Economic Equaility

[Zero]

Hmmmm....ran across this phrase in the political poll that kat posted. I don't think that is an unworthy goal, does anyone else? I don't mean that we should all have exactly teh same amount of money and possesions, but just the idea that if you work 40-50 hours a week, you should get paid enough that you don't live in poverty.

[russ_watters]

Its far too vague of a concept (without explanation) to have an opinion about. In general, I think phrases like that are thrown around to elicit a knee-jerk 'of course!!' reaction when the reality is far more complicated.

And your answer doesn't fit with what the phrase 'economic equality' means to me. However, using your definition, I would say that in general (a huge generalization) I agree.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its far too vague of a concept (without explanation) to have an opinion about. In general, I think phrases like that are thrown around to elicit a knee-jerk 'of course!!' reaction when the reality is far more complicated.

And your answer doesn't fit with what the phrase 'economic equality' means to me. However, using your definition, I would say that in general (a huge generalization) I agree. I'm not saying anything like that no one should be a millionaire, or even a billionaire...I'm just saying that the world would probably be a better, and certainly more stable, place if everyone who works and works hard gets paid enough to live a decent life.

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm not saying anything like that no one should be a millionaire, or even a billionaire...I'm just saying that the world would probably be a better, and certainly more stable, place if everyone who works and works hard gets paid enough to live a decent life.

"... works and works hard ...." translates as what?

[Kerrie]

you can't have much economic equality when so much manufacturing is going overseas...i see the gap between poverty and wealthy growing wider, and the middle class is getting split into one or the other (just my opinion working in the industry that i do)...i think one major step in keeping the economy equal (and strong) is to buy what is made in america...it's a viscious cycle really-america is a free enterprise country, thus business owners have the ability to go overseas to keep manufacturing costs down, in turn laying of their employees they no longer have to pay (benefits, retirement, wages, etc)...the prices of goods and services the company offers will remain the same but the profits of that business will go the one person's pocket, instead of being equally shared by the americans the company once employed...

so, buy american (if you are in america)[;)]

[selfAdjoint]

What do you folks think of Marx's labor theory of value? I could almost be a Marxist if it wasn't for that and a couple of other things like the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The idea is that each worker's work is his own and he should benefit from it. If someone (a "dirty capitalist") makes him work longer, in order to produce a profit for said someone, then that's exploitation, and should be ended.

Now I believe that the fellow who put up the money to get the whole thing started should have a fair share in the result, along with the guys who contributed physical work. As to what's fair, that's a matter for negotiation, which is why I am a strong supporter of unions.

But what we have now, in too many industries, is just what Marx criticized in the 19th century: The big corporations are in a position to coerce their workers to accept anything the company will grant them, and unions are becoming moribund. It sucks.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bystander
"... works and works hard ...." translates as what? Hard work...I'm sure you've seen someone do it at least once in your life?[6)]

[Kerrie]

selfadjoint, marx's theory sounds good in theory, was it ever put into play?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kerrie
selfadjoint, marx's theory sounds good in theory, was it ever put into play? Late night, Kerrie?


Didn't Marxism go the way of Animal Farm, where in the end even though the system changed, there were still tyrants at the top exploiting the people at the bottom?

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
Hard work...I'm sure you've seen someone do it at least once in your life?[6)]

Yeah, yeah, yeah --- "work" is another very flexible term; I've seen lots of people work very hard at doing nothing, and I've seen lots of people do a hell of lot without it ever looking like work --- as have you. A wheat farmer can put several hundred tons of food on the table with maybe a month's work out of a year making little clods out of big ones --- the rest of the year involves waiting for rain that doesn't come, and hoping for clear weather at harvest --- is it work? It's productive. Artists sweat, and strain, and bleed their souls into something that is gratifying to them, if to no one else. Is it work? Is is productive? Should the NEA/NEH pay them large sums of tax money?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bystander
Yeah, yeah, yeah --- "work" is another very flexible term; I've seen lots of people work very hard at doing nothing, and I've seen lots of people do a hell of lot without it ever looking like work --- as have you. A wheat farmer can put several hundred tons of food on the table with maybe a month's work out of a year making little clods out of big ones --- the rest of the year involves waiting for rain that doesn't come, and hoping for clear weather at harvest --- is it work? It's productive. Artists sweat, and strain, and bleed their souls into something that is gratifying to them, if to no one else. Is it work? Is is productive? Should the NEA/NEH pay them large sums of tax money?

