Average education levels for women when Abe Lincoln was president was 2nd-4th grade level. People routinely quit school after 8t grade. Often, only people who wanted a serious professional career went on to high school.
It is within my lifetime that we moved from more than half of all people living outside of cities to more than half living within cities. Not terribly long ago, most jobs were farm related in some fashion.
I don't know what the solution is, but I seriously doubt that most people today would feel like someone with a 2nd grade education or even an 8th grade education deserves a job as they are, without first getting more education. As society evolves, there tends to be upward pressure on how much education is needed to get even an entry level job. This is not merely assholery by the people running the bureaucracy or whatever. Things seem to genuinely get more complicated and take more skill.
I think one big piece of the puzzle is that we need to bring back genuinely affordable housing. It has largely gone the way of the dinosaur. I think this puts enormous pressure on people, regardless of what kind of job they have. It cuts off a lot of avenues.
But I seem to be howling into a void. Everyone seems to be discussing UBI and largely ignoring the fact that even if you cut everyone a check for some kind of basic income, if we don't solve some of our housing issues, you will still see growing numbers of people either homeless or crammed together like sardines in a space not intended to hold that many people.
And you seem to miss the fact that with UBI you have no incentive to live and stay in an expensive area.
For the deposit amount on an average house where I live I would cover 80% of the cash price of a bigger house country side. But you know, I'd have no work.
The problem is not housing, the problem is cramming all the work in cities. My last 3 jobs could've been done remotely, I asked and was always denied even while offering to take a pay cut.
I and many like me despise living in cities, we do not live there by choice. I've slightly moved out of a big one (London) but still live/work in the outer rim where housing is a dream far away, even on a way above average salary.
Give me UBI and I quit my job to settle country side tomorrow, so would my wife. So would a few of my colleagues.
Like many people here on HN, I can work from anywhere with electricity, Internet and decent cell phone coverage. But I still strongly prefer a bigger city, and I even prefer to be close to the city center, not out in suburbia. The reasons are many:
- close to the city center I can chose between some of the best schools in the country for my kids. Outside the city center, I would have to chose a mediocre school. In the cuntryside, I would have to have to go with whatever is there
- I like going out with my wife. In the city we can chose between all kinds of cuisines, cafes and bars. In a village, we would be lucky to find a pub with fries. In suburbia that would be a strip mall.
- Shopping in easy in the city center. Whether you like it or not, you need to do groceries on a daily basis and to buy clothes etc every now and then, and this is far easier when you live in the city.
- I like to walk for things (walk my kids to school, walk to do groceries, or just walk for the sake of it). Curiously, I find that this is easier in the city center with sidewalks and parks than in the countryside, where I would walk in the side of a highway or road.
- In the city center I can do sports (tennis, soccer). Yes, I might find that option in the countryside or in suburbia, but in the city I can chose between 10 different teams, venues etc.
- I like people. There are many more people in the cities, especially younger people.
- I like to travel. I can take the metro to the airport in the city and visit hundreds of places within a a few hours of flight. Driving 2 hours to the nearest local airport to transfer to a bigger airport would kill that. I live far from my family and friends. They would visit much less if I didn't live near an international airport.
What I am trying to say is that I think nowadays people live in the city for many other reasons than work.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/01/the-s... for one example.
I think we both agree there.
From my own limited sample I see the opposite trend as well, people who would rather live country side.
What I was getting at is that even if people like me are a small sample (20%? more, less, who knows. If anyone has got numbers I'm interested), if you free us to go live country side suddenly there's more space and housing available for people like you.
If we are talking about a UBI, we might as well start treating people like people again instead of job-executing machines!
But who cares, we'll go trash Mars with Elon.
That's probably too radical!
I am homeless. I also have portable income. I have already used that fact to move someplace cheaper. That failed to get me back into housing. I plan to move again in the near future to move someplace even cheaper.
So, no, I am not missing anything. You are just LA LA LA not listening to the fact that if you cannot find housing cheap enough that your pathetic low income will cover rent, fuck you. So, I stand by my statement that UBI won't really do shit all if we don't solve the affordable housing issue.
If you're a halfway skilled programmer you can scrape together the equivalent of what you'd get on any sort of realistic UBI doing small freelance jobs while living in the country side.
If there was a serious safety net that guaranteed a decent quality of life, a significant portion of people would be taking on those options and leave the city centers.
That's one of the problems with UBI. It has a negative impact on productivity which is bad for society.
Speak for yourself, cowboy. It's ironic, considering how affectionate HN claims to be towards "disruption" and the many of us who have learned by doing, that this comment exists here. We should not make arbitrary judgements as to what someone else deserves, especially in regards to feeding his or her family, by applying our own sensibilities so broadly.
Please consider some re-framing. Everyone deserves to be part of society. Everyone ought to have the chance to contribute to the extent they can. No one deserves to be thrown away and forgotten.
Example: My wife's uncle can't hold a job and requires assistance for basic life tasks like figuring out how to live on his own. He wakes up everyday at five, takes the bus to the hospital and works as a (volunteer) greeter. He is not capable of a lot of tasks you'd associate with the idea of a job, but the work he does benefits society (makes the world better) it also benefits him to be able to give back.
Have you ever walked into a place and had no idea what to do next? Have you ever benefited from someone calm and welcoming who provided a quick hello and simple directions? Have you ever felt lost and just needed a human to help the littlest bit? There's room for a lot more humanity in the world I see around me. I don't know if there's strictly a financial need, but it would sure make the world a better place.
But back to my uncle by marriage: His work and his maintenance of basic needs are decoupled. I would argue that he deserves both. I don't know what you deserve or what you've earned or the relationship between the two. Let's just remember not to throw people away as we plan the future we'll all live inside.
A job implies that someone somewhere is paying for that job to exist. In a free society, you can't make it compulsory for someone to pay another individual to do work that isn't valuable to the person doing the paying.
If a society does not provide an individual the potential to live a comfortable life, the individual has no incentive to help that society.
bring back genuinely affordable housing
Getting into or out of a city is this recurring nightmare, of feeling trapped in a car or cramming into a train compartment with 250 other people.
