axordil wrote:But why would you give me a chicken to chop down a tree when the Onceler's machine can cut down a hundred in that time, and work weekends?
The population continues to grow, but there will be no worthwhile jobs for many of them.
But...doesn't that also mean since everything's made more efficiently that the work that we do stretches farther? Meaning, if my house and food and car and appliances and medicine and clothing all get cheaper, than it takes less labor to get those things than it would have before? If things get so sci-fi-level cheap and easy and efficient to produce that machines literally make everything on their own than doesn't that just mean the cost of getting those things eventually vanishes too?
No, it doesn't, yov, since the owners and stockholders of a corporation are entitled to the profits, and profits are defined as revenue minus the cost of creating the revenue. We've seen for years now that as costs decrease and productivity increases, the owners and stockholders just pocket more revenue and tighten the screws. It's a business principle to minimize labor costs. As Ax mentioned earlier, this probably won't change until jobs are so scarce and so low-paid that companies are unable to sell the products they make, because those low-paid workers are also most of the country.
Or, as Ax also suggested earlier, until change is imposed from the bottom up.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Can't agree with that Prim. We live in a world unimaginable by our parents. In my house (a decent sized house by Irish standards) we have multiple televisions, 2 ipod touches, an iPad, an iPhone, 2 Galaxy mini smartphones, 4 computers, Satellite TV, Broadband, a PS3, a Wii, an Xbox (used as Media Center), an Apple TV, 3 Nintendo DS, a PSP and a bunch of other stuff thats now out of date. A Bike is an affordable birthday present. We run 2 cars, one of which is only a year old. We go on multiple holidays each year. The kids attend any after school activities they want.
But we are not wealthy. We're not even above average. Its simply that everything has become so cheap relative to wages that we can afford pretty much whatever we want (within reason). Sure, these things were all accumulated over time, but we paid for all of them and we're not in debt.
When I grew up we had one older car, holidays were rare, we never had the latest "mod cons", lived a very basic lifestyle, but my Dad was considered to be wealthy.
In essence, I think I could have the same or better lifestyle as my parents as a middle management nobody than my Dad did as a business owner. And then, my wife works as well. That pays for a lot of "extras", but even so, its all down to the fact that everything is more affordable. When I was 21 and earning about £14000 a year, a decent PC cost £1000. 20 years later, I'm earning nearly quadruple that, and a decent PC still costs €1000.
Errr... you're earning nearly quadruple £14,000/year and you say you're not even above average? Um, really? Are people in Ireland that much richer than in England? I can't imagine this is the case. Your salary is what most people I knew in England would consider to be excellent!
Well, first off, I'm earning in Euros not Sterling, and yeah, salaries are higher here than in the UK. But then, the cost of living is much higher here also. Guys at my level in the UK have the same effective lifestyle as I do. The numbers may be different, but the effect is the same.
Primula Baggins wrote:
No, it doesn't, yov, since the owners and stockholders of a corporation are entitled to the profits, and profits are defined as revenue minus the cost of creating the revenue. We've seen for years now that as costs decrease and productivity increases, the owners and stockholders just pocket more revenue and tighten the screws. It's a business principle to minimize labor costs. As Ax mentioned earlier, this probably won't change until jobs are so scarce and so low-paid that companies are unable to sell the products they make, because those low-paid workers are also most of the country.
That...doesn't really make sense to me. At least outside of monopolies for stuff that humans have to buy, like food and medicine. Clearly stuff like smartphones have become a bazillion dollar industry because there's lots of people who can afford that luxury. Nike can sell $150 shoe because enough people can afford a $150 shoe. If 10 years from now those people can only afford a $80 shoe - or can buy a different shoe that's as good/desirable for $80 - than they have to sell at $80 to make a profit. Which means we're getting the same thing for less labor. It really looks to me like the free market will generally work this one out okay. I mean, it's not like increased efficiency in production are a 21st century concept.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I'm not sure, but I think that might be slightly less than "nearly quadruple £14,000/year."
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I find that statistic to be completely out of touch with the reality I live every day. However, I am certainly in the Higher Tax bracket, so I suppose I'm above average. But the minimum wage is about €18,000 and pretty much nobody works for mimimum wage here because they would be better off on the dole. Independent surveys have calculated that you need to be earning over €30,000 in order to be better off than someone on welfare. Someone of my experience (20+ years and Degree qualified) would expect to be earning at least what I'm on or more. So while I'm not in the "working class" I certainly wouldn't be "Upper Middle Class" either. Hence my assertion that I'm about average.
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Doing my Candy Crowly instant fact-check imitation (;)), according to the Irish Times, the average income in Ireland in 2011 was €22,168.
That sounds like what I was familiar with in England. Around £25k/year seemed average and once you got into the 30s and especially the 40s, you were considered to be doing quite well.
I don't discount what Alatar is saying though. Numbers mean different things when it comes to currencies. $1 = 79 Japanese Yen.
edit: What's Ireland's hourly minimum wage, Alatar? In England it's £6.19.
Regardless of what Al's family personally makes, I look at that list and see a bunch of stuff that most people I know own and most people I know aren't more than middle class. Two people making $30K each would likely be able to afford all that easily, even with a kid or two.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Doing my Candy Crowly instant fact-check imitation (;)), according to the Irish Times, the average income in Ireland in 2011 was €22,168.
That sounds like what I was familiar with in England. Around £25k/year seemed average and once you got into the 30s and especially the 40s, you were considered to be doing quite well.
I don't discount what Alatar is saying though. Numbers mean different things when it comes to currencies. $1 = 79 Japanese Yen.
edit: What's Ireland's hourly minimum wage, Alatar? In England it's £6.19.