Farmers? Yes.


Artists: probably not.

COme on now, you are looking for trouble, aren't you? I'm talking about your average American who works a regular average job.

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Kerrie
selfadjoint, marx's theory sounds good in theory, was it ever put into play?

The various communist states claimed to, but the claim was in every case a lie.

Marx said the workers should own the means of production (the factory or whatever). Communist governments said that meant the government should own them. nd that's what they did. The workers had no more choice than under runaway capitalism.

Suppose somebody had been able to achieve something like this. Banks that are just like western banks except their profit goes to the people, according to some formula. Similarly corporations all send their profits back, but otherwise the free market rules. Innovation is rewarded with perks and raises, not with a piece of the pie.

Wouldn't that satisfy the Marxist requirement? But that wouldn't happen because it wouldn't be in the interest of the selfish jerks who run all governments, or at least determine how they run.

[Monique]

Zero, are you talking about minimum wages? Do those exist in the US btw?

I definately believe in economic equality if you are talking about the citizens of a country. Ok, there will be some people in there that really don't deserve the money and should go to work, but there are a lot of people who are unable to find proper jobs.

The Netherlands really strives to create this economic equality and people with minimum wages get all kinds of subsidies from the government.

Recent budget cuts though (to stay under the 3% stability pact (which we will exceed in 2004)) have meant the decrease in buying power of the minima with 8%, while the government had promised them not to cut them more than 1%. This has really created an uproar and people are very concerned that the poor will become poorer if this goes through.

Guess what: really stupid idea, they have opened a bank account (they: the government) and the rich people are free to make donations that will then go to the minima. Will it work? Don't know, but it is an initiative.

Ofcourse, this has lead some people to be lazy and not want to find a job, I know such a person, young 20 year old girl on government subsidy without a job, living on her own in Amsterdam.

But: they have found something for that too: such young people will soon (if it passes the voting) be forced to do voluntary work (what's that called, working without wages) otherwise they won't get the subsidy. Voluntary work is always around: scraping gum from streets, picking up cans from the park. They have my support 100%, boy this country would become so clean :)

[BoulderHead]

...forced to do voluntary work...
Interesting way to word it. [:)]

[Monique]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Interesting way to word it. [:)] [:D] I know, I don't think a word exists for that yet.. forcetary?

[kat]

Mandatory community service is the term I think you might be looking for...[;)] This is the method used in the U.S. or at least in the state of Maine (States vary) I believe that as long as people are doing at least 30 hours a week community service they are still eligible for government support which, I believe, includes foodstamps, cash benefit, medical along with many other benefits inludcing money paid to them according to mileage to get to doctors appts etc.

[Monique]

Originally posted by kat
Mandatory community service is the term I think you might be looking for...[;)] Indeed [:D] I am willing to pay higher taxes if that means the people who need it benifit from it and that the public safety and neatness will increase.

These people doing mandatory community service also get more incentive to find a real job, it keeps them from becoming potato-couches (or was it couch-potatos?, lol).

[BoulderHead]

I’m thinking about a normal relation between work and pay. That is; you must work and we will then pay you. With the community service system it becomes; we will pay you, but then you must work. Isn’t this similar to the bottle being half empty verses half full?
In effect does it not simply become a system where the government provides jobs?

No doubt many people will receive support even if they are unable to work, but what will happen to the young healthy ones who refuse to perform community service, preferring to live on the streets?
How should someone pushing for economic equality handle such a situation?

[Monique]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
No doubt many people will receive support even if they are unable to work, but what will happen to the young healthy ones who refuse to perform community service, preferring to live on the streets?
How should someone pushing for economic equality handle such a situation? I agree: work then pay. The truth is that not everyone can become a CEO or manager or head of staff or engineer or *fill in blank*. That is why economic equality should be a goal, that doesn´t mean there shouldn´t be a difference along with the effort and responsibility a job holds. That doesn´t mean that the poor deserve to live in the gutter.

In your example, if the young ones choose to not work and refuse community service, let them live on the street. I mean, everyone in a good state of health is able to perform community service. If not I´d put them on mandatory counseling and see if depression is the root cause. If they refuse counseling, let them be free and find a niche for themselves on the street.