We know how to fund, develop and create residential neighborhoods, but the interconnect with commercial and industrial zones, as lives change across decades becomes the challenge. People resist being packed together in stifling ways, and rightfully so. Some people hate the claustrophobia of cities, and some people chafe at simply having neighbors. Very few people would advocate for randomly assigned neighbors, if random includes ex-convicts for violent crimes, which becomes a reality in large cities.
If it were as simple as just building many reasonable houses, and bringing any people into them, to meet the needs of anyone who wants a place to live, this would have been solved a hundred years ago.
The concept of low-rise residential & commercial is very recent, and was a reaction to the cold war (eg: lets spread out, nukes can't kill us all then!). You end up with sprawling burbs covering your best farmland, and a crapton of infrastructure to maintain at great expense. If it weren't for federal infrastructure subsidies covering the up front capital for infrastructure, most suburbs would not exist.
You can build dense, multi-story complexes with good insulation and seperation, were it not for running into your neighbors at the mailbox, you'd hardly see them at all. Most buildings built from 2002 on in Seattle are of this caliber, and having put up walls before, stapling some insulation between isn't that hard or expensive, and is worth every dollar if you plan to live there.
The solution is to fast forward through the easy parts, do not block it. The trouble then becomes managing mixed age classes.
Neither can anyone else be trusted to know what the students want or need.
At least it looks like that these days.
Kids nowadays have even a more PC curriculum. Lord help them. My 15 year old niece who we are raising comes home with some pretty crazy stuff that is required.
I started college, but quit. I've been lucky/smart in my career. I started out in the Army and moved to Federal LEO that didn't require a degree. During the 90's I took a buyout and shifted into IT.(Still don't have a degree) Went back into the Army in 2007 and left in 2009, broken. (BTW I have Post 9/11 GI Bill, and still don't go.) Was tired of IT and ironically thought I would drive a truck. As the NYT article stated, what a thankless job. People treat you as second class citizens and the pay was horrible. Back to IT where I make a very good living and live in a suburb working in that suburb. 20 minute commute most days. Yes housing is expensive, but I have a rural property that is my refuge. Yes if I lived there, I would be hard pressed to find work. The only grocery store is a Piggly Wiggly that can't be more than 10k square feet. There farthest parking space is as close as the disabled ones at WalMart, so you need to be content with limited restaurants and stores and you pretty much have to have a car. I see people walking here and there, but that isn't something many can do.
As side note, my rural county has only two permit requirements. Electrical and Septic. I can build a house out of Popsicle sticks and no one would say boo about it.
Some observations on human nature, based on first hand experience. This is anecdotal evidence, but I have family members, friends and neighbors that have worked in factories. During conversations with them about changes taking place in their workplaces I hear about how they don't like them. Most of these changes are technological in nature. Most, not all, of these folks are too lazy to learn a new machine or process. All they want to do is come home and watch TV and many cases drink and do it all over again the next day. Go to work run a machine and make quota, go home.
These folks are smart enough to learn, but just don't want to. My Grandpa was like this. He was content to go work and straighten drills all day, go home read the paper, watch the news and go to bed. He wasn't a drinker.
I would ask him if he got bored straightening drills all day and he would just shrug. I couldn't get my mind around doing something that boring all all day. This was the 1970's BTW.
Just my 2 cents.
It's impossible to solve affordable housing by constructing more buildings and regulating prices. The only solution is to decrease demand, and large scale UBI helps do that because it frees people up to move to cheaper cities without having to worry so much about finding a job there.
There's a ton of affordable housing in the United States, the problem is the lack of jobs in those locations.
Why do we still have archaic zoning that forces worthless parking to be built (sub-$0.50sqft parking vs $3-4sqft housing)? Fixing this alone would cut $150 to $300 a month off rent in many complexes, as it is another massive cross-subsidy that goes markedly unused in newer buildings.
Lets not even touch on how zoning in nearly every city blocks high density development in smart areas (eg. adjacent to mass transit) and causes medium to low density, super expensive slum to be built. Who really wants a $600k 2 bed/1 bath home when a similar condo would be less than half the price on the same land?
TL;DR: Zoning is killing our cities and causing horrid price increases. Kill zoning, keep fire code, watch housing prices stabilize.
I do.
So I bought a place with a similar "you 'overpaid this much' ratio". Why? So we could live in (/on the edge of) Cambridge and have a small yard for my kids and dog to play in, have BBQs, grow plants and flowers, have a driveway/garage, a basement for projects and tinkering, etc.
It quite literally means that I will have to work 5-8 years longer before retirement to afford the excess we paid over a condo in a similar neighborhood. To me, that tradeoff (which is enormous - 12-20% of my prime adult years) is worth it.
The result is that while purchase prices (which are unregulated) have continued to increase in line with the rate of increase in other desirable world cities, rent prices are increasing at a much lower rate - and they started relatively (compared to purchase price) low to begin with.
Of course it's not a perfect system and i wish they'd cut down on the burocracy to enable building more units faster, but it did show an effect.
(Don't get into a suburb trap though. Mixed use is best to reduce unnecessary traffic.)
Dense development is cheaper in both the short term & long term, if we remove zoning barriers to it we can have affordable, unsubsidized and non-rent controlled apartments in Seattle. Instead we mandate worthless parking be built, despite that it is extremely costly and goes unused quite often, while capping and limiting how large & tall buildings are, kneecapping sustainable, affordable housing.
It's impossible to solve affordable housing
by constructing more buildings and
regulating prices.
> I seriously doubt that most people today would feel like someone with a 2nd grade education or even an 8th grade education deserves a job
Thankfully, a large number of people in the world support the idea of feeding the hungry in a way or another.
I desperately want to figure out how to establish an adequate earned income. I am not pro Basic Income. You can keep your charity. It is almost never anywhere near even the very average, middle of the road quality of the cheapest fast food places.
When free food is as good as what you relatively rich people are eating, then you can talk to me about how wonderful this impetus is. Until then, I would like a fucking adequate earned income, thanks. And I would like to see that standard applied more generally.
