Future jobs won’t support decent living standard

[rashi]

Originally Posted by moneymike88

Originally Posted by rashi

I will never understand the mathematical obsession with a�middle class, as if there must be a bell curve for incomes.

There really isn't. It's a politically convenient term that applies to a wide audience. "Rich", "Poor", "Middle Class", "Fair", ect. are terms used by politicians when they want people to pay attention.


See, it's hard for us Austrians to come to grips with the means of Statists because our ideology doesn't have a Class System. We don't group people and put them into categories, we don't see a race, we see potential and what each individual can do with it.

I understand now






Do you really, though?

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by moneymike88

Originally Posted by rashi

I will never understand the mathematical obsession with a�middle class, as if there must be a bell curve for incomes.

There really isn't. It's a politically convenient term that applies to a wide audience. "Rich", "Poor", "Middle Class", "Fair", ect. are terms used by politicians when they want people to pay attention.


See, it's hard for us Austrians to come to grips with the means of Statists because our ideology doesn't have a Class System. We don't group people and put them into categories, we don't see a race, we see potential and what each individual can do with it.

I understand now






Do you really, though?

 

[wawaweewa]

Rexanglorum wrote:
Let me address your points in reverse, from the last up to the first. (also for the sake of some brevity, when I compare prices over time, assume that they are adjusted for inflation)

Again, if the distribution is not a perfect bell curve, I am okay with that. Bimodal, Trimodal, left skewed, rightward skewed, it really does not matter. What matters is the reality on the ground and while this recession has diminished the standard of living for many people, life in 2011 for someone who is in the 10th percentile or the 90th percentile is better in 2011 than it was in 1991 or 1981 and certainly 1801 or 1941 or any date that you can come up with from that mythical mid 20th century, which is always cited as a time of plenty. Cars that rarely got over 100k miles, 3 TV channels, most household without airconditioning or dishwashers, double digit interest rates, double digit inflation, virtually no effective medicine for heart disease, two bedroom homes for whole families, crappy and americanized Italian and Chinese restuarants were considered exotic treats in even the most posh and chic neighborhoods, welcome to that lost Golden Age of the Middle class, that utopian period from 1945 to 1981 that is always cited as time when we "made things" and the Middle Class had savings.

It was true that the Middle class had savings, which only shows the sheer lack of thrift possed by most Americans, in 1961 the average American household's inflation adjusted income was a third of what it is today (also keep in mind that most households were headed by two parents and today many housholds are headed by a single or divorced mother). Keep in mind that in the mid 20th Century, more and more women joined the work force and joined the professions so that glorious bellcurve of houshold income began to split when you have a proliferation of both households, headed by a single mother due to many divorces as well as households headed by two working and professional adults. It seems like the most effective way to regain that wonderful 1950's bellcurve is to return to 1950's social mores regarding women. Force more women to live in abusive relationships and keep them out of the professions and we can buttress the middle class, as it is defined in an abstract and mathematical way by so many pundits and politcians.

I have no problem with mathamtical abstractions that upset you, I do have a problem with actual poverty and by objective measures of wealth, the bottom fifth of the country is wealther than the bottom fifth was in 1981 or 1951, more cars, housing, televisions sets, computers, washing machines, dishwashers define the existance of the working poor in our time than it did a half century ago.

Obviously the working poor face many challenges, usually created by misguided government attempts to save either them or, far more often, they are sacraficed at the altar of some other leftwing cause. In California, environmentalists have severely restricted building new homes so rent or mortgages are more expensive than in the past. In poor urban school districts, where teacher unions are the most powerful, the public school behave like any entrenched monopoly, they deliver very little and usually at a very high cost, yet the political left opposes vouchers and school choice and other programs that would give poor children a better k-12 education. Poorer people tend to pay very regressive taxes at the local level, sales taxes and sin taxes on liquor and cigarettes take a bigger bit from smaller incomes. What do they get from that regressive taxation, they get very little. In Los Angeles the public streets in Brentwood and Bel-Air get paved, in poorer places, with more students and illegal aliens, the city lets the potholes get deeper and make the neighborhood more and more blighted. Eventually, they seize your modest house or apartment in order to make room for a wealthy and politically connected developer who needs to you relocate to the Deserts of Palmdale or Victorville so he can build a new Shopping Mall or upscale condo complex.