Since 1 July 2011 under SI 331 of 2011 the national minimum wage for an experienced adult employee is €8.65 per hour
Jnyusa wrote a lot about this once upon a time. The gist was that the costs of food and the optionals have fallen dramatically since the 70s, but the fixed costs you can't get away from, particularly housing and health insurance, have gone through the roof. The net effect is that adjusted family income is about the same, except it now takes two workers to achieve it instead of one, so risk is much higher.
Dave_LF wrote:Jnyusa wrote a lot about this once upon a time. The gist was that the costs of food and the optionals have fallen dramatically since the 70s, but the fixed costs you can't get away from, particularly housing and health insurance, have gone through the roof. The net effect is that adjusted family income is about the same, except it now takes two workers to achieve it instead of one, so risk is much higher.
That makes sense to me. I assume housing is mainly because more people crammed into cities (*waves at SF*) not because of evil corporate greed. Why health care keeps rising so dramatically is still baffling to me.
None of which is to say I don't believe in evil corporate greed, just that I don't believe it's impact on actual standards of living is as dramatic as some (largely leftist) people seem to think.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I assume housing is mainly because more people crammed into cities (*waves at SF*) not because of evil corporate greed.
Also easier/deregulated lending and a greater willingness of individuals to take on debt. Irresponsible bidders drive up prices for everyone.
Why health care keeps rising so dramatically is still baffling to me.
One reason is that deregulated insurers put their money into risky investments and lost a lot of it in the 90s and 00s when the tech and housing bubbles popped. Another is that there are so many more treatments available now. In the 70s, if you got disease X you died, end of story. In the 00s, you can choose between dying and buying treatments that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Last edited by Dave_LF on Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alatar wrote:FWIW, my same job in Dell in Austin would probably make about $110k, or about £35-40K in the UK. Don't know if that clarifies or complicates matters.
That's nearly triple my income and I live pretty comfortably. (Though I am also single and Orlando is fairly cheap.)
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
In a world where we absolutely cannot compete by racing to the bottom (lowest wages/least controls on pollution/who knows what), how can we have an economy that works for people?
Somehow we have to change our definition of "growth," perhaps, so that local, non-profit activities also count.
And in general, local economic ecosystems need to be strengthened.
It's such a quandary!
“Wilbur never forgot Charlotte. Although he loved her children and grandchildren dearly, none of the new spiders ever quite took her place in his heart. She was in a class by herself. It is not often that someone comes along who is a true friend and a good writer. Charlotte was both.” E. B. White, who must have had vison in mind. There's a reason why we kept putting the extra i in her name in our minds!
Alatar wrote:FWIW, my same job in Dell in Austin would probably make about $110k, or about £35-40K in the UK. Don't know if that clarifies or complicates matters.
No idea. It always strikes me that in America, people could get more for their money. Americans usually have higher salaries than in the UK yet I noticed things still costs the same numeric amout.. except for housing.. housing is horrid in the UK compared to the US. But then again, Americans probably have higher health insurance costs compared to the UK.. but they pay less in taxes...
Honestly to me, it's really hard to compare. $110K is certainly far above the average US income. You do sound like you're above average but you're not wealthy. You're comfortable perhaps.
Anyway, I'd say in some way I'm in one boat with Alatar: I earn around 9.000 Swiss francs per month (13 times a year!), before taxes. (salaries of the public sector in Geneva are listed on the Internet anyway, so it's not exactly a secret). The $ and the Swiss franc are almost even now. On the one hand, I am living better than my parents did: more electronic equipment (which did not exist at their time), I have a cleaning woman, which my mother did not have and we have two cars. On the other hand, I don't. At my age, my parents owned three appartments, one of which was a holiday appartment in Switzerland. And only my dad worked. But it's mixed. I travel more, I have nicer things than my mum had (at least for some), I have more comfort... what we aspire to has changed. My parents wanted rather a holiday appartment than travelling far. I want to voyage a bit. The values have changed.
My grand-mother was a war widow with five children at the age of 38 and never worked after the war - yet she was able to buy a house, which would be impossible today. Now, of course she lived on little money and the kids had jobs to help out, but even with all this it would be impossible today.
But now, since I work full-time, I can just buy myself a nice dress if I see one and don't have to hesitate. I could buy a sewing machine right after starting lessons - not the high level model, but a fairly good one. And I'm not considered rich. Middle class, upper middle eventually, but that's it. The big problem is housing. If I had to pay a rent, it would be around 3000 to 5000 Swiss francs at least and for a place smaller than this one. For the house, it's less. Interests are terribly low. House prices are sky high, so few people ca buy Real Estate (you need 20% of the price on your own capital for a start, but if you have them, being an owner is a huge advantage)
The other one is long term perspective: I won't get the retirement level my parents go, I know that. So I have two life insurances to put money aside. Of course, I also pay health insurance for three, which all in all is less than 500 Swiss francs per month. And life is expensive. A lunch sandwich and a soda in town is 16 francs. But when I hear what people are paid in other places - I feel rich. I don't need to put aside college money for my kids. I pay - in comparison to most other countries - little taxes. (around 10% of my income)
Anyway, all wages in Switzerland are so high (I mean, I am school teacher in public service, I don't think I'd be paid that well in the USA or in fact in most countries of the world) The Swiss franc is on a summit compared to the € and £. Swiss jobs are horribly expensive. Yet, some industries are desperately looking for employes. Mainly the watch industry, but also machinery. Low wage jobs are not everything. They need qualified people. Here, if you have a good education, you find a decently paid job. And good education does not mean university!
I know we have an economic crisis and I realise that for many people in many countries, the living situation has been going down. But I also think that we are more demanding, or differently demanding towards life.
(Though I am also single and Orlando is fairly cheap.)
$110K is certainly far above the average US income. You do sound like you're above average but you're not wealthy. You're comfortable perhaps. 