People who imagine they are generous, good people are very, very often just justifying incredibly bad treatment of other people that they don't really believe deserve a real life, like they have. If they believed that, instead of giving charity, they would create jobs and build affordable housing. But, no, we can't do that. And fuck you all to hell to the poor schmucks ending up homeless because of the incredibly shortage of affordable housing. Y'all all must just be losers. It couldn't possibly be that society as a whole is all kinds of fucked up and you just happened to draw one of the excessive number of short straws.
To be honest, I find that people who genuinely believe that about themselves are oblivious to how utterly hypocritical and inconsistent they are as human beings.
Some of the worst people in history have acted out of perceived righteousness.
I'm less concerned with what people's feelings are than I am about results. The problem here is the minimum wage. We send people to sub-par schools in shitty areas, denying them the ability to get the skills to be productive. Then we require employers to discriminate against them if their productivity is insufficient to justify the minimum wage. Without the minimum wage that abysmally educated person would be more likely to get some amount of productive work and learn skills which would make them qualified for other jobs with higher pay.
Wow that is a very controversial opinion. With a higher minimum wage, that person would have disposable time they could use for whatever they want, including study.
It's all well and good to want to study but for some their are many roadblocks. Not all bootstraps are made at the same length and some are just a little too short to reach.
Perhaps reducing or eliminating the minimum wage would make employers more productive and more profitable; they could then put that money back onto circulation, making life better for the entire economy. Or it could reinforce the concentration of wealth and put companies into the awkward position of not having anyone to sell their products to.
That's a very shallow view of the market, pretending like moving one thing doesn't move everything else. If the price of labor goes down, the price of goods and services will shortly follow suit. That's why shit produced in China has been so cheap, labor is cheap.
>Perhaps reducing or eliminating the minimum wage would make employers more productive and more profitable;
It would increase the economic efficiency of the entire system. The employers are already productive and profitable, they just ship your job to China where labor is cheaper. Not only are you unemployed, but every moment you lack a job your market value is decreasing. Nobody wants to hire someone who has been unemployed for a long time. You're also not building useful skills, or a reputation/references for being a good worker.
We have all met some damn smart people who never went to college, or learned how to read or write profeciently. My father was brilliant at arithmetic from learning to count money in restaurants and gambling. He was a middle school dropout. The trucker didn't all of a sudden go from stupid to intelligent once someone showed him how to read -- all he needed to do is for someone to teach him!
There is a wonderful TED talk about how our STEM-driven craze is a tragedy in terms of how it defines human intelligence by a renounced English teacher and professor, highly recommend it.
The short of it is we should never discriminate on arbitrary things like IQ, reading levels, etc, because we have no idea what even constitutes "intelligence", much less how to duplicate it from adolescent to adolescent.
You might say it depends on whether it pays or not... but if there's a paycheck in exchange for essentially useless work, it's just welfare in disguise.
Having said that, I'd start by simply funding as many small, <18 month road projects as I could. That'd suck up a lot of labor, tighten the labor market quickly and easily.
How many devs out there writing framework (or insert your idea of re-inventing the tech wheel again here) of the week at a job only because VCs are willing to burn up their capital for that lottery ticket?
"Useless" is highly subjective.
Consider this simplified case. I hire you to sweep the floors in my apartment, and I pay you by the hour. I have a vacuum cleaner, but I don't offer it to you, because then you'd have done the job much sooner, and would be paid less - and I want to pay you more.
Do you see the absurdity in this arrangement? I hope it's fairly obvious. The moral choice in this case is, of course, to let you use the vacuum cleaner, but pay you the same amount as for manual sweeping (minus any amortization costs for the cleaner). I don't lose anything this way, since I've parted with the same amount of money. You have gained, because you've got the same money for less back-breaking work - and now you can either enjoy some extra rest, or perhaps go clean someone else's house and earn more money.
The difference in amount of work you performed in the first case vs the second case is the "useless work" here - and there's nothing subjective about it.
The difference in amount of money paid for a manual sweep and for vacuuming, if you were paid at the same rate for both, is the welfare, because I didn't have to pay you more than the market price of the hour of your work.
Note, I do not consider the term "welfare" to be in any way negative. I just wish we recognized it for what it is, and consciously designed our economic policies around it, instead of pretending that it's something else - in this case, by forcing people to do useless work for it just to satisfy our sense of "propriety" (that they shouldn't "get it for free").
In a way, this applies to most software work. While each company is just trying to survive, the world is rewriting hundreds of thousands of ERP, CRM, databases, OSes, libraries...
But, uh, seriously, what kind of vacuum is it?
Back on topic I think many people that goes to higher education does not valuate the work of people that clean or do other manual laybour. I have done quite a few different jobs like cleaning, transport and servicing machines and it differs a lot between workplaces how much you feel appreciated. A school for example would not be able to stay open if noone was sweeping the floors every day...
I've got a C3, which I mainly bought to keep the pet hair and allergens under control. My only regret is that I don't vacuum nearly often enough.
I will do some research on dyson though.
(As long as you don't have small carpets, it's so powerful it'll actually lift them up)
I think the difference between job and hobby more lies with enjoyment and something that one would consider doing regardless of paycheck. Housework doesn't often reap a paycheck, but few actually enjoy it. That qualifies as work. Arts and crafts is usually a hobby, but some folks make it into a job with a paycheck. Few adults would look at being a cashier or janitor as a hobby. A small subset can be truly both - programming, for example.
I think the much bigger distinction between job and hobby isn't so much that the job is useless (as most jobs aren't quite so), but the demands it places on your life and family. You can stop your hobby to go to your kid's play, but can't always take off work to do the same. Some jobs give much less control over your lifestyle - like trucking - yet refuses to give back enough benefits to compensate. Fast food, retail, and others have other methods of not giving back. I think these are the jobs that are basically welfare in disguise.
I don't think the distinction is inherent in the job but in the freedom and income that are generally associated with it.
I know a number of people who would be perfectly happy as cashiers if the cashier job had the same flexibility as my programming job. And to harp on UBI again: UBI by giving extra leverage to the employee might actually turn some jobs that are currently low status inflexible drone jobs into something that people will willingly do because they will have more control.
There are plenty of people who have a love hate relationship with their job because of the inflexibility imposed on them by the employer rather than anything that is fundamentally wrong with the core activity.
I don't mean that all employers are evil, they too are constrained by the current reality.
