Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do contract webdev work for a multi-national in the middle of nowhere in Connecticut. The london office posted a job that is exactly what I do but is paid 5 times less. At the Edinburgh office, 7 times less. Same company, same upper-upper-upper management, but VASTLY different pay scales. Its nuts to think about, especially when I can rent a full 3 bed/3 bath house with basement and garage for about 2 times less th…
Part of that cost of rental is location. London is a world class city, highly desirable by millions of people as a place to live. Connecticut isn't.
Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
401–410 of 451 posts
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is incorrect. Maybe, show me your math proving that number is correct. I can't speak for the US, but in Canada the housing component of the CPI has utterly no connection to actual observed costs of owning or renting, at the national level as well as the municipal level. You don't have to take this as a fact (I can't really prove it if the government doesn't share their data or calculations, can I), but moreso…
Don't be lazy. The BLS publishes their methodology in detail. What specific part of it do you disagree with?
"The CPI used to include the value of a house in calculating inflation and now they use an estimate of what each house would rent for -- doesn't this switch simply lower the official inflation rate?"
"No. Until 1983, the CPI measure of homeowner cost was based largely on house prices. The long-recognized flaw of that approach was that owner-occupied housing combines both consumption and investment elements, and the CPI is designed to exclude investment items. The approach now used in the CPI, called rental equivalence, measures the value of shelter to owner-occupants as the amount they forgo by not renting out their homes.
The rental equivalence approach is grounded in economic theory, receives broad support from academic economists and each of the prominent panels, and agencies that have reviewed the CPI, and is the most commonly used method by countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Critics often assume that the BLS adopted rental equivalence in order to lower the measured rate of inflation. It is certainly true that an index based on home prices would be more volatile, and might move differently from other CPI indexes over any given time period. However, when it was first introduced, rental equivalence actually increased the rate of change of the CPI shelter index, and in the long run there is no evidence that the CPI method yields lower inflation rates than some other alternatives. For example, according to the National Association of Realtors, between 1983 and 2007 the monthly principal and interest payment required to purchase a median-priced existing home in the United States rose by 79 percent, much less than the rental equivalence increase of 140 percent over that same period."
Now, one can certainly make a reasoned argument that this is a reasonable change to tracking shelter costs in the CPI, but it is a fact that housing purchase prices are not included in CPI calculations for shelter, and it is also a fact that the majority of people choose to own their home, for very good reasons.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/home-ownership-ra...
"Home Ownership Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 64.20 percent in the first quarter of 2018 from 64.20 percent in the fourth quarter of 2017. Home Ownership Rate in the United States averaged 65.24 percent from 1965 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 69.20 percent in the second quarter of 2004 and a record low of 62.90 percent in the second quarter of 1965."
And again, I don't know about the US, but in Canada it is a little known fact that our government "just so happens" to choose their representative rental properties for CPI calculations such that the numbers they produce don't even remotely resemble the actual increase in renting costs.
The fact of the matter is, in the current environment of skyrocketing housing costs in much of the Western world, the CPI does not reflect actual cost of living increases for the citizens whose tax dollars pay the salaries of the people printing the numbers, and for statistical agencies to dismiss this by simply pointing at some technical "reason" tucked away on a website (that almost no one knows about) is a failure of democracy.
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the goal is to spread wealth more evenly . . . If the only goal was to spread wealth more evenly, then what we should do is simple appropriate all wealth beyond (num_wealth / num_people), and give it to all the people who don't have that much wealth. Then it would all be even stevens. :) But there is not just one goal. Another important goal is to still have a functioning economy after applying your policy choic…
Yes you should. Bob supported a host of vacation-related workers and kept the economy moving. You sucked money out of the economy and sat on it. Saving capital so as to be wholly self-sufficient outside the functioning of a society is not in any sense a societal benefit. It's sort of the 'eat your own dogfood' issue: let's say you don't think retirement on Social Security is bearable, and you're alarmed by public hea…
Maybe sdhgaiojfsa invested it in the hotel that Bob stayed at on vacation. (If Bob spent $10K on vacation, he's probably not staying in a grass hut.)
