the worthless product, ad infinitum. In such a scheme there is a "product", but the vast majority of the product that's ever manufactured just changes hands through the starter-kit system between various levels of salespersons as a form of pyramid currency and almost no consumers end up buying it.
1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the last month. Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. People are freaking crazy.
US population is growing. So the steady state employment rate requires ~190,000 net jobs to be added every month. If the number is below that the a lower percentage of population is employed this month than last month.
Hmm is this growth in population predominantly in the working age group? If more babies are being born, then they cant exactly work yet. Furthermore, what about people retiring?
1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the last month. Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. People are freaking crazy.
> Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. Unless there's a labor shortage?
True but the narrative is always about the possibility of a recession and companies being afraid to invest in their businesses. Rarely do I see this point being made.
There's another big aspect to this: the orientation of the economy towards growth. When you start asking "What happens when the population and the economy are in a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever", and the answers are pretty grim. Retirement systems, for example, need a certain ratio of productive workers for each retiree, and I can't figure out any math that makes sense for the n…
1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the last month. Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. People are freaking crazy.
Jobs are a proxy for both productivity and for citizens' share of value. Productivity without jobs is inequality, in a capitalist economy.
If we had a socialist economy with a citizens dividend, we'd care more about productivity than jobs. Even so, a human is untapped potential, and jobs tap that potential.
While there is more going on, the subtle comment about hustle culture resonates with me. Cheap labor exploitation called "hustling", and currently everyone seems to want to have a hustle. It's because we are getting screwed at our day jobs, folks, and those same employers are exploiting you again when you leave and start your hustle.
Any decent grad department will give the grad students a tuition waiver and stipend so it's actually the opposite of a pyramid scheme. In a pyramid scheme, you pay to join the pyramid. In academia, the pyramid pays you. I spent two years in a grad department in Boston that paid me to hang out and read books and occasionally grade papers. It probably wasn't the best life decision but there wasn't any exploitation.
Is it really free given the labor they get from you? Say your labor could get you $100k from a tech company but you're getting a $20k stipend + $20k fee remission from a university to do coding instead, aren't they benefitting from underpaying you by $60k?
There's another big aspect to this: the orientation of the economy towards growth. When you start asking "What happens when the population and the economy are in a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever", and the answers are pretty grim. Retirement systems, for example, need a certain ratio of productive workers for each retiree, and I can't figure out any math that makes sense for the n…
> Retirement systems, for example, need a certain ratio of productive workers for each retiree, and I can't figure out any math that makes sense for the next ~20 years. Long-term systems like this are generally constantly adjusted over time to fit circumstances, and overall productivity per person is rising overall. Reframing the problem as a target quality of life vs. a target monetary amount may also help. More gen…
The tricky bit is that human social connections, our greatest psychological need, are both the lowest cost source of value (friendship, conversion, and sex are free) and source of highest expenses (social pressure to spend money to maintain relationships and status).