Planting trees might only be worth $5/hour for the local lumber company, but the existence value of a new forest to the population generally might be many times that.
I suspect that the amount of potential work that fits into this category is enormous.
Broadly speaking, though, I agree. This is one other case where we can do better - instead of constructing a "broken window" in the private sector and have the person repair it to keep them busy, directly utilize their labor for a socially productive task that may not be market-efficient.
But I'm not sure that there's enough of that kind of useful work (i.e. the kind that actually makes a difference) to keep everyone busy. It also feels like it's mostly easy to automate.
Perhaps we should not worry about that until all the useful work has in fact been done.
Maybe that's so trivial that it doesn't even matter?
Edit: to clarify, the market driven popsci definition is paramount because the market determines your dehumanization
In any case, since most people have not had the fortune of having the good experiences that most of us here have, I think it is merely a common service to our fellow man and woman to treat them equally no matter what and provide equal opportunities for employment -- and that includes whatever the en-vogue measure of intelligence is out there today.
* to be fair to me: I formed my opinion over years long soul searching and embellishment in countless self-help and pop-sci books on self-improvement, finally forming opinions around sound science and not junk science. But I am also a human after all, and admit my understanding of the current literature can be flawed.
Your opinion is completely unsupported by evidence. Do you truly believe someone with Downs Syndrome or a severe traumatic brain injury has the capacity to be a theoretical physicist?
The belief that everyone is capable of great things might be comforting, but it's ultimately very cruel. Many people will try their very hardest and get the best available support, but still struggle with the most basic tasks of life and work. Pretending otherwise just absolves us of responsibility. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card when we see people suffering.
We need a society that provides a good life for everyone, regardless of their ability to contribute. It's great if truckers can retrain to be software developers or psychotherapists, but we shouldn't be planning our society based on that assumption. Some people are very unlikely to develop advanced professional skills, but that's fine. They're still human beings and they're still entitled to a dignified and fulfilling life.
There are all sorts of "intelligence" that I just don't have. I don't get social cues. They just don't register for me. There is a "social intelligence" that I don't have. But I have seen people who clearly do.
Likewise, there are things that I find to be quite natural for me, and other people look at me like I'm crazy and they don't comprehend how I can do those things.
Whether you call it "intelligence" or some other word, I think the result is the same.
The Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation (http://jocrf.org/aptitudes) uses the term "aptitudes":
> Aptitudes are natural talents, special abilities for doing, or learning to do, certain kinds of things easily and quickly. They have little to do with knowledge or culture, or education, or even interests. They have to do with heredity. Musical talent and artistic talent are examples of such aptitudes.
> Some people can paint beautifully but cannot carry a tune. Others are good at talking to people but slow at paperwork. Still others can easily repair a car but find writing difficult.
Is that a better term than "intelligence" for what you had in mind?
Ironically, this directly contradicts your point of view, since your maximum physical potential is strongly determined by your genes. Only very few people have the potential to be a Usain Bolt or a Michael Phelps.
> Every single human being has the potential to be an Einstein, so to speak, in my opinion [...]
Well, it seems that your opinion is wrong, then.
Willing to work != provide value someone is willing to pay for
I differ a bit, but the idea that we are shoving only one type of skill set over another is what he touches on. He argues a lot for creativity how it's over looked in modern schooling.
https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_cre...
I lived with him when he transferred into uni. He couldn't read very well until junior year but he forced himself to learn to read and write. He was never completely illiterate but maybe a 4th grade reading level when I met him.
It's been 5 years since then and you would never know. He graduated college and got a solid job, and his reading and writing skills are basically normal.
Damn proud of that guy
I'm in that age bracket (30-50), and trying to transition from tech-support/helpdesk into something like coding/linux-admin/devops/etc, anything that would pay enough to allow raising a family in/near a major US city.
I find it daxx hard to even get a phone call back because of my age.
I spend a lot of time learning this and that and have s small portfolio that can be viewed. But still no joy.
So I keep on pressing myself to learn new skills, putting in 10-30 hrs a week, ON top of my 9-5 job. I did not I work this hard with this much focus in college. Honestly much regrets.
Posting this with a disposable account.
Since the layoff, I've been able to scrape together a few phone interviews, but I find that it is damn hard to get a second interview -- anywhere.
It's not just hard to get into this line of work at this age, it's also hard to get another job in this line of work when you have already been working in this industry for over 25 years.
The last time I was interviewing, one recruiter said to me that they were looking for someone who was just exactly like me -- but just five to ten years younger -- and asked me if I knew of anyone who was looking. I don't see how you can have as much experience as I did at this time, if you didn't start playing with computers back in 1982.
Full disclosure: I (as does almost everyone else here) have a stake in this as I will likely someday be a 50+ employee or job seeker.
P.s. I'm going to stop writing this, but the more I think about what you wrote the more infuriated I get. What the * is wrong with that recruiter? At the least they should be fired for expressing that thought, but they should also suffer in some way for having that thought. They have no business considering your age at all, especially with 50 being decade(s) below retirement age.
There are also limits to what I am capable of doing. I like to think I'm pretty good at the Ops side of the house, and I'm more than happy to work with Devs as part of a larger team, but I am not a Programmer or Developer. I can hack on code to a degree, but I simply do not have the capacity to develop code from scratch.
My wife and I have lived in Austin since 2006, and we are not willing to relocate in order for me to get a job. Since she is an international business lawyer who has always made at least twice what I have ever made (even comparing her worst year to my best), it just doesn't make financial sense for us to move.
So, I'm limited to jobs I can get here in Austin, or to work remotely. Austin being the town it is, there are lots of startups here, but they want devs and not ops. Or they want devs who can do everything.
There's also a number of big enterprise companies here, but of course they want Windows. The University isn't an option because I found out the hard way that they are the biggest flying Mongolian clusterfuck in town.
Sigh....
So your original comment was a bit disingenuous, you have a lot of conditions to where you'll work, but you then you also tried to use the "age discrimination in tech" narrative to garner sympathy (so I suppose). If there is age discrimination in tech (which I don't see myself, I see the opposite), then commentary like your original post don't help.
They have a business problem they need solved, and that almost surely means "come in, walk around, talk to people, and figure it out".