[Njorl]

Economic equality would be wonderful. The problem is arriving at it. It would be great for the economy if everyone had a decent disposable income. Middle class spending habits drive the markets. The problem is giving them that disposable income without earning it tends to reduce productivity. You wind up with too many dollars chasing too few goods.



The international labor market is in a dicey situation these days. Barriers are coming down, so cheap foreign labor looks very attractive. I am torn by this. I feel it is exploitative for us to obtain cheap goods from workers who endure conditions we would not tolerate here. On the other hand, those workers are often in those jobs because they provide the best possible standard of living they can attain.

Hopefully, when other countries improve their living standards, international labor unions will form to counter the power of international corporations. As it is, ownership derives inordinate advantages from globalization over labor.

Note- in the discussion of cheap labor above, I'm not including things like Chinese slave labor prisons, or child labor sweat-shops. Those are catagorically immoral in my view.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Wouldn't that satisfy the Marxist requirement? No, I don't think it would. Thats not equality if some people are rewarded for performance. Its been a while, but the way I understand it, a janatir and a doctor make the same amount of money and the doctor accepts it because its for the good of the country. And maybe you can argue that the rewards would be small, but how small can they be while still keeping the doctor happy? And how big can they be without making the janitor mad?

Setting aside for a moment the government ownership and the ruling elite, the USSR really did strive for equality and lack of class for everyone not in the ruling elite. The result was that people were motivated toward mediocrity, corruption, or fleeing the country and the economy gradually destroyed itself. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was fear and enforced ignorance.

[Zero]

I think something to look at would be the difference in pay between the bottom and top employee in any given company. In Euroope, the average difference runs to something like 30-50 to 1. In the US the number is closer to 200 to 1, and there is no telling how gigantic it is in China, with a minimum wage that is pennies an hour.

[Zero]

The minimum wage in America is $5.15, which translates to about $10,000 a year, before taxes. Some people in America see the minimum wage as one step from an entitlement program.

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
The minimum wage in America is $5.15, which translates to about $10,000 a year, before taxes. Some people in America see the minimum wage as one step from an entitlement program. Really, I looked it up: the minimum wage for people 23 years and older for a 37,5 h work week (as you seem to have taken) is $9,40 an hour, $18,314 a year.. quite a difference. But I think life in Europe is more expensive than in the US, so that is not accounted for.

[Monique]

Can you imagine that we pay 4 times as much for cargasoline than Americans? The price per liter is the same as per gallon :o Ofcourse, our cars have a better milage :)

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Monique
Can you imagine that we pay 4 times as much for cargasoline than Americans? The price per liter is the same as per gallon :o Ofcourse, our cars have a better milage :)
To pay for all those social programs, I would suppose.

[selfAdjoint]

Monique? Remember your criticism of US power distribution by poles and wires that get blown down "by every wind"? The burying of power cables is expensive, and has to be paid for. In the US the power consumer pays through a higher bill. In Europe the taxpayer pays through, for example, gas taxes. But you can't excape paying the men* who dig the trenches, the men who lay the cables, and all the people who worked to supply them and bring the whole thing about.

*Including women, of course.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
The minimum wage in America is $5.15, which translates to about $10,000 a year, before taxes. Some people in America see the minimum wage as one step from an entitlement program.

Actually minimum wage varies from state to state. For instance Maine is at 6.15, Mass at 6.75(?) and then New Hamphsire is at 5.15 (home of the Libertarians [;)] ) California has minimum wage standards higher then this with additional minimum wage standards for overtime.

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
Farmers? Yes.


Artists: probably not.

COme on now, you are looking for trouble, aren't you? I'm talking about your average American who works a regular average job.

"Average job" equals "service industries" if we base "average" on largest employment category --- so, how many of these people are starving on the streets? If you wanta pay $10 for a hamburger and fries, that's your business --- MacD, BK, TB, S-way, and everyone else in service businesses will be automating their outlets --- you've just annihilated that many more jobs. Dunno if you've run into the "scan it yourself" checkouts --- the economic driver for developing automated checkstands is checker wages/salaries.

Certain job classes are worth only so much --- if that value is less to a potential employer than it is to social engineering principles, the job disappears, or is automated, which is the same thing socially.

