I'm deeply skeptical of any explanation that claims that we have both a "shortage of labor" and "downward pressure on wages":
> If men and women from the ages 25 to 54 took part in the labor market... [t]hat would be more fuel for the U.S. economy and a bigger source of workers for businesses crying out about a shortage of labor...
> Trade with China flooded the U.S. with cheap imports, forced domestic firms to shift operations overseas and put downward pressure on wages of less-skilled Americans.
There's an obvious capitalistic answer to this problem: If you're "crying out" for labor, then you may need to offer more money. This will encourage more people to work, or to acquire the skills you want—look at all those coding bootcamps, for example.
Claiming that there's a labor shortage and downward pressure on wages is an extraordinary claim, and it requires a detailed explanation. Otherwise, the obvious assumption is that somebody wants specialized skills for below-market prices. If markets are good at one thing, it's adjusting prices to balance supply and demand.
One way to look at it is there is a ceiling on American wages imposed by globalization. Above that ceiling you're better off going overseas. But that ceiling is below the market-clearing price of labor in the us.
Indeed. One other factor which the study does not touch upon but I do wonder about - burnout - essentially "poor employment conditions".
One thing which has substantially changed between '99 and now is employer expectation of availability. In '99, you may have worked 9-6, but when you left the office, you left the office. Sure, some tech folks, some traders, etc. may have had pagers back then - but now, the mobile phone is ubiquitous, and the universal expectation is that you are available and ready to work, even if it's 4am on Sunday and you got married yesterday.
It's purely anecdotal, but I am "in my prime", and have opted out of being a productive member of society for now, as being broke beats being broken. I'm not alone in this - in the past 18 months of peripateticism, I've met many others, mostly tech folks, in the same boat.
Bluntly, market price isn't enough to completely sacrifice any semblance of an existence outside of work.
Think professions where reimbursement is controlled by an outside entity like insurance or Medicaid. Even with supply and demand you can’t pay more than those will make possible. Additionally, in many cases you’ll end up with people working and providing services before finding out that they won’t be paid for it.
It's not an extraordinary claim at all as these two events co-exist: Too few people have skills that companies need; too many people having no skills or irrelevant skills are looking for jobs.
I would think then that companies who are understaffed because they cannot hire people with the specialized skills they need would lose out in the long run to competitors who are willing to pay market/above-market wages for talent. Anecdotally that doesn't seem to have been happening.
The overall conclusion was that automation (and, we can assume, globalization) was essentially digging away at "middle-skilled" jobs, like manufacturing. These are jobs where employees must invest a certain amount of time and training to be paid well, and then they find that their entire industry is drying up. They are faced with a few choices, and many of those lead towards a less attractive, lower-paying job than they had before.
With a social safety net, many are simply exiting the job market and relying on disability or other means to get by rather than take a crap job at crap wages.
Although the age group here is different, a lot of the same forces are likely at play. US employers do not see labor as an investment, and haven't for a long time (if ever); they are generally unwilling to hire lower-skilled employees and invest in training them. Instead, they cry constantly that there isn't a large enough pool of skilled labor to draw from (and in the tech sector, this is why they think they need lots of H-1Bs).
Meanwhile, potential employees are faced with a market where, if they work very hard and teach themselves some skill at their own cost, they might be able to get a job working for an employer who will pay them as little as they can get away with paying them (the wage pressure), and potentially also having to pay off student loans. Alternatively, they can forego this rat race and get some middle-skill job -- something between food service and senior software developer -- and make enough to get by, and with less debt, and spend whatever extra money they've got left over on cheap entertainment.
They certainly aren't going to be able to afford a house on their wages, that hasn't been possible since the 60s.
This is a complex issue with manifold causes and effects and, as the article I linked points out, nobody seems to have a solid handle on all of it yet. There's lots of ideology but not clear enough data yet.