I wonder, is it the recruiter doing the age screening on their own or is it coming from above?
Maybe you could put this effort into building something for yourself? Because, the cruel reality is, the older you get the less likely it you'll get the break you are currently aiming at.
I worked in construction for most of my life but once I past 40 it became obvious that nobody wants to hire someone older and better qualified than they are.
Hope it works out for you.
I am working in a tech company and my colleagues/friends frequent HN. I am just not in one of those high paying positions.
But I will retain this account to check for responses.
Do you have any suggestions in general? Sorry I cannot post much more details on my part though.
My gut instinct is you'd have more luck in more rural areas - jobs do exist in them, I'm technically employed in the agricultural industry.
Also if you are interested in all this stuff try this -- [https://www.visualstudio.com/dev-essentials/] you get free 3 months trials for Pluralsight and Linux Academy, you can download and watch some video courses during commute and that might reduce your study time at home a bit.
Disclaimer -- not affiliated with Microsoft or Linux Academy or Pluralsight, just trying to be of some help :)
This is a critical point that most people just glaze over. Actually, I would refine your statement to be "Its important that there are jobs for people on the left side of the bell curve". That's really what the issue is when you get down to it. Half of the population is above average in intelligence and general ability. And half the population is below average. To have any sort of sustainable society there needs to be opportunity for those below average to be able to live decent lives. Offshoring jobs is the single biggest problem in this regard. Many, many middle class jobs with decent/good pay are continuously offshored, especially if they are office jobs because most office jobs can generally be performed from anywhere. I've seen many cases where there are 1-2 highly paid US employees that manage oversees teams in India, Singapore, etc. The problem with that (other than the obvious) is how does one gain the experience to be in those higher paid jobs if you are a US citizen? All the entry level jobs are oversees being managed by someone who was around before the offshoring.
Food service, personal services, and trades are my answer. No one in India is going to cut your hair, unclog your sink, rewire your kitchen, paint your walls, re-roof your house, or serve your dinner.
And yet we seek for ever higher minimum wages, decreasing the number of low-skill jobs and push for even more automation.
Edit: To those downvoting me, could you explain why? Because minimum wage has decreased[1], wages have been stagnant[2], and globalization has undeniably affected the midwest negatively[3]. I suppose the impact of illegal immigration is up for debate, but when you have 10 million illegal immigrants working for less than minimum wage in a country of 300 million, of course there will be wage suppression.
[1]http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-table-4... [2] https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2016/09/1... [3]http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2012/04/09/the-global-midwest...
Economics is complicated and far from reliable. The idea that removing the minimum wage would result in full employment is ridiculous. It would make businesses richer and subject millions of people to worse poverty. There is open debate that the minimum wage even reduces employment [1].
It's an inefficient one. We can do a better job at improving their welfare at a lower overall cost.`
>The idea that removing the minimum wage would result in full employment is ridiculous.
I'm not arguing that at all.
>It would make businesses richer and subject millions of people to worse poverty.
So combine abolishing the minimum wage with a complimentary policy that makes businesses poorer and alleviate the poverty of millions. A minimum wage is not the only way to make employers pay to alleviate the poverty of the working poor.
e.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2951110
So while that paper's data and conclusion may be sound, neither that paper nor other research supports the notion that low-skilled labor demand is, overall, strongly responsive to changes in the minimum wage.
That said, there are a ton of problems in that paper. Their estimates on changes in restaurant entry in the same timeframe as exit were statistically insignificant, so they gratuitously look at a completely different timeframe and data set which happens to support their conclusion.
Economies are just too complex and multifaceted to be able to say that a minimum wage bump will clearly decrease employment. It's worth noting that the political pressure to increase wages doesn't happen in a vacuum. For example, presumably the political pressure exerted is a function of wealth inequality and thus of the capacity for the local economy to redistribute income downward.
This incredible complexity is why you get such counterintuitive results, such as that American corporate investments were highest when taxes were highest, decreasing as corporate taxes decreased, so that today both investment and taxes are at their lowest.
https://www.ft.com/content/a4e01ef4-3c8d-11e7-821a-6027b8a20f23If you have specific contradictory evidence, cite it instead of a vague handwavy response.
If you look at all the literature, the results are mixed and equivocal, at least for modest changes in the minimum wage. See the empirical studies section on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Empirical_studies
The Economic Way of Thinking, Paul L. Heyne, et al.
Of course, the paper you cited doesn't make any claims about aggregate labor demand, nor even labor demand in the restaurant industry. It only looks at exists and entries using some novel data sources. The only truly interesting thing about that paper, IMO, is it's novel use of Yelp. That paper raises a ton of questions--good questions--about data sources and methodologies. I wouldn't venture to rely on it's conclusions for any economics argument.
"We then exploit the multiple city-level minimum wage changes in recent years across the Bay Area to implement a difference-in-differences design to investigate the effects of the minimum wage. We find suggestive evidence that a higher minimum wage leads to overall increases in restaurant exit rates – depending on the specification, we find that a $1 increase in the minimum wage leads to approximately a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of exit, although the estimate is only statistically significant in certain specifications.
"Next, we present robust evidence that the impact of the minimum wage varies with the rating of the business. Our point estimates suggest that a $1 increase in the minimum wage leads to an approximate 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit for the median 3.5-star restaurant but the impact falls to zero for five-star restaurants. These effects are robust to a number of different specifications, including controlling for time-varying county characteristics that may influence both minimum wage policies and restaurant demand, city-specific time trends to account for preexisting trends, as well as county-year fixed effects to control for spatial heterogeneity in exit trends."
Economists disagree about this issue. Lots of the people who are affected by the minimum wage support it.
Remember, it's okay to not know something.
Edit: thanks for the source. I don't think an analysis of the minimum wages affect on restaurant exits answers the question "Is the minimum wage good for those whose skills are in excess supply?". It may be bad for the number of restaurants but is it bad for restaurant workers?
It's better to look at similar localities where there are constrasting costs. There are still stores in Philadelphia and Trenton even though sales tax is 0% in Delaware. Likewise, counties or adjoining states with higher wages than neighbors are still able to compete.