The private sector, which is what creates wealth has churned out its end of the bargain, even the poor of today are better off than the poor of yeasteryear. The public sector seems to be inflicting most of the pain and damage to the working poor, that bottom fifth of the population. I believe that as long the political left is kept in check, the average poor person in 2041 will be richer, in absolute material terms than the median income earner today. So if we have population were 90 of the population is poor, in a mathematical sense that they make much less than the mean but they have the equavalent purchasing power as someone who makes 70K today, I would rather be "poor" in the fture than middle class in the present. I would rather have 20k more in purchasing power per year than make due with 50K (the 2011 median household income) and the knowledge that I get to sit in the middle of a bellcurve, a mathematical abstraction that pleases the chattering classes.


Finally, I would like to see some evidence that over the lat two decades or more, the median income household and household in the bottom 10th percentile own less goods and have less purchasing power. I would like to see evidence of that that goes beyond rhetoric and mathematical abstractions.





There is no way in hell that the median standard of living via purchasing power is better today than it was (roughly) between 1950 and 1980.
You can't think about purchasing power only in terms of quantity of goods. Quality ( in essence depreciation value) matters just as much.

Furthermore, the most important asset in terms of PP, real estate, is most definitely not as affordable in real terms today as it was in those decades.  

Cars are a different story if just looked at as a car. However, if you look at it per horsepower or per cubic inch of space or other measures of value then cars today aren't any cheaper than in previous decades. Also, I don't know where you get the notion that the 8 bangers of the 70's and 80's couldn't run 100k on average. They could do it and do it easy. 

You're looking at purchasing power in a very simplistic fashion. 

What bought me an 6 oz can of tuna 2 years ago now only buys me a 5 oz. The same thing has been happening since the 80's. You're able to buy the same #*** but either less of it (namely foodstuffs and energy) or you're getting less value/ $ (manufactured goods). 

Also, we can look at the rate of taxation that the median pays out (those who pay only; federal, state, local, sales, dmv fees, RE taxes, etc.).

We can look at tons of factors on the micro level and in the end you'll see that the standard of living in previous decades was better. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Rexanglorum wrote:
Let me address your points in reverse, from the last up to the first. (also for the sake of some brevity, when I compare prices over time, assume that they are adjusted for inflation)

Again, if the distribution is not a perfect bell curve, I am okay with that. Bimodal, Trimodal, left skewed, rightward skewed, it really does not matter. What matters is the reality on the ground and while this recession has diminished the standard of living for many people, life in 2011 for someone who is in the 10th percentile or the 90th percentile is better in 2011 than it was in 1991 or 1981 and certainly 1801 or 1941 or any date that you can come up with from that mythical mid 20th century, which is always cited as a time of plenty. Cars that rarely got over 100k miles, 3 TV channels, most household without airconditioning or dishwashers, double digit interest rates, double digit inflation, virtually no effective medicine for heart disease, two bedroom homes for whole families, crappy and americanized Italian and Chinese restuarants were considered exotic treats in even the most posh and chic neighborhoods, welcome to that lost Golden Age of the Middle class, that utopian period from 1945 to 1981 that is always cited as time when we "made things" and the Middle Class had savings.