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Monique
[:D] I know, I don't think a word exists for that yet.. forcetary?

You might be looking for the word "corvee;" the Great Wall is an extreme example. Slaveholders take some degree of care for slaves as economic assets, whereas governments take no care of "corvee" levies --- "free" citizens "voluntarily" contribute to a variety of public projects/improvements out of pocket, and further are expected to feed, house, and otherwise maintain themselves.

"Workfare" is something of a hybrid of slavery and corvee --- it's probably going to be about as much a success in the long run.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bystander
"Average job" equals "service industries" if we base "average" on largest employment category --- so, how many of these people are starving on the streets? If you wanta pay $10 for a hamburger and fries, that's your business --- MacD, BK, TB, S-way, and everyone else in service businesses will be automating their outlets --- you've just annihilated that many more jobs. Dunno if you've run into the "scan it yourself" checkouts --- the economic driver for developing automated checkstands is checker wages/salaries.

Certain job classes are worth only so much --- if that value is less to a potential employer than it is to social engineering principles, the job disappears, or is automated, which is the same thing socially. So you are saying that the idea that everyone can be rich is false?

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Actually minimum wage varies from state to state. For instance Maine is at 6.15, Mass at 6.75(?) and then New Hamphsire is at 5.15 (home of the Libertarians [;)] ) California has minimum wage standards higher then this with additional minimum wage standards for overtime. Well, I meant the federal minimum wage, but thanks for the extra info! $6.75 is still nothing to write home about.

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
So you are saying that the idea that everyone can be rich is false?

In anything but the poetic sense, yes. Can everyone be satisfied? No. You've met people who wouldn't be satisfied with the entire planet waiting on them hand and foot.

Is there sufficient productivity to satisfy some minimun standard needs for everyone on the planet? That's a tossup. If so, is there an adequate distribution system for ensuring that everyone gets his share? No.

If Solzhenitsyn's "Gulags" are believed, Stalin pretty well nailed down the absolute minimum standard of living --- nothing too attractive about pursuing that as a social goal.

Are there initial steps to take toward establishing conditions under which it could be said it's possible for everyone to at least begin life with a chance at "making it" to the point of being comfortable? Great Britain spearheaded the global abolition of slavery in the 19th century, (insert edit) of slave trade, and eventually slavery, which ain't been accomplished to date (end edit) that's not too bad for starters --- kinda throws a whole lot of people out on their own, but from my perspective at least, social mobility of a sort beats the job security they had. Free trade? When and how large should protective tariffs be? Dunno. Global minimum wage? Cart got ahead of the horse here --- the U.N.'s human rights declaration(s) ain't been anywhere close to an adopted practice by more than a minority of its membership, not that it matters all that much --- all the HR rhetoric was more a matter of Cold War tactics/politics/posturing for the unaligned nations than anything else. Export democracy? My ***. Export education? Mebbe, but I'd prefer 3Rs to the crap in this country's public schools.

[Monique]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Monique? Remember your criticism of US power distribution by poles and wires that get blown down "by every wind"? The burying of power cables is expensive, and has to be paid for. In the US the power consumer pays through a higher bill. In Europe the taxpayer pays through, for example, gas taxes. But you can't excape paying the men* who dig the trenches, the men who lay the cables, and all the people who worked to supply them and bring the whole thing about.

*Including women, of course. ..and the point is? :P My point was that in a 'socialistic' country the government is concerned with things like that and will find money to improve such technologies, while in 'capitalistic' countries the government has no say, the companies don't want to spend the money, so things will stay the way they are.

[selfAdjoint]

In my experience the companies are at least slightly more attentive to the people than the government. The company says do you want buried cables? It will cost you X dollars. And some neighborhoods say yes and some say no. The govenment says you are going to have such and such and here is what it will cost you. And the citizens say &%@@@! and pay.

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Zero
So you are saying that the idea that everyone can be rich is false?

In my life I have known a few multimilionaires and one billionaire. None of them considered themselves to be rich. This led me to the conclusion that there is only one rich person at most. I think Bill Gates probably considers himself to be rich, but he might not. True, he has more money than Andrew Carnegie ever had, even adjusting for inflation, but as a fraction of the world's GDP, he has less.