There's a related problem. No company wants to be the first to raise wages either because their margin is already thin or they don't yet have faith in the economy to dive head first. Usually the latter. A lot about the economy is sentiment. When sentiment improves, companies will invest more in labor as well as other improvements. Until then they wouldn't want to look a fool.
We see this all the time in tech, cannot find people is usually cannot find people with the skills and experience we want for the price we are willing to pay. This will always be true if you offer less than the current market rate which startups seems to think they are entitled to.
I can squeeze myself into that group due to long extents of unemployment in my prime years and I:
- graduated college early
- graduated law school early
- was a judicial law school
- co-developed and sold a patent pending business method for the automated calculation of fees in statutory litigation
In my specific case, especially in law, one thing holds me back (essentially placing me on a do not hire blacklist) I have a blemish on my criminal record for a possession of marijuana charge when I was 21 years old. Law is an old school industry that doesn’t generally overlook that type of thing, I even had 1 interview end immediately right when that was asked/disclosed during the interview itself. But even outside of Law I have applied to hundreds of jobs without ever getting interviews, I have applied to all the tech companies (in legal positions) without an interview. I have probably even applied to a dozen or so YC companies and never a single interview, YC even invested in a start up that is supposed to help people with criminal records get jobs and I reached out for assistance and was told they couldn’t assist me. This brings me to my second point, like there are “blacklists” and policies against candidates with criminal records, there are just plain old blacklists and I bet most of this 3.5 million are on them.
It’s not just People with criminal records either, people with poor credit are on blacklists, people with employment gaps are on blacklists. These blacklists are both internal company policies but also in some cases real shared lists between recruiters and other lists HR checks. I’ll personally be alright because I can make money without a job but most can’t and need traditional emoloyment. And they will never get a job because they are in in this endless cycle of employment gap and poor finances (bad credit) that can never be rehabilitated because of mindless policy. This also explains a class of people ready and willing to be exploited in the gig economy.
It sounds like you're probably located in CA, have you looked into getting that possession taken off of your record, assuming the charge was in CA? The statewide legalization effort yielded[0] a provision that allows for review and possible expungement of marijuana-related charges.
I personally know several people who are no longer competitive in various jobs due to the massive influx of illegal immigrants. These are tradesmen, landscapers, and others who used to be able to support their families and live in the area. Many of them now commute long distances (so they can live in lower cost areas) for far less pay. Their children are not following them into these jobs. And its not because they're unwilling to do the work. They're priced out because their own government is unwilling to protect them from these predatory practices.
I call BS that its due to "illegal" immigrants. Undocumented immigrants mostly work in agriculture, the restaurant industry, or taking care of american households. The few blue-collar jobs that undocumented immigrants do take are the low hanging fruit that require little to no education or skill. If americans expected to forever be able to support their families on these types of jobs, then some people really need to step up their game.
These people are no longer competitive because they failed to innovate. They're priced out because their own government is and has been unwilling to do anything to help the non-wealthy and alleviate the level of income inequality.
Their own government is also failing to make it possible to affordably live in the area. Local governments doing their best to keep new housing illegal, but government nonetheless.
There has to be a point where mere unemployment isn't stigmitized. Of course, being lazy, unproductive, and at worst destructive has to be condemned/disincentivized, but the association of unemployment to unproductive and from unproductive to some sense of worthlessness/leeching has to be amended in our society. Whether it's UBI, an increase in non-profits, and/or a proliferation of diverse and meaningful government funded projects (arts, public works, infrastructure), there are many ways to put people to meaningful work and utility besides working for a for-profit corporation. I think overcoming the stress induced by higher unemployment produced by automation will be one of the biggest societal challenges America (and beyond) will face in the coming decades. The outdated, 20th century model of work hard (for a company) -> be happy/fulfilled/successful will change. Ultimately, I think automation is for the best: let humans do what they do best (be creative, think abstractly, form and implement new models of the world/society/some concept, learn/iterate/improve/adapt) and let machines do what they do best ([generally speaking] automated tasks that require little improvisation or flexibility).
