81–90 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 1930s, a store clerk in a large city could afford to support a family in a home they would eventually own on their single income. Today, a couple with that same job would likely be in public housing and would be scraping by.
What is the comparative quality of life like or those two examples?
This might be the case but many jobs I feel like would no longer be worth paying anyone to do at that rate. That would suggest to me that the productivity of minimum/low wage workers has not increased at the same rate as productivity generally. Which would make sense given most of that increase is attributable to technology which isn’t distributed evenly through different sectors of the economy etc.
This is the lump of labour fallacy. Edit: in the form, the set of jobs we have right now is fixed and will be the same for all time. The flow of money is circular. If lower-paid people had more disposable income, they would spend more on things that employ other people. Services like restaurants or haircuts or yoga classes or personal trainers or personal shoppers or life coaches, the last three of which are pretty n…
Personal shoppers and life coaches I think kick in a lot higher than you do.
This might be the case but many jobs I feel like would no longer be worth paying anyone to do at that rate. That would suggest to me that the productivity of minimum/low wage workers has not increased at the same rate as productivity generally. Which would make sense given most of that increase is attributable to technology which isn’t distributed evenly through different sectors of the economy etc.
Right, this is where this sort of blanket extrapolation breaks down. Has the average productivity grown that much? Sure, I can believe that. Has the productivity at the lower margin grown that much? I seriously doubt that. The value created by stocking shelves at wal-mart just doesn't really change over time. There's a lot of labor on the lower end that is a solved problem with all the productivity wrung out of it de…
The fact that the stores themselves are physically able in practice to enjoy this increase in productivity without increasing pay to the people stocking shelves says very little about how the productivity of stocking shelves has changed.
I'm struggling to understand how productivity has anything to do with salary. Productivity increases are inevitable for everything as automation keeps improving. Salaries go up with demand for skills. If its more difficult to hire for a critical role (a skilled job or competitive), or the role generates a lot of value for a company, salaries go up. Simple economics. Low skill jobs and physical labor jobs actually req…
In the 1930s, a store clerk in a large city could afford to support a family in a home they would eventually own on their single income. Today, a couple with that same job would likely be in public housing and would be scraping by.
you wouldn't pay for a computer today that has the same technology as 1930 computer, would you ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 1930s, a store clerk in a large city could afford to support a family in a home they would eventually own on their single income. Today, a couple with that same job would likely be in public housing and would be scraping by.
What is the comparative quality of life like or those two examples?
First, the 1930s aren't a great point of comparison (with Great Depression occurring then). The 1950s are a better comparison.
Second, yes the broader advance of science and technology has lifted many boats simultaneously - we've all benefited from the advance of communications, medications, travel opportunities, etc (with some notable setbacks for those forced to pay the environmental costs of some of those advances).
It's unquestionably better to be a non-white person in the US today than it was in the 1950s, even with all the systemic issues that still disproprortionately hinder them today.
But by many other criteria, quality of life is worse:
- Affordability of educational opportunities (i.e. the housing/school/childcare cost inflationary nexus, university fees)
- Housing insecurity (many families pushed dislocated by rapidly rising rents).
- Level of education/qualification required to achieve middle class comforts like housing security and good education for your kids (it'smuch higher). As others have noted, IPads and PlaysStations are not indicators of middle class comfort - paid vacation is.
- Increasing despair/hopelessness/alienation/failure due to winner-take-all dynamics, with effects like the drug/opioid epidemics, mental illnesses, homelessness, high concentrations of violent crime in disadvantaged populations (despite overall lower crime than in the 1970s-1990s).
- The spillover effects of all the above on those who are generally better off.
I agree that minimum wages are too low but the argument that wages should track productivity is false from economical point of view, in my opinion. The argument would be true if how people contribute to economy did not change. But over time disparity in contribution to economy changed. Hundred years ago people had very similar jobs, mostly physical, manual, where each would contribute rather similarly. Nowadays compa…
Minimum wages and tax reductions should all be indexed. Plenty of things are indexed to go up annually based, so why not the few things that really matter be it indexed down for taxes and up for minimum wages.
I agree that minimum wages are too low but the argument that wages should track productivity is false from economical point of view, in my opinion. The argument would be true if how people contribute to economy did not change. But over time disparity in contribution to economy changed. Hundred years ago people had very similar jobs, mostly physical, manual, where each would contribute rather similarly. Nowadays compa…
What stopping you from paying much more to these poor workers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 1930s, a store clerk in a large city could afford to support a family in a home they would eventually own on their single income. Today, a couple with that same job would likely be in public housing and would be scraping by.
What is the comparative quality of life like or those two examples?
Many people I know from my parent's generations bought their home in the 70s while working low-skill jobs like retail. They describe that period of life as fun and generally enjoyable. Many started families during that time.
Conversely everyone I grew up with who slotted into low skilled labor living in those small apartments self-describes as miserable. They describe the long hours necessary to to maintain what they consider a basic existence as soul-crushing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 1930s, a store clerk in a large city could afford to support a family in a home they would eventually own on their single income. Today, a couple with that same job would likely be in public housing and would be scraping by.
In the 1930s many homes only had icebox "refrigerators" that worked by putting Ice in the top to cool whatever was below. IMO productivity has been absorbed by getting more for your money in hidden inflation . Eg: today when you buy a phone (and internet access) you get a free encyclopedia (wikipedia), movie theater (youtube), camera, Video recorder, note pad and pen (app), alarm clock, calendar, ... get my drift? Sa…
That was 1940s and 1950s. I’m often amused by the “manual labor used to pay well enough to buy a house” argument since the houses available at the time were much different than those available now.