It was true that the Middle class had savings, which only shows the sheer lack of thrift possed by most Americans, in 1961 the average American household's inflation adjusted income was a third of what it is today (also keep in mind that most households were headed by two parents and today many housholds are headed by a single or divorced mother). Keep in mind that in the mid 20th Century, more and more women joined the work force and joined the professions so that glorious bellcurve of houshold income began to split when you have a proliferation of both households, headed by a single mother due to many divorces as well as households headed by two working and professional adults. It seems like the most effective way to regain that wonderful 1950's bellcurve is to return to 1950's social mores regarding women. Force more women to live in abusive relationships and keep them out of the professions and we can buttress the middle class, as it is defined in an abstract and mathematical way by so many pundits and politcians.

I have no problem with mathamtical abstractions that upset you, I do have a problem with actual poverty and by objective measures of wealth, the bottom fifth of the country is wealther than the bottom fifth was in 1981 or 1951, more cars, housing, televisions sets, computers, washing machines, dishwashers define the existance of the working poor in our time than it did a half century ago.

Obviously the working poor face many challenges, usually created by misguided government attempts to save either them or, far more often, they are sacraficed at the altar of some other leftwing cause. In California, environmentalists have severely restricted building new homes so rent or mortgages are more expensive than in the past. In poor urban school districts, where teacher unions are the most powerful, the public school behave like any entrenched monopoly, they deliver very little and usually at a very high cost, yet the political left opposes vouchers and school choice and other programs that would give poor children a better k-12 education. Poorer people tend to pay very regressive taxes at the local level, sales taxes and sin taxes on liquor and cigarettes take a bigger bit from smaller incomes. What do they get from that regressive taxation, they get very little. In Los Angeles the public streets in Brentwood and Bel-Air get paved, in poorer places, with more students and illegal aliens, the city lets the potholes get deeper and make the neighborhood more and more blighted. Eventually, they seize your modest house or apartment in order to make room for a wealthy and politically connected developer who needs to you relocate to the Deserts of Palmdale or Victorville so he can build a new Shopping Mall or upscale condo complex.

The private sector, which is what creates wealth has churned out its end of the bargain, even the poor of today are better off than the poor of yeasteryear. The public sector seems to be inflicting most of the pain and damage to the working poor, that bottom fifth of the population. I believe that as long the political left is kept in check, the average poor person in 2041 will be richer, in absolute material terms than the median income earner today. So if we have population were 90 of the population is poor, in a mathematical sense that they make much less than the mean but they have the equavalent purchasing power as someone who makes 70K today, I would rather be "poor" in the fture than middle class in the present. I would rather have 20k more in purchasing power per year than make due with 50K (the 2011 median household income) and the knowledge that I get to sit in the middle of a bellcurve, a mathematical abstraction that pleases the chattering classes.


Finally, I would like to see some evidence that over the lat two decades or more, the median income household and household in the bottom 10th percentile own less goods and have less purchasing power. I would like to see evidence of that that goes beyond rhetoric and mathematical abstractions.





There is no way in hell that the median standard of living via purchasing power is better today than it was (roughly) between 1950 and 1980.
You can't think about purchasing power only in terms of quantity of goods. Quality ( in essence depreciation value) matters just as much.

Furthermore, the most important asset in terms of PP, real estate, is most definitely not as affordable in real terms today as it was in those decades.  

Cars are a different story if just looked at as a car. However, if you look at it per horsepower or per cubic inch of space or other measures of value then cars today aren't any cheaper than in previous decades. Also, I don't know where you get the notion that the 8 bangers of the 70's and 80's couldn't run 100k on average. They could do it and do it easy. 

You're looking at purchasing power in a very simplistic fashion. 

What bought me an 6 oz can of tuna 2 years ago now only buys me a 5 oz. The same thing has been happening since the 80's. You're able to buy the same #*** but either less of it (namely foodstuffs and energy) or you're getting less value/ $ (manufactured goods). 

Also, we can look at the rate of taxation that the median pays out (those who pay only; federal, state, local, sales, dmv fees, RE taxes, etc.).

We can look at tons of factors on the micro level and in the end you'll see that the standard of living in previous decades was better. 