I worked for a retail chain in college and saw the regional numbers. The marginal differences in wages between stores in different jurisdictions was insignificant. Our stores had about 100 employees -- a $1 delta was a few thousand bucks... peanuts that barely registered in the bottom line.
There are smarter people than us who are debating this. Maybe you shouldn't hold this opinion so strongly.
Edit: Downvotes for what?
An ad hominem is not an argument. If we're going with logical fallacies to make our case, I'm going to appeal to authority: I understand this pretty well as I used to work directly on macro-economic reports at the largest broker dealer in Latin America upon which many international institutional investors based their investment decisions. Unfortunately, the citizens of the country whose economy I covered (Brazil) didn't understand these economics issues (among many), which among the reasons why its economy has contracted over 3% for the past 2+ years.
You're assuming that it's a strict wealth transfer where the size of the pie stays the same. It does not. The pie gets smaller when you reduce economic activity, which raising the minimum wage accomplishes as it eliminates jobs and puts businesses out of business. You can lie to yourself by using welfare to prop things up, but that doesn't work so well when the amount of taxes you collect to fund your welfare state drops as the economy shrinks. Eventually that gravy train runs out of steam.
I do not consider myself an expert on this topic. It's good that you do. However, your evidence is weak. You have made a leap from restaurant exits to minimum wage is bad for the workers.
That there is disagreement among people better informed than I suggests I shouldn't hold my opinion strongly without good reason.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
When you propose an alternate solution I'd like to see it in practice before throwing millions of people to the wolves.
The reason is straightforward - a higher minimum wage disproportionally affects goods and services produced by employees that get paid said wage, or close to it. These tend to be the cheaper products on the market, and so the poorer you are, the more such products are in your consumption budget. Obviously everyone has a substantial amount, so the tax is still spread around - but poor still end up paying proportionally more of it.
For another perspective at the same problem, consider what happens when the wage gets raised. Now your paycheck is higher - but so is the cost of your food, most likely, because the people producing it were also paid little, and are now paid slightly more. So the actual increase in purchasing power is less than the nominal dollar amount - and the difference is proportional to how many cheap (= produced by low-paid labor) products you consume. Whereas someone on the high middle class end of the spectrum will see some minor increases in restaurant bills and such, but it's a blip on the radar compared to their income (and their mortgage, education costs, car loan etc).
The obvious conclusion is that we should stop being half-assed about it, recognize that our existing arrangement, between min. wage and unemployment insurance, is already a kind of UBI, acknowledge that it means that we as a society are already okay with the moral argument behind UBI, and work on implementing it ASAP.
It's pretty obvious why when you look at the near slavery conditions that abused workers doing things like picking tomatos in Florida are subjected to. Shitty businessmen get away with nasty shit when workers lack protection.
The difference between today and 75 years ago is that we now import second class humans again who lack access to basic rights and import goods manufactured by peasants abroad.
But enough outcry about the companies "exploiting" the islanders was enough for the companies to say "uncle," and automate the harvest with machines. I'm sure that had an effect on the economies of the islands.
I can't really explain here why I'm in this situation for a few reasons (particularly anonymity - if my employer finds out I've said any of this I'll be fired and his "friends" will come for a visit), but here's what I can say:
my employer is a thief. Tax fraud, wage theft, copyright violation. Staff are expendable, and routinely fired for not working certain shifts (illegal, because the staff are hired for differing shifts and are not required to work extra). Contract fraud, multiple different types of harassment and abuse of staff, as well as threats against personal safety.
Basically, anything he can get away with to pocket a few dollars, he will do. I'm sure you can imagine that minimum wage is, to him, a target; if it didn't exist, he would pay us much less.
What keeps him in business is powerful friends in government (in a country with "low levels of corruption") who seem to help complaints get lost rather than actioned, and the local gangs who will have a chat with anybody who gets out of line.
That sound horrible.
Is there anything that can be done to bring such people to justice without exposing dvtv75?
It does part of that, but creates a precarious position for most of the workers. If the minimum wage is higher than the market-clearing wage (as might be evidenced by 100s of applicants for every opening at a fast food restaurant), then the employer knows there is little repercussion for firing (or force-quitting) an employee.
"Plenty more where they came from" and the employee knows that they just passed the 100:1 gauntlet to get this job, so they're a bit more inclined to put up with BS.
But it's worse than most other forms of welfare. We can do better. Much better.
The rest of the argument I'm quite sympathetic to. It just always puzzles me, this assumption that labor share will always destroy itself by turning into exactly increased costs, as if owner profit was either nothing, or completely non-negotiable.
Deadweight losses. A bored teenager that'd rather have $3 than an hour of his time sits at home. A retired person would rather tell stories to a bored teenager for an hour than have $3. The law says that it's illegal to make this trade, even though both parties are better off afterwards.
There's other issues from messing with prices - shortages/surpluses, excesses or deficiencies of quality, search costs, and misallocation of resources. It really all boils down to the same thing, though. Prices provide feedback between what buyers want and what sellers provide. Mess with prices, and society starts lying to itself about what it wants or how hard getting it is. Do Not Mess With Prices.
>When you propose an alternate solution I'd like to see it in practice before throwing millions of people to the wolves.
We have an alternate solution, we just reserve it for people who somehow "deserve" to be treated humanely through virtue of being disabled or elderly. Everyone deserves to be treated humanely. Expand the current welfare system to everyone, eliminate the incentive distortions from means and needs-testing people, and pay for it through tax increases.
"Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated." - Thomas Sowell
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Are the inefficiencies you mentioned significant? I suggest you read the empirical studies section of the Wikipedia article.
I think you can have an opinion but I don't think you can treat it as fact.
Note: your example of the teenager seems ridiculous as people get paid under the table all the time.
Edit: prices are always messed with. Inefficiencies are created and removed every day. A minimum wage is just a large union saying we want our share of the value we create. If you want to argue that they are messing with the efficiency of the economy or are shooting themselves in the foot then you should have damn good evidence.
So show us anywhere in the Western world that does that; improves the welfare of the poor without a minimum wage.
But show us with evidence from other countries that are currently employing the system, don't defer to untested and unproven "it could be so if..." claims, please.
There is legislation that binds non-union members at non-union workplaces to union agreements.