I like to think about Charlemagne. In 800 AD he was the wealthiest and most powerful monarch in western Europe. There are probably about a billion people who live more luxurious lives than Charlemagne did.

Njorl

[Monique]

Yes, so the cables won't get buried since the customers want the cheapest cable provider. The government is not going to give subsidies, since the people don't want to pay high taxes. So nothing gets done.

In the meanwhile there is a lot of nuisance when these things get pushed over by trees which get blown over or weighn down by ice.

True, citizens complain, but ultimately it is their own vote. At least in The Netherlands it is where the government is composed of how many parties? I don't even keep count, maybe 10 or so. Each party says what they want to have done, the people give them a number of seats and their power is arranged accordingly.

[Monique]

euhh.. what does this have to do with economic equality though [8)] lol

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Zero
The minimum wage in America is $5.15, which translates to about $10,000 a year, before taxes. Some people in America see the minimum wage as one step from an entitlement program.

so what is in your opinion included in not living in poverty? a car that runs? enough money to eat out once a week? enough to go on vacation once a year? those are actually considered luxuries...the federal minimum wage isn't much i agree if you have the regular debt load and expenses of the typical american-cable tv, internet, a few credit cards, etc...but it is a start for those who need the basics...it is up to the individual to work their way up-whether that be to work hard in a company and wait for opportunity, or attend school to train them for more skills...

the real key for people to having enough money is to live below your means...

[selfAdjoint]

Kerrie, that living within your means stuff is bunk. I make twice as much as that (the $10,000 a year) and I can barely make do. My biggest expenses are my car, my credit card service, and the damn internet. You have to have a car if you live in a place where there is no public transportation, i.e. anywhere outside a city. And public transportation costs money too.

In Chicago, sociologists tell us, a quarter of the people can't afford a decent place to live, at going rates. So they live in not-decent places. They can't work at jobs offered in the burbs because they have no way to get there. And so on. The smug liberationist belief that we are better than they because we deserve our goodies because we work and save doesn't survive a genuine examination of the lives of the poor.

[russ_watters]

Just to be clear on minimum wages, does anyone think they are intended or should be intended to be a living wage? I do not.

Also, when discussing poverty, I try to keep things in a global perspective. SelfAdjoint, I sympathize with your situation, but having a car puts you in about the top 10% of wealthiest people in the world. HALF the population of the world has never even had electricity.

And as far as the living within your means thing is concerned, the point there is that there are a lot of people with big houses and big incomes in a lot of debt. You're probably MORE likely to have to declare bankrupcy if you own a house than if you don't for example.

[Monique]

Originally posted by Kerrie
...the federal minimum wage isn't much i agree if you have the regular debt load and expenses of the typical american-cable tv, internet, a few credit cards, etc...but it is a start for those who need the basics...it is up to the individual to work their way up-whether that be to work hard in a company and wait for opportunity, or attend school to train them for more skills... How can you have enough time/money to attend school when you earn $10,000 a year? I think minimum wage should take into account the number of children a family has, it is rediculous that a single person would earn the same amount of money as a single mom with two kids to raise.

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Monique
How can you have enough time/money to attend school when you earn $10,000 a year? I think minimum wage should take into account the number of children a family has, it is rediculous that a single person would earn the same amount of money as a single mom with two kids to raise.

monique, it can be done...i was working a full time job, 20 hours of school per week and raising two children with their father...it wasn't easy, but it can be done...as they say, life isn't a bowl of cherries...

many people work full time, live on their own (most likely with a roommate) and attend school...as for the expense of school, student loans (Direct loans) are extremely easy to obtain...

[Zero]

Hell, I'm not talking about home ownership and vacations, although a car is an absolute necessity in many parts of the country. And don't forget that I was talking $10,000 before taxes...less after, of course. If all you make is $10,000, you have to own a car because you can't afford to live in town.

Oh, and in case someone thinks I am complaining for my own sake...I own my car, I've got money in the bank, and I am not forced to choose between medicine and food. I don't think anyone should have to live in squalor if the work hard at a job. As bystander pointed out, not every gets to be a millionaire; someone has to work in the service industry. Those folks should get to live in something other than poverty, don't you think? Unless you think we should go the other direction and have a service class that lives in huts and eats gruel two meals a day, so we can keep corporate profits up?