Living on handouts or at the taxpayer's expense is not dignified or sustainable, and should be discouraged. A fruitful strategy in my opinion would be to encourage people to become financially self-reliant from passive sources of income, to the point of not requiring employment income, by building up their capital, and looking at the interventions done by the government that impede capital formation, especially for those starting from nothing, like:
* licensing restrictions that exclude amateurs and small businesses from participating in various industries (e.g. securities laws that prevent non-public-companies and unaccredited investors from issuing stock to the public and buying stock from non-public companies, respectively)
* occupational licensing
* high tax burdens
* government deficits crowding out lending to the private sector
* zoning restrictions causing housing costs in core economic regions to increase
I'm in my prime and relatively competent. The reason I'm broke working on my own startup and not at a company is because every company or successful project I've been a part of has not led to my success as an individual.
FTE at a startup is high risk low reward. You might think with funding a startup is not high risk. It is. You are giving up the huge salary you'd get a a megacorp. And don't even get me started on the common stock issue.
FTE at a megacorp is medium risk medium reward. Not high enough reward until you get to the higher levels - difficult to do.
And also the dull monotone reward signal of direct deposit every two weeks is so incredibly boring.
So now I'm left bootstrapping. The only thing left with high reward. It's hard. My insurance sucks. Trying to work with other companies is obnoxious. Every app store takes 30% and thinks they have employees without the paperwork. One app store I built something for requested(demanded) never ending meaningless changes then released a copy of my idea without telling me. It wasn't even that good of an idea in retrospect.
The game is rigged and not optional. People everywhere hate rigged games.
3.5 million Americans could either be at work today or looking for jobs. That would be more fuel for the U.S. economy and a bigger source of workers for businesses crying out about a shortage of labor.
Yeah right. It's my experience that companies do not care about picking up anyone who is not already perfectly tailored for the role needed. If that person hasn't been found, the req just sits there. Sometimes for a year or more. That there is some "unfilled gap" of jobs is a fallacy.
There's a lot of challenges, automation, globalization, immigration, poor schooling, poor family life, discrimination, clueless human resource departments, unjust stigma from encounters with criminal justice system.
All these things are issues, part of the reason many people can't work.
With all that in mind, some (largish?) percentage of people not working are simply unemployable. As in, they won't be able to do a job. Or they will make more trouble than they will put out so are net negative to have employed and thus don't stay employed. I don't know what can be done about this, probably feed them and call it good. Not sure everyone is owed a job, at least the way the system is set up now.
>After declining in inflation-adjusted terms from 1998 to 2007, minimum wages rose almost 11% in real terms between 2007 and 2016, Abraham and Kearney estimated. Firms may have outsourced jobs or spent more on automation to offset the higher costs of low-skilled labor.
Is it just me, or is this a shockingly misleading paragraph? That minimum wages rose in real terms tells us nothing. They may have kept in place with inflation, or they may have even continued to fall in inflation-adjusted terms. This is not an apples-to-apples comparison at all.
"inflation-adjusted terms" and "real terms" are the same thing. The author was trying to avoid repetition but the only contrast intended here is between the earlier decline and later rise.
It seems confusingly worded, but "real terms" does typically mean that it is adjusted for inflation. Assuming that is the case, it is apples-to-apples even though it is oddly phrased.
I don’t think this is misleading; in economics parlance “real” terms means inflation adjusted. Perhaps you are thinking of “nominal” terms, which would not be?
Not sure why people are shocked by this, it's just the basic principle of diffusion.
As long as america continue to allow free trade our wealth and jobs will flow out of the country as countries seek cheaper labor and sell it right back to America with no restrictions. The standard of living is raising in other countries while lowering in the US. Labor is already getting too expensive in China for cheap goods so companies are beginning to look at other countries for cheap labor, or bring manufacturing back to the US and us automation to make up the difference.