Anyway, yes there are angel investors and companies that exist only to match them to those needing the money. Again, probably not on the scale you will find in Silicon Valley.
No, that is entirely unrelated to why it was created.
It was created because The Deep South was unwilling to pay a black man "a white man's wages" and blacks were routinely paid about half what whites made for the exact same job. The policy was initially a failure. Businesses in the South fired blacks en masse rather than pay a black man the same as a white. This did not change until WW2 caused very serious labor shortages.
Minimum wage was an antiracism policy aimed at forcing the Deep South to get more in line with the rest of the nation and stop having Jim Crow bullshit linger on in the form of literally paying blacks half as much as whites. It was intended to put a stop to that practice.
Whatever they do with it now for REASONS, the original federal minimum wage law was passed for the above reason.
Could you offer some support for this claim? There is a recent book called "Illiberal Reformers" that seems to suggest exactly the opposite: that minimum wage policies were put in place with the intent of putting minorities out of work (rather than raising their standard of living).
See some of the quotations here:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/12/thomas_leonard.html
""" The low-standard or undercutting-of-wages part of the theory, got its start with the violent activism of white Americans against Chinese immigrant workers. The title of a pamphlet published by the American Federation of Labor trenchantly captured the heart of the claim: Meat versus Rice: American Manhood against Asiatic Coolieism, Which Shall Survive? If wages were determined by living standards rather than by productivity, then the meat-eating Anglo-Saxon could not compete with the Chinese worker accustomed to eating rice.
Professor Woodrow Wilson, in his popular History of the American People, preferred the same theory of low-standard races undercutting American wages, adding a fillip of racism to cement the notion that race explained the low standards. White laborers, unable to "live upon a handful of rice for a pittance," could not compete with the Chinese, "who with their yellow skin and strange debasing habits of life seemed to them hardly fellow men at all but evil spirits, rather." """
Many of these things can be read in different ways. The modern interpretation is to read everything through a racial lens, but I don't think that captures the essence of the issue. The initial minimum wage laws really targeted sweatshops and child labor. It was viewed then that these employers had way too much power over labor and were depressing wages overall.
Where to draw the line between anti-Chinese antagonism and pushing out predatory business is subjective. But I think if you look at the circumstances surrounding the issue and the laws, you'll find more of the latter.
It laid this out very credibly. It had a very respectable list of sources. The author talked about getting original copies from someone who was old of some of the papers and what not that he referenced.
Sadly, I cannot remember the name of the book. If I can find it, I will let you know.
Also, I have read a different theory than the one you cite for why Asians ended up working on, for example, the rail lines that were laid across the U.S. It involved the fact that they drank tea, thus they boiled their water. This protected them from getting diseases that often laid up white workers in harsh settings where the water was not always safe to drink without boiling.
The racist explanations you list sound to me like explanations created by people living through the fallout who were expressing their anger rather than genuinely analyzing the situation.
They, in fact, exist outside the United States, period.
Interesting retro-rationalisation, but patently false.
When I talk about the minimum wage, what really matters is what that income can buy you. Rather than discussing nominal wage and associated costs let's just combine them and talk about real wages.
Clearly there is a point where a higher minimum wage (real) is infeasible and detrimental.
In my opinion there is a wide range of minimum wages (real) that raise the welfare of those whose skill is in excess supply.
Whoa, that's a bit of a strawman innit? If someone proposed punishment for workers getting paid less than X, it'd be an appropriate analogy. But people are instead proposing punishment for employers who pay workers less than X.
To be relevant, your analogy ought to be something like "evicting people should be illegal".
You are both saying that a job should provide more buying power.
(Which turns out to be much more widely applicable than generally realised.)
Those at the bottom today have a standard of living that is in many ways better than the standard of living of a billionaire a century ago. Why? Productivity gains.
and the workers in those countries and the people who those goods and services...
You can measure a country's success not by how much its top-earners pull down but by how much those at the bottom make.
> It should be much cheaper to have a decent life today than in the 60s.
It would be if not for the problem of housing and transportation being vastly more expensive than they were in the 1960s. You could get a cheap suburban home back then for less than a year's salary. Try that now and you're living 300 miles from the nearest city.
Wealth isn't measured in how much you make. It's measured in choices.
You can measure a country's success by how many choices those at the bottom have.
https://mises.org/blog/wealth-isnt-just-measured-money-%E2%8...
> It would be if not for the problem of housing and transportation being vastly more expensive than they were in the 1960s. You could get a cheap suburban home back then for less than a year's salary. Try that now and you're living 300 miles from the nearest city.
You've now correctly identified the problem. Housing costs in the US are out of control and have been for a long time because we have policies that promote housing as an investment asset that should always grow in value. Many baby boomers have their entire net worth tied up in housing and have supported policies for decades that increase the value of that asset to support their retirement. Housing has become a vehicle for an inter-generational transfer of wealth from the young to the old.
It may be said that of this hard lot no one has any reason to complain, because it befalls those only who are outstripped by others, from inferiority of energy or of prudence. This, even were it true, would be a very small alleviation of the evil. If some Nero or Domitian were to require a hundred persons to run a race for their lives, on condition that the fifty or twenty who came in hindmost should be put to death, it would not be any diminution of the injustice that the strongest or nimblest would, except through some untoward accident, be certain to escape. The misery and the crime would be that any were put to death at all. So in the economy of society; if there be any who suffer physical privation or moral degradation, whose bodily necessities are either not satisfied or satisfied in a manner which only brutish creatures can be content with, this, though not necessarily the crime of society, is pro tanto a failure of the social arrangements.
Chapters on Socialism, p. 713.
-- Karl Marx
https://howmuch.net/articles/american-spending-past-75-years
What I find most telling is that average housing in 1970 is comparable to sub-poverty-line housing right now, in terms of total square footage and number of rooms -- and average housing in 1970 had considerably fewer amenities (fewer full bathrooms, less likely to have a full kitchen, much less likely to have AC or in-unit washer/dryer, etc.)
I won't attempt to tease out all of the issues that led to this, from changes in demand to zoning regulations to developer preferences. Just pointing out that "housing inflation" is a major driving factor in the cost of housing. As others have pointed out, there isn't a lot of affordable housing inventory, particularly not in big cities.