[Bystander]

Something additional to be kept in mind: "the industrial revolution" is not a completed historical event --- the economic dislocations are a continuing effect of trends toward automating mindless repetitive tasks; the market for unskilled and semi-skilled labor shrinks with every step in that direction; public education has not kept pace in terms of producing a "flexible" product (gee, I used to repair typewriters for a living --- now what'm I gonna do?). "Social mobility" is going to have to take a back seat to "vocational mobility" in educational philosophies before a dependable standard can be set for "quality of life."

"Utopia?" The machines are gonna do it all while everyone lounges around like the "lotus eaters?" Ain't gonna happen --- human nature doesn't include satisfaction without some involvement or effort at either producing the rewards, or stealing what someone else has produced.

[Zero]

Stealing, Bystander? Really?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Bystander
Something additional to be kept in mind: "the industrial revolution" is not a completed historical event --- the economic dislocations are a continuing effect of trends toward automating mindless repetitive tasks; the market for unskilled and semi-skilled labor shrinks with every step in that direction.... Thats true, but there is an implication that cancels that out: the market for un/semi skilled SERVICE workers is increasing. The US is transitioning toward a service based economy.

[kat]

Originally posted by Monique
euhh.. what does this have to do with economic equality though [8)] lol
Well, really I think it has everything to do with economic equality. For instance in our area many people for various reasons have decided to go off grid or stay off grid...meaning no electricity. Some have solar many don't even use that...now why should they bear an economic burden (through taxation) for underground lines? or for that matter for other peoples energy needs at all?
Or, in another example..there's a lot of land here so..people will by a beautiful piece of land that is dirt cheap because of it's location..deep in the woods ...on a back woods dirt road...or somewhere that has no electric lines nearby....as soon as more then a few people have bought this land...agian..at absolutely dirt cheap prices..they scream and yell to have paved roads and electric poles put in...at our expense, the rest of the townspeople..so our taxes go up but not nearly as much as the value of their land increases...again at our expense...and then..all of those other investment owners who have held onto the lots they've subdivided sell off at a huge profit, again at our expense..where's the economic equality in that?!

[Monique]

yep, good point :)

but just because a few people want to have paved roads doesn't mean only them get it. Usually a subsidy budget would be assigned, after which that is distributed among the ones who want and are allowed to make use of it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Well, really I think it has everything to do with economic equality. For instance in our area many people for various reasons have decided to go off grid or stay off grid...meaning no electricity. Some have solar many don't even use that...now why should they bear an economic burden (through taxation) for underground lines? or for that matter for other peoples energy needs at all?
Or, in another example..there's a lot of land here so..people will by a beautiful piece of land that is dirt cheap because of it's location..deep in the woods ...on a back woods dirt road...or somewhere that has no electric lines nearby....as soon as more then a few people have bought this land...agian..at absolutely dirt cheap prices..they scream and yell to have paved roads and electric poles put in...at our expense, the rest of the townspeople..so our taxes go up but not nearly as much as the value of their land increases...again at our expense...and then..all of those other investment owners who have held onto the lots they've subdivided sell off at a huge profit, again at our expense..where's the economic equality in that?! You sound like a liberal, since that is the exact sort of think that us progressives complain about when we talk about the administration using tax cuts and other methods to transfer money from the middle class to the upper class.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
You sound like a liberal, since that is the exact sort of think that us progressives complain about when we talk about the administration using tax cuts and other methods to transfer money from the middle class to the upper class.

LOl, thanks...haha I think.
Seriously, I'm a right handed, left winged, Independant. [:))]

[Zero]

Here's something interesting from where I work: in the last year, we have been invaded by the FBI, the stock price dropped into the toilet, and suffered massive layoffs. We haven't gotten raises in two years, the top pay hasn't increased in five years, and middle management has taken a 10% pay cut. This would seem like a 'tighten your belt' time....except that the executives have been giving themselves $20-60,000 bonuses every year. Don't tell me they can't afford to, or it would be bad policy to give me a raise, when some of the bonuses they give themselves are more than what I make all year.

[Bystander]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats true, but there is an implication that cancels that out: the market for un/semi skilled SERVICE workers is increasing. The US is transitioning toward a service based economy.