The US really has no incentive to allow this to happen. We have the largest market in the world and could very easily do what China does if other countries want access to it. The US allows anybody into our markets while China bends them over the bargaining table requiring them to give up IP and form joint ventures with Chinese companies. What incentive does the US have to do "fair" trade? We have all the leverage in any negotiation but for years haven't used that leverage. At some point we're going to have to or the citizens are going to either rebel or accept lower standard of living, lower income, and lower life expectancy.
I'm starting to believe that the reason Washington DC does nothing about the opioid crisis is because it benefits them. If thousands of unemployed, heavily armed rust belt men were not strung out and dying from addiction they probably would have organized and marched on DC a long time ago and got payback on the politicians who have sold them out for personal gain.
Comments such as yours -- parroting Donald Trump like talking points -- are remarkable when you consider that the US has the second highest purchase power in the world.
The US really has no incentive to allow this to happen
Except that it has opened trade for US companies, and the reported numbers are often laughably misleading. Apple, for instance, nets almost all of the profits from an iPhone, yet in the trade balance an iPhone magically counts as a $1000 deficit with China. Further, it yields cheaper goods for Americans, and more efficiency.
The US was literally built on free trade, and sits right near the top because of it, so to read these nonsensical "but what if" arguments borders on parody. It is just a profound ignorance of history and even the most rudimentary of economics. It is one of those amazing things where people really, really don't understand what they have until they lose it.
The weird thing about your argument is if you take off the lense of national boundaries the argument gains an extra dimension and becomes more complex.
For example, I recently heard from a friend with family in China that Americans who go to China can make $50 an hour private English tutoring rich Chinese kids. How can wages be rising so much in China and they are still wildly undercutting us?
The other weird thing is Americans who move to low cost south east Asia locations and run dropship ecommerce stores that make $2000 a month and live like they were making 10 times that in the bay area.
The friend of mine who makes his living expenses for two years in Argentina in two months doing webdev.
The bottom line is someting is wrong with prices for things in America. Prices for education, price for health care, prices for rent. Everything is so expensive that people can't live on low wages and be content. When they just change their location all the prices wildly change relative to each other and it all makes sense.
I don't have an easy answer, but some unusual economic phenomenon is going on that transcends national politics and it is important for a individual who can operate internationally to take note. of it.
> As long as america continue to allow free trade our wealth and jobs will flow out of the country as countries seek cheaper labor and sell it right back to America with no restrictions.
What an incredible nonsense. America has been pushing free trade all over the globe to be able to sell American products into other markets. They're not 'allowing' free trade, they have been pushing it for all it's worth and then some.
> As long as america continue to allow free trade our wealth and jobs will flow out of the country as countries seek cheaper labor and sell it right back to America with no restrictions.
Settings aside the fact that the US currently enjoys very low unemployment, with a steady rate of job creation that is now the longest jobs expansion in recorded US history, why do you believe other countries are willing to manufacture things and give them away to Americans for free?
Dollars are only valuable as a medium of exchange for American goods and services. Chinese companies will export goods and services to America because there is a demand for US dollars to purchase American goods and services, which are generated by labor and sold for a profit.
The idea that wealth and jobs could flow out of the country as a result of trade - whether free trade, or otherwise - is literally impossible.
By all objective measures, free trade has helped more than it has hurt. And yes, that's poor consolation for the disproportionate injury for the minority: not least of which are those in the U.S. who were unable or unwilling to adapt to the ensuing market forces, but perhaps the proliferation of worker exploitation and slavery [1]
Those disproportionately benefiting, are those invested in the stock market, and work as top tier management of those companies. As defacto owners and operators, their company gets cheaper labor without honoring the labor rights of the home country, and have become wealthier because of this. Ironically, perhaps, the home country benefits from this as well via tax collection.