I don't believe the surveys cover "high-income" housing, but they do show median / middle-income housing growing by the mid 2010s to roughly triple the 1970s square footage. Inflation-adjusted, that means lower cost per square foot.
But it's certainly worth thinking about whether the shift to much bigger housing has been an entirely positive one, or whether it has drawbacks.
I'm not saying that one is better than the other -- I don't have an opinion on that. I am saying that the market effect is the same.
If a human is doing some work that a robot could do, the human is essentially being used as a substitute for that robot, and economics will inevitably result in them being treated as such.
If the sole point of having a human do that job is so that they can collect a paycheck, this is a thinly veiled form of a broken window fallacy - in this case, the hypothetical robot is "broken" to allow the human to step in and "fix" the problem. This is inherently an inefficient arrangement - it reduces overall productivity, which in turn reduces the total surplus value generated by the economy, that could have been used for things like welfare.
In essence, restricting automation for the sake of job preservation is welfare - except it's a very inefficient form of it, because you're wasting human labor in the process, and then there's the social cost of unhappiness for all those people forced to work shitty and meaningless jobs.
The only reason why this approach is even seriously considered is because we, as a society, can't divorce ourselves from the concept that you must work to earn a living. So when faced with technological progress that plainly invalidates this notion, we construct elaborate schemes that allow us to preserve the veneer of "propriety" as we understand it, while substantially redefining it - and we do so at the cost of considerable overhead.
It's insane. I don't expect it to change anytime soon, however.
- the means of production naturally belong to all humans collectively
- resources should be allocated based on need
- being born entitles you to be kept alive by the rest of your species
I don't think anything "naturally" belongs to anyone. The whole notion of property and its ownership does not exist in nature - it's a social construct. So it's up to us to figure out the arrangement that works best, depending on our definition of "best". That is also inherently subjective - some people would claim that it's best for property rights to be absolute and inviolable, as a guarantee of stability, for example.
I think that long-term, some form of collective ownership is the only way to stabilize. But I don't know what form it would take. I doubt it would be anything similar to self-proclaimed socialist states of our age, which have clearly failed in that regard (indeed, many lefties argue that they don't actually have society-wide collective property ownership, but instead it's the collective ownership by the ruling bureaucratic elites - "the Party" etc - excluding your average citizen).
> being born entitles you to be kept alive by the rest of your species
We're clearly heading in this direction. In fact, I would even say that first world societies have already adopted this maxim in fullest, it's just not worded quite so bluntly. If you go around and ask people this exact question, many would probably say "no". But if you go around and ask the same people about specific policies like free healthcare, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, ER not allowed to turn people away etc, that all add up to the same thing, you'll find a lot of people in favor.
> resources should be allocated based on need
This follows from the previous point, with the caveat that the "need" here is not some arbitrary subjective desire, but what's deemed to be a real need by social consensus. What this consensus is, exactly, will likely evolve over time - today we mostly talk about food, shelter and healthcare, but we're already starting to discuss e.g. access to Internet as a basic right. The logical conclusion to that is something like what Bujold described in "Barrayar":
“Poor?” said Cordelia, bewildered. “No electricity? How can it be on the com network?”
“It’s not, of course,” answered Vorkosigan.
“Then how can anybody get their schooling?”
“They don’t.”
Cordelia stared. “I don’t understand. How do they get their jobs?”
“A few escape to the Service. The rest prey on each other, mostly.” Vorkosigan regarded her face uneasily. “Have you no poverty on Beta Colony?”
“Poverty? Well, some people have more money than others, of course, but . . . no comconsoles?”
Vorkosigan was diverted from his interrogation. “Is not owning a comconsole the lowest standard of living you can imagine?” he said in wonder.
“It’s the first article in the constitution. ‘Access to information shall not be abridged.’ ”
Curious: do you see these questions as anything more than questions about "what is consensus at this time?" Does it even make sense to seek an answer on a different level than an opinion poll?
In other words, can morality be more than popular opinion?
-- Karl Marx
If you're not paying your labour what it costs them to survive, you're not operating a business. You're running a charity in which the hired help spills their life-force for the owner.
For instance, people who want to give free haircuts to homeless people that are charged/fined are people who create value that dont have jobs, being stopped from creating value by people who do. DOH preventing people from living in Tiny Houses they've built IMO falls under same category. Health insurance execs, red tape admin workers, etc.
I contend that what is important are things like human welfare and dignity, space exploration, and animals rights, to name a few.
When truckers are obsoleted I dont want to see them digging holes and filling them again. Let creative destruction work its magic, push them to succees in a competitive market, and in the meantime help with their human needs so they dont starve or go without housing or healthcare. Jobs are the wrong thing to focus on, it leads to perverse incentives.
My grandfather was a steel worker and one of his work friends was illiterate. He had gotten a job in a steel mill back in the 1960s and somehow had fallen through the cracks in the educational system. (To be fair, this man probably sought out those cracks and crawled into them but that's another matter) He was similarly not a dumb guy, he was able to learn how to perform complex jobs safely in a dangerous industrial environment.
He never admitted it at work, it would have been volunteering for vicious bullying but my grandfather was able to deduce it from his behavior and actions.
After they retired, this man finally decided to learn to read and enrolled in a program.
I can't imagine what it would be like to get into my 60s before learning how to read.
Also, I went back to college at 30 years old and not only was I a more focused and driven student than I was when I first went at 18, I was consistently more focused and driven than most of my younger classmates. I pounded out 4 degrees in 6 1/2 years.
Then ask yourself: how?
(In case anyone's offended, I'm a foreigner with ESL)
Test of English as a Foreign Language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_of_English_as_a_Foreign_L...
Not a dumb guy, but he'd slipped off the rails at a very early age, and dropped out of school as soon as he could. He did already know the alphabet and numbers. He was embarrassed to even talk about this with his peers.
Abstract ideas of "job retraining" may sound great but I think they are generally unrealistic. Folks who figured they were "done with school" at 18 or even 22 and then find themselves unemployed in their 40s have a hard time changing direction in my somewhat limited experience.
(But those students at community college who are aged between late 30 and 50? Really driven. It's embarrassing to compare typical college students to them.)