Not sure I can agree with this, but I'm also not quite sure what you're trying to say here. The "service" sector is increasing at the expense of the "skilled" sector? That's the same thing as the IR economic dislocation --- jobs for skilled labor disappear, putting those people into an "unskilled" labor pool for other purposes --- it's not so much an increased service sector market pulling people in as it is an increased labor pool driving service sector "growth." I expect that efforts to raise the labor costs in the service sector will be countered with further displacement of the labor pool by the expansion of automated "this, that, and the other" --- the "U scan" checkout movement is the case in point I've noticed --- self-service gas pumps, vending machines vs. concession stands. Congress decides to kill Walmart's tax breaks for elderly "greeters," and they're gone. There's a diminishing man-hour requirement for work that has to be done --- combined with an increasing population, it adds up to an employer's market. Yeah, there are new industries born every day, and new industries filing Ch. 11 & 13 every day. Dept. of Labor statistics don't help a whole lot as far as saying the bottom line is increased or decreased demand in various employment categories, and I have no clue where else to look to establish facts --- globally, it's the same situation.

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
Stealing, Bystander? Really?

Hustling, scamming, pulling fast ones, coin clipping, and outright thieving. You ran into a few in your pub crawling days, you've got at least one at work (there's one in every shop, office, workplace in America) --- you know, the guy who brings in the box of stale cake doughnuts when it's his turn --- the guy at the bar who buys you a house draft and expects you to reciprocate by covering his next mixed drink?

The "sharpshooters" --- or, is that in the Corps lexicon?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Bystander
Not sure I can agree with this, but I'm also not quite sure what you're trying to say here. The "service" sector is increasing at the expense of the "skilled" sector? Thats not what I said. First off, thats "semi/unskilled." YOU used those words in the post I quoted. And there is a big difference. Also, I didn't say at the expense of, though I worded it badly (the word "implication" is the wrong word, it was simply an additional fact).

My point was simply: the fact that the market for service workers is increasing largely cancels out lost semi/unskilled jobs. There's a diminishing man-hour requirement for work that has to be done --- combined with an increasing population, it adds up to an employer's market. The facts simply do not support that. Even including the recently passed low point of the current economic cycle, unemployment in the US is relatively low.

Also, the types of jobs you cited were the unskilld ones. There are also a whole lot of semi-skilled service jobs - jobs that require a few weeks or months of OJT.

[Bystander]

"Skilled, unskilled, service" --- I hate PC talk --- I'm gonna have to watch out for the "designed" inferences in those terms --- f'rinstance, there are ditchdiggers and there are Ditchdiggers. Skilled? You betcha. Highly trained "service sector" functions? Health care comes to mind --- skilled? Some are and some aren't --- definitely worth shopping around.

Do you agree that there are fewer man-hours required to feed, clothe, transport, and entertain you than ten years ago? I'm arguing a complex conjugate of Malthus, or a corollary, and there are other factors that creep in, but Malthus is qualitatively correct. In the same way as Malthus argues a limit to capacity for supporting populations of a set of resources, I argue that there is a limit to the demands/load that an individual consumer can place on those resources --- if that load is expressed in man-hours standardized on the 1948 wheat crop, or the '54 auto production, or coal production in 1917, it tends toward zero with increasing automation. More leisure time, more services available --- I can't go to the movies, and the opera, and broadway, and Vegas, and Disney World every night.

[kat]

Originally posted by Bystander
More leisure time, more services available --- I can't go to the movies, and the opera, and broadway, and Vegas, and Disney World every night.

Sounds like a personal problem to me [;)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Bystander
"Skilled, unskilled, service" --- I hate PC talk --- I'm gonna have to watch out for the "designed" inferences in those terms --- f'rinstance, there are ditchdiggers and there are Ditchdiggers. Skilled? You betcha. Highly trained "service sector" functions? Health care comes to mind --- skilled? Some are and some aren't --- definitely worth shopping around. Why are you complaining? YOU used the words semi-skilled and un-skilled. I even agree with you on the definitions. What is the problem here? Do you agree that there are fewer man-hours required to feed, clothe, transport, and entertain you than ten years ago? Yes. But that does not mean that we don't still DEMAND more. Thats the REASON our economy is shifting toward services. The net result is still that unemployment remains roughly the same, but the mix of jobs available is different.