The idea that that reverting to prior trade paradigms will be more fair is just stupid. Regression will be worse because it will deprive so many more people of what wealth they do have. It would destabilizing economically, and politically. Bilateral trade is as dead long term as petroleum. A silly president, who transparently favors bilateral trade either because he lacks the mental acuity to understand multilateral trade, or he's malevolent and wants to take advantage of others without being held accountable (his long standing business m.o. is split between the two), should have no say. And in practice the senate, American business, foreign leaders and businesses, nod and smile just so he doesn't poop his diaper again. Not because bilateral trade has a realistic chance.
Instead of taking an unserious person's advice, we need to double down on mutilateral trade combined with strong competition, anti-fraud, and ethics. And a lot of rational constructive arguing. The more who benefit, the wealthier and safer we all are. I win you lose is Trump's idea of winning strategy, and everyone knows it. His followers love the bully mentality, they think it works, and his detractors see it for what it is: shitty behavior you expect from shitty people best avoided as much as possible.
[1] A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery Ben Skinner
Next on tonight's news: disability cheats, the millions of Americans who could work, but don't.
Yep, I'm a cynic.
Then, there's this:
"After declining in inflation-adjusted terms from 1998 to 2007, minimum wages rose almost 11% in real terms between 2007 and 2016, Abraham and Kearney estimated. Firms may have outsourced jobs or spent more on automation to offset the higher costs of low-skilled labor."
I was unaware there were many minimum wage jobs that could be outsourced or replaced. Most are in the service industries, right?
I didn’t read the study, but an even bigger factor than SSDI is Medicaid expansion. Free insurance with no co-pays and deductibles is worth a lot of money if you consume any healthcare services, and you can only get it if you don’t earn more than 140% FPL.
> Free insurance with no co-pays and deductibles is worth a lot of money if you consume any healthcare services, and you can only get it if you don’t work.
The Medicaid expansion population is up to 138% of Federal Poverty Level, so it's not “available only if you don't work”, and the vast majority of states participating in the expansion impose cost sharing requirements (which work like deductibles, though at least the ones I know well are monthly rather than annual), so it's mostly not “with no copay or deductible”.
On the one hand, US is doing great. US grew 3% annualized last year, on a base of 19T, the most in the world. That's very impressive considering how big the base is to even have such a big percentage. You can compare that to China, where they had to keep reporting a fake 7% growth despite their provinces confessing to a 20-30% fake revenue. In the last 40 years, America's middle class shrank 7%. However, the lower middle class shrank 7% as well, and the upper middle class grew 16%. (http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/news/economy/upper-middle-cl...) . Implying that alot of the lower middle and middle had moved up. Especially in certain cities like San Francisco or Santa Clara, where there is just an abundance of $130k+/year jobs (and contrary to popular belief, one can easily save $50-60k/year by renting a room in a house at $1000/month).
On the other hand, it seems like the lower class has barely budged, and has remained in place and their quality of life has suffered. They have been losing manufacturing jobs to China and other countries (20M at the height in 1970, 12M currently http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/07/news/economy/us-manufacturin...). However, now with an administration dedicated to bringing jobs back from overseas (with focus on manufacturing), and enacting tariffs on countries that competes by flooding the market and destroying local competition, the jobs for lower class should be growing starting this year. The current solar/washing machine tariff, and upcoming steel and aluminum tariffs against China should help.
Asteroid is discovered in deep space heading for Earth. Astronomers watch the asteroid approach Earth. Asteroid hits New York City. Millions die. Astronomers and media report:
"Asteroid from deep space kills millions. Asteroid causes death of millions."
[+] [-] ekidd|8 years ago|reply
> If men and women from the ages 25 to 54 took part in the labor market... [t]hat would be more fuel for the U.S. economy and a bigger source of workers for businesses crying out about a shortage of labor...
> Trade with China flooded the U.S. with cheap imports, forced domestic firms to shift operations overseas and put downward pressure on wages of less-skilled Americans.
There's an obvious capitalistic answer to this problem: If you're "crying out" for labor, then you may need to offer more money. This will encourage more people to work, or to acquire the skills you want—look at all those coding bootcamps, for example.