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying there isn't usable advice in that book, which I have read, but in full disclosure, the book's author, Robert Kiyosaki, fictionalised most of the anecdotes contained within it. Additionally, he operates a real estate "investing" school that advocates and instructs semi-legal, morally questionable predatory practices. It is openly modelled after Trump University, Trump being Kiyosaki's business mentor an…
> Additionally, he operates a real estate "investing" school that advocates and instructs semi-legal, morally questionable predatory practices. Yeah, it's 90% trivial platitudes about "buy low, sell high" and "invest your money wisely", and then a few pages about how he actually made his money (if that part is true, anyway): Haunt foreclosure auctions to flip the houses. Skeezy.
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
My example comes from Greece where I reside for the past 9 months. People owning touristic buisnesses on the islands are moaning about how much they need more staff and can't find any, and they are arguing why younger people tend to not work and just receive benefits instead of going to work. The argument here that they won't understand though is that, 1st they are paying very low. They are all willing to pay the min…
> The unemployment benefit is 400+ euros per month. So tell me who in their right minds would go to work for 500 euros or even 800 euros, whilst they have to spend petrol to get from and to work, work prolly 10+ hours a day, in the sun most likely cause thats what means tourism industry, There are always people who don't just want to live off the dole. Also a lot of the people who complain about crappy entry level wa…
Ever read about Sun Hydraulics?
"At Sun, we have no job titles, no hierarchy, no formal job descriptions, no departments, no budgets, no direct sales channel, no close supervision, and only some work instructions."
https://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2016/09/15/sun-hydraulics-sh...
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#406If you're in a position that allows it, save what you can and invest it in the market. Buffet, Dalio, etc. etc. have been preaching this for decades.
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes you should. Bob supported a host of vacation-related workers and kept the economy moving. You sucked money out of the economy and sat on it. Eh. I'd rather say that Bob diverted labor toward supporting his luxury consumption, whereas I made capital available for increased production (of cars, houses, food, etc.). The truth is somewhere in between. I think your read on this is a little too simplistic.
It seems to me that the burger Bob bought (and the check the restaurant wrote to its supplier for the ground beef, and the check the supplier wrote the farmer for the cow) is a direct payment into the food production system, while 'making capital available' may or may not land anywhere near the real economy. What's the sophisticated view here?
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, at a very high level, banks can use saved money to lend to businesses or individuals at a given multiplier. If a bank has insufficient deposits, it can't lend any more money. This is called fractional-reserve banking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking So when you make a deposit, you are effectively causing a fraction of that deposit to be available for lending. This is what you're getting…
> any normal person with any financial savvy knows that market returns are much better than deposit returns And, if I understand the arguments, that's confirmed by Piketty's r (return on capital) > g (economic growth rate). My concern is that more money is getting tied up in chasing financial assets than in the real economy (houses, hamburgers, cows, etc.) If you have financial assets, that's good. If you don't, that…
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#409It’s interesting how much momentum there is in these processes. After several decades of big wage gains, during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, the nominal increases could not be stopped, even as the economy weakened in the 1970s and 1980s. Back then all the wage cuts had to done through inflation. Nowadays there is no inflation, and no momentum to restart wage increases. This part of the article says it right: “””The u…
However if you deregulate banks then you can replace wage growth with credit growth - increased private debt - which keeps the plates turning. You don't increase wages, you increase the debt people put themselves in overall - student debt, mortgage debt, credit cards. That has the advantage of putting a huge monkey on people's back forcing them to work ever harder in a system that structurally has fewer jobs than people that want them.
Then when that falls apart, you plead with the government to plough huge amounts of public money into the banks, so they can restart the credit engine.
The cycle that lead to 2008 will repeat again with ever lower interest rate peaks in each cycle.
Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engineers wages in China often surpass even SV wages. China is not cheap anymore if you live in Beijing or Shanghai for example.
They don't surpass SV salaries but can definitely match EU wages.