 

[0cks]

Yeah Rex can't co-sign wanting to be poor in 2041... you don't acknowledge future overpopulation, the shrinking ozone and decreasing water supply... the haves and have nots will be off the wall by then...

 

[0cks]

Yeah Rex can't co-sign wanting to be poor in 2041... you don't acknowledge future overpopulation, the shrinking ozone and decreasing water supply... the haves and have nots will be off the wall by then...

 

[AZwildcats]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Caerus

At this point, has the need for Education risen or fallen now in the U.S.?

I've heard mixed responses...

Risen, while Republican/Conservative politicians want to cut education so that poor people stay stupid and stay voting Republican.  They want more money for prisons and senseless wars and cuts to education. 

As a college student, I first hand see the power an education gives someone. It now makes sense to me why education is the first to get cut, while defense/prison budgets go up. Making college more expensive puts it out of reach for a lot of people and keeps them under the rug.

 

[AZwildcats]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Caerus

At this point, has the need for Education risen or fallen now in the U.S.?

I've heard mixed responses...

Risen, while Republican/Conservative politicians want to cut education so that poor people stay stupid and stay voting Republican.  They want more money for prisons and senseless wars and cuts to education. 

As a college student, I first hand see the power an education gives someone. It now makes sense to me why education is the first to get cut, while defense/prison budgets go up. Making college more expensive puts it out of reach for a lot of people and keeps them under the rug.

 

[essential1]

I'm not trying to discredit the severity of the future/our future...

But we've gone through MUCH MUCH WORSE... Not to say it is 100% definite that everything will be ok, and if we don't worry things will sort itself out that would be foolish....

But we have no idea who/what is on the horizon..

If we can get to encouraging innovation (not through silly tax cuts for those over $250K) we'd be digging ourselves out of the hole.. But we complain there is no money, and complain there is no jobs..

Results require investment....

 

[essential1]

I'm not trying to discredit the severity of the future/our future...

But we've gone through MUCH MUCH WORSE... Not to say it is 100% definite that everything will be ok, and if we don't worry things will sort itself out that would be foolish....

But we have no idea who/what is on the horizon..

If we can get to encouraging innovation (not through silly tax cuts for those over $250K) we'd be digging ourselves out of the hole.. But we complain there is no money, and complain there is no jobs..

Results require investment....

 

[nanbeezy]

Originally Posted by Punchline Rapper

get a skill, stop having kids (especially out of wedlock), spend/save wisely, and you'll be fine

When it comes to credit, there's only a few things worth going into debt over; car, food, house, education. Other than that if you can't afford to buy it straight cash, pass on it.
The kids outside of marriage thing is huge, especially to a particular demographic. I mean condoms are like a buck 50, Plan B costs like 50 or the effort to go to the Planned Parenthood and get it free, kids cost an average of 30k for 18yrs plus all the trouble.
And if all that fails, wait tables or bartends at Buffalo Wild Wings.

fixed

 

[nanbeezy]

Originally Posted by Punchline Rapper

get a skill, stop having kids (especially out of wedlock), spend/save wisely, and you'll be fine

When it comes to credit, there's only a few things worth going into debt over; car, food, house, education. Other than that if you can't afford to buy it straight cash, pass on it.
The kids outside of marriage thing is huge, especially to a particular demographic. I mean condoms are like a buck 50, Plan B costs like 50 or the effort to go to the Planned Parenthood and get it free, kids cost an average of 30k for 18yrs plus all the trouble.
And if all that fails, wait tables or bartends at Buffalo Wild Wings.

fixed

 

[trynafeelmink]

Welp people have been predicting this for years and its finally happening. Capitalism encourages greed, greed destroys nations, unfortunately people are so nonchalant about the way the government moves that it will take a complete fall of the middle class for people to wake up and say *$%% the kardashians what about my family

 

[trynafeelmink]

Welp people have been predicting this for years and its finally happening. Capitalism encourages greed, greed destroys nations, unfortunately people are so nonchalant about the way the government moves that it will take a complete fall of the middle class for people to wake up and say *$%% the kardashians what about my family

 

[likethematrix]

greed my !$%. its the influx of immigration ruining the USA's basic wage system.

