Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not • Hacker News Board

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#591

Post by sintaxi » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:35 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #568

sintaxi wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're too focused on money and you may be misunderstanding my point. Price is always based on supply and demand so the nicest house is going to command the same price on the open market regardless how nice it is. The same is true for low end housing. Keep in mind its production which improves peoples life. Money is just a tool to help an economy function. Think of it like a hockey team. If your 4th line Center isn't…

Price is determined by more than just supply and demand. The price demanded is determined partially by scarcity and partially by the wealth required to create a good. The math says you fix housing affordability by building more mansions. Poor people can't afford them and the actual price change is so small for the massive investment that its insane. Building enough to push 250k houses to 200k would cost more money th…

> Price is determined by more than just supply and demand. The price demanded is determined partially by scarcity and partially by the wealth required to create a good.

"scarcity" being supply, and "wealth" being supply of money which translates to demand for housing. "demand" is people's willingness to purchase something.

> Building enough to push 250k houses to 200k would cost more money than the entire GDP and poor people still couldn't make the down payment.

You have it exactly backwards. Like I say, you're too focused on the literal cost. 250k vs 200k is entirely based on supply and demand.

Lets say we want low income people to be able to afford 2 bedroom 1k sq/ft apartments. To achieve that we need to build more 3-5 bedroom 2k sq/ft places. The wealthy will want the nicer apartments which reduces demand for the 2 bedroom place and that's how they become affordable.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#592

Post by dennisgorelik » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:42 PM UTC

southerndrift wrote: post #495

patricius wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No minimum wage is able to remove poverty. Set it too low and it has no effect, since it will be below the price you are able to get on a free market. Set it too high and fewer jobs will be available, and thus less people are able to earn money to fight their poverty.

As far as I understand it, minimum wage helps people in employer markets. Prices would go down to zero or at least the minimum cost of living if people would fully compete for jobs in markets with more workers than jobs available. Inevitably, the market for unskilled labor is an employer market because there will always be a supply of workers unless each and everybody has a job. However skilled somebody is, if he doe…

> minimum wage helps people in employer markets

No.

Minimum wage helps software developers to take away jobs from low skilled workers (because it forces employers to automate low-paying jobs).

Most of workers are hurt by minimum wage limit. The higher minimum wage limit is - the more workers are hurt by it.

It does NOT matter if job market is "employer market" or "candidate market". The impact of "minimum wage limit" increase is the same: lower skilled workers lose their jobs to software developers and other higher skilled workers.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#593

Post by sintaxi » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #581

michaelmrose wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price is determined by more than just supply and demand. The price demanded is determined partially by scarcity and partially by the wealth required to create a good. The math says you fix housing affordability by building more mansions. Poor people can't afford them and the actual price change is so small for the massive investment that its insane. Building enough to push 250k houses to 200k would cost more money th…

Obviously this was meant to be the math says you can't fix housing affordability by building more mansions.

The average home today was a mansion a hundred years ago. They became average because we built more mansions. If a hundred years ago we had built low end housing we would all be living in low end housing today. The Soviets did exactly as you are suggesting and they figured out the hard way that building low end housing leads to people have low end homes.

"Mansion" is entirely subjective. Its just a way to refer to the nicest homes available.

Well-being is based on production and production is not a zero-sum game. We can have low-income people living in high-end housing. All we have to do is keep building nice homes.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#594

Post by bsder » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 11:17 PM UTC

will4274 wrote: post #115

bsder wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where people wind up is very much a consequence of their choices. True. But we also have lots of studies showing that the best of the lowest socioeconomic class almost never do better than the laziest of the uppermost socioeconomic class.

> we also have lots of studies showing that the best of the lowest socioeconomic class almost never do better than the laziest of the uppermost socioeconomic class. Could you point me to one? I've seen a number of studies on averages, and anecdotally, this contradicts my experience, so I'd be interested in whatever data you're referring to.

Also talks about the issues of measuring inter-generational mobility ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#595

Post by beamatronic » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 11:35 PM UTC

wincy wrote: post #100

beamatronic wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone ever calculated the maximum possible wage for a job? Take strawberry picking for an example. If run by a non-profit, what is the highest possible wage? Would be interesting to see this relative to the actual wage.

I think it would fluctuate depending on the prices of strawberries. And if you spent all your money giving out the maximum possible wage and your crops failed you’d go out of business because you weren’t able to save money.

What I meant instead is if you divide up the profits per worker-hour, how much of a multiple would it be. 2x, 10x, etc.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#596

Post by angry_octet » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 12:15 AM UTC

goblekitepe wrote: post #526

angry_octet wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is one part of the problem, but I think you are being hyperbolic in describing it as the key. In many countries single parents (or single income families) are not automatically poor. Having a single income (at minimum wage) be above the poverty/food stamp line would be a start. Sick/carers leave and subsidised childcare also have huge impacts in allowing mothers to retain higher paying jobs. The real question is…

Because the American philosophy is that people who make good decisions should not have to subsidize the poor decision making of others. America has a significant social safety net, but should responsible citizens pay for the upkeep of someone who has multiple children out of wedlock before the age of 20 without any means to support those children? Absolutely not. People must take responsibility for their own actions.