Claiming that there's a labor shortage and downward pressure on wages is an extraordinary claim, and it requires a detailed explanation. Otherwise, the obvious assumption is that somebody wants specialized skills for below-market prices. If markets are good at one thing, it's adjusting prices to balance supply and demand.
[+] [-] jordanb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madaxe_again|8 years ago|reply
One thing which has substantially changed between '99 and now is employer expectation of availability. In '99, you may have worked 9-6, but when you left the office, you left the office. Sure, some tech folks, some traders, etc. may have had pagers back then - but now, the mobile phone is ubiquitous, and the universal expectation is that you are available and ready to work, even if it's 4am on Sunday and you got married yesterday.
It's purely anecdotal, but I am "in my prime", and have opted out of being a productive member of society for now, as being broke beats being broken. I'm not alone in this - in the past 18 months of peripateticism, I've met many others, mostly tech folks, in the same boat.
Bluntly, market price isn't enough to completely sacrifice any semblance of an existence outside of work.
[+] [-] brightball|8 years ago|reply
That’s just off the cuff though.
[+] [-] echevil|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SeanBoocock|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PatchMonkey|8 years ago|reply
Trump would be right to constrict access to H1B1 visas for foreign workers in the US, in this case.
But we also have a problem of access to those coding bootcamps - everyone has a smartphone, not everyone has a modern desktop/laptop. As far as coding bootcamps, there's also this: https://medium.com/@melissamcewen/who-killed-the-junior-deve...
The same in the field of law: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/too-many-law-stud...
Here's what employers are saying: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/28/surveys-find...
But a realistic explanation? Monopsony: too few employers competing for workers with any given skill set. https://slate.com/business/2018/01/after-all-the-talk-about-...
Monopsony is getting some attention: https://www.thenation.com/article/does-monopoly-power-explai...
And here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/ask-the-headhunter/ask-...
[+] [-] thaumaturgy|8 years ago|reply
The overall conclusion was that automation (and, we can assume, globalization) was essentially digging away at "middle-skilled" jobs, like manufacturing. These are jobs where employees must invest a certain amount of time and training to be paid well, and then they find that their entire industry is drying up. They are faced with a few choices, and many of those lead towards a less attractive, lower-paying job than they had before.
With a social safety net, many are simply exiting the job market and relying on disability or other means to get by rather than take a crap job at crap wages.
Although the age group here is different, a lot of the same forces are likely at play. US employers do not see labor as an investment, and haven't for a long time (if ever); they are generally unwilling to hire lower-skilled employees and invest in training them. Instead, they cry constantly that there isn't a large enough pool of skilled labor to draw from (and in the tech sector, this is why they think they need lots of H-1Bs).
Meanwhile, potential employees are faced with a market where, if they work very hard and teach themselves some skill at their own cost, they might be able to get a job working for an employer who will pay them as little as they can get away with paying them (the wage pressure), and potentially also having to pay off student loans. Alternatively, they can forego this rat race and get some middle-skill job -- something between food service and senior software developer -- and make enough to get by, and with less debt, and spend whatever extra money they've got left over on cheap entertainment.
They certainly aren't going to be able to afford a house on their wages, that hasn't been possible since the 60s.
This is a complex issue with manifold causes and effects and, as the article I linked points out, nobody seems to have a solid handle on all of it yet. There's lots of ideology but not clear enough data yet.