Illegal workers work for pennies on the dollar, big companies see their profits jump, lower wages paid cause of their use of illegals, then force the legal worker to work for those pennies on the dollar or else they will just stick with the illegals.

then the entire industry follows suit.

Factory jobs in CA used to have a median wage of about $14/hr

now its Minimum wage.

you cats need to remove the wool from your eyes.

 

[likethematrix]

greed my !$%. its the influx of immigration ruining the USA's basic wage system.

Illegal workers work for pennies on the dollar, big companies see their profits jump, lower wages paid cause of their use of illegals, then force the legal worker to work for those pennies on the dollar or else they will just stick with the illegals.

then the entire industry follows suit.

Factory jobs in CA used to have a median wage of about $14/hr

now its Minimum wage.

you cats need to remove the wool from your eyes.

 

[dacomeup]

Originally Posted by airbornho

Originally Posted by GrimlocK

How about instead of us eliminating debt...we eliminate money?

Genius, genius I tell you.

 

[dacomeup]

Originally Posted by airbornho

Originally Posted by GrimlocK

How about instead of us eliminating debt...we eliminate money?

Genius, genius I tell you.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by likethematrix

greed my !$%. its the influx of immigration ruining the USA's basic wage system.

Illegal workers work for pennies on the dollar, big companies see their profits jump, lower wages paid cause of their use of illegals, then force the legal worker to work for those pennies on the dollar or else they will just stick with the illegals.

then the entire industry follows suit.

Factory jobs in CA used to have a median wage of about $14/hr

now its Minimum wage.

you cats need to remove the wool from your eyes.

Pretty on point. 
Immigration waves are usually attempts by private interests, in collusion with the government, to cheapen labor. Follow all major immigration waves around the world and this is a central theme. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by likethematrix

greed my !$%. its the influx of immigration ruining the USA's basic wage system.

Illegal workers work for pennies on the dollar, big companies see their profits jump, lower wages paid cause of their use of illegals, then force the legal worker to work for those pennies on the dollar or else they will just stick with the illegals.

then the entire industry follows suit.

Factory jobs in CA used to have a median wage of about $14/hr

now its Minimum wage.

you cats need to remove the wool from your eyes.

Pretty on point. 
Immigration waves are usually attempts by private interests, in collusion with the government, to cheapen labor. Follow all major immigration waves around the world and this is a central theme. 

 

[r33p04s]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by r33p04s

the US is just realigning with the rest of the world...prices didn't rise we were just enjoying the American discount now the promotion is over everyone wants to complain but you didn't think you could keep paying 75% when everyone else pays 100% for the same goods forever did you?

We were enjoying a discount of sorts with the USD being the reserve currency but it has little to do with realigning with anything. It has everything to do with cost of labor. 

I never said the cost of labor wasn't a part of it...but without the wall of text or technical terms...in a global economy the US dollar/economy was running on high and was being propped up by not much else other than being the reserve currency...it was only a matter of time before other economies stopped relying on our spending to sustain themselves...increasing prices for us as we have to compete with more spending power around the globe

 

[r33p04s]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by r33p04s

the US is just realigning with the rest of the world...prices didn't rise we were just enjoying the American discount now the promotion is over everyone wants to complain but you didn't think you could keep paying 75% when everyone else pays 100% for the same goods forever did you?

We were enjoying a discount of sorts with the USD being the reserve currency but it has little to do with realigning with anything. It has everything to do with cost of labor. 

I never said the cost of labor wasn't a part of it...but without the wall of text or technical terms...in a global economy the US dollar/economy was running on high and was being propped up by not much else other than being the reserve currency...it was only a matter of time before other economies stopped relying on our spending to sustain themselves...increasing prices for us as we have to compete with more spending power around the globe