Lolol. The old any and the grasshopper fallacy.

Well, the grasshopper's parents couldn't get a bank loan because they were PoC so they had poor investment options, missed out on promotions for similar reasons. Grasshopper got arrested for standing on the street while black and spent 2 months in jail because he didn't have a spare $10k for bond, and lost his job, even though charges were dropped. Ms grasshopper got sick while pregnant and had to pay $30k in hospital fees with an expensive loan. Loss of income meant they couldn't service the loan and they declared bankruptcy. Now they can't get credit for decades. Meanwhile the ant went to college and gets a good job, maximum access to tax breaks, social mobility etc.

So yeah, the poor choice to be born disadvantaged. Seriously, go back to your troll hole.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#597

Post by will4274 » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 1:34 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #594

will4274 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we also have lots of studies showing that the best of the lowest socioeconomic class almost never do better than the laziest of the uppermost socioeconomic class. Could you point me to one? I've seen a number of studies on averages, and anecdotally, this contradicts my experience, so I'd be interested in whatever data you're referring to.

Also talks about the issues of measuring inter-generational mobility ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...

I looked through the article but couldn't find a study to back your claim. Can you please look link directly to a study that specifically looks at the most successful members of the underprivileged and compares them to the laziest members or the upper class? I know a good deal about social mobility and your claim reads like something somebody made up.

Edit: in fact, the Wikipedia article directly contradicts your claim, saying "Looking at larger moves, only 4% of those raised in the bottom quintile moved up to the top quintile as adults. Around twice as many (8%) of children born into the top quintile fell to the bottom" - suggesting that the best of the underprivileged are far more successful than the laziest of the over-privileged.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#598

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #588

ryandrake wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see any attempt to shame here. Having a kid is just a really bad financial decision. I should know, I have one! Would not recommend it for someone just starting their career or trying to climb out of poverty. I wish schools would teach about the massive financial consequences of raising a child. That would probably help immensely.

Without access to contraceptives and sex education, it is impossible for women to make a decision about whether or not to have a kid. They can only choose whether or not to have sex; pregnancy just sometimes happens if they do. Good luck getting a 16 year old (any 16 year old) to make good decisions about sex. By sarcastically pretending that this 16-year-old made an affirmative choice to become a parent, the parent…

Good point--I guess I was assuming the children were voluntary, i.e. she was not raped or pressured into having children, which might be a bad assumption given her tragic background.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#599

Post by tomhoward » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:06 AM UTC

tomhoward wrote: post #491

tialaramex wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you ignore the religious association, how is this concept any different from the notion that society functions better when people are industrious and maximise their efforts to do things that are useful and valuable to others? Probably the religious connection helps illuminate the problem more than it is hiding anything. The reason this is called a Protestant work ethic is that some Christian sects don't think de…

OK. This does seem like a straw man characterisation. Or at least it's different to what I had in mind. > "The PWE quite intentionally doesn't care about those effects, what possible effect could you have next to the will of God anyway?" Can you provide any links to material that back up that claim? It's not how it's described in the Wikipedia page, for what it's worth. I'll grant you there may be some people who thi…

Just adding some further thoughts to this having had more time to think more about it.

I think my objection to the use of the term "Protestant Work Ethic" as a pejorative is that it can evoke bigotry on multiple fronts.

Most simply, it can be bigoted towards practicing/identifying Protestants.

More broadly, it can be bigoted towards "ordinary hard-working people" like my parents (who, I must point out, are in no sense conservative/right-wing in their politics or social values).

But it can be equally bigoted towards non-Protestants and/or people other than white Europeans/Westerners, by implying that a solid work ethic is uniquely identifiable with Protestants and white Europeans/Westerners, which of course is demonstrably untrue and insulting to people of other cultures/backgrounds.

I now understand that the root commenter was invoking the term as a byword for pointless busywork, as distinct from work that has meaningful outcomes.

But as I said in my parent comment, I'm not convinced that this is an accurate characterisation. At least I'm yet to see evidence for that.

I'm also curious about what people have in mind when they suggest that it shouldn't be considered necessary or important for most people to be working productively (i.e., for the actual betterment of society), in a world that seems to have limitless problems to be solved.

But I guess that's the beginning of a discussion about how we gauge the usefulness of the work people do.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#600

Post by burfog » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:56 AM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #390

hhjinks wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not absolve her of her irresponsibility. 99% of 16-year-olds realize having a kid is a bad idea. She made her bed, and now she sleeps in it. I can empathize with her situation, but I can not empathize with anyone saying she is not herself at least partly responsible.

Why are we making motherhood something that cuts into someone’s career at all? Furthermore why are we making motherhood something that should punish the mother? Is it okay that a mother go without resources because she mothered too young? Is it fair/meritocratic to her child?

Motherhood doesn't cut into someone's career. Motherhood is a career. It's a privilege, not a punishment.

People who make bad decisions will often go without resources. Society thus diverts resources to people who make good decisions. Things work better this way, with much less waste. We get more messed up families if government pays people to have messed up families.

I don't think that "she mothered too young". There is nothing wrong with age 16. The problem is instead that she didn't first find a suitable husband to support her family.