[+] [-] 8ytecoder|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmonsen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walshemj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shullbitt0r|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golemiprague|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] will_brown|8 years ago|reply
- graduated college early
- graduated law school early
- was a judicial law school
- co-developed and sold a patent pending business method for the automated calculation of fees in statutory litigation
In my specific case, especially in law, one thing holds me back (essentially placing me on a do not hire blacklist) I have a blemish on my criminal record for a possession of marijuana charge when I was 21 years old. Law is an old school industry that doesn’t generally overlook that type of thing, I even had 1 interview end immediately right when that was asked/disclosed during the interview itself. But even outside of Law I have applied to hundreds of jobs without ever getting interviews, I have applied to all the tech companies (in legal positions) without an interview. I have probably even applied to a dozen or so YC companies and never a single interview, YC even invested in a start up that is supposed to help people with criminal records get jobs and I reached out for assistance and was told they couldn’t assist me. This brings me to my second point, like there are “blacklists” and policies against candidates with criminal records, there are just plain old blacklists and I bet most of this 3.5 million are on them.
It’s not just People with criminal records either, people with poor credit are on blacklists, people with employment gaps are on blacklists. These blacklists are both internal company policies but also in some cases real shared lists between recruiters and other lists HR checks. I’ll personally be alright because I can make money without a job but most can’t and need traditional emoloyment. And they will never get a job because they are in in this endless cycle of employment gap and poor finances (bad credit) that can never be rehabilitated because of mindless policy. This also explains a class of people ready and willing to be exploited in the gig economy.
[+] [-] k_sh|8 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/convicted-of-a-marij...
[+] [-] tomohawk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elinmigrante|8 years ago|reply
These people are no longer competitive because they failed to innovate. They're priced out because their own government is and has been unwilling to do anything to help the non-wealthy and alleviate the level of income inequality.
[+] [-] hycaria|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YokoZar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PunchTornado|8 years ago|reply
I don't believe it. If you are a skilled landscaper or tradesman you are able to earn a good wage.
[+] [-] asdffdsa|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CryptoPunk|8 years ago|reply
* licensing restrictions that exclude amateurs and small businesses from participating in various industries (e.g. securities laws that prevent non-public-companies and unaccredited investors from issuing stock to the public and buying stock from non-public companies, respectively)
* occupational licensing
* high tax burdens
* government deficits crowding out lending to the private sector
* zoning restrictions causing housing costs in core economic regions to increase
[+] [-] whataretensors|8 years ago|reply
FTE at a startup is high risk low reward. You might think with funding a startup is not high risk. It is. You are giving up the huge salary you'd get a a megacorp. And don't even get me started on the common stock issue.
FTE at a megacorp is medium risk medium reward. Not high enough reward until you get to the higher levels - difficult to do.
And also the dull monotone reward signal of direct deposit every two weeks is so incredibly boring.
So now I'm left bootstrapping. The only thing left with high reward. It's hard. My insurance sucks. Trying to work with other companies is obnoxious. Every app store takes 30% and thinks they have employees without the paperwork. One app store I built something for requested(demanded) never ending meaningless changes then released a copy of my idea without telling me. It wasn't even that good of an idea in retrospect.
The game is rigged and not optional. People everywhere hate rigged games.
[+] [-] purplezooey|8 years ago|reply
Yeah right. It's my experience that companies do not care about picking up anyone who is not already perfectly tailored for the role needed. If that person hasn't been found, the req just sits there. Sometimes for a year or more. That there is some "unfilled gap" of jobs is a fallacy.
[+] [-] mythrwy|8 years ago|reply
All these things are issues, part of the reason many people can't work.
With all that in mind, some (largish?) percentage of people not working are simply unemployable. As in, they won't be able to do a job. Or they will make more trouble than they will put out so are net negative to have employed and thus don't stay employed. I don't know what can be done about this, probably feed them and call it good. Not sure everyone is owed a job, at least the way the system is set up now.
[+] [-] scilro|8 years ago|reply
>After declining in inflation-adjusted terms from 1998 to 2007, minimum wages rose almost 11% in real terms between 2007 and 2016, Abraham and Kearney estimated. Firms may have outsourced jobs or spent more on automation to offset the higher costs of low-skilled labor.
Is it just me, or is this a shockingly misleading paragraph? That minimum wages rose in real terms tells us nothing. They may have kept in place with inflation, or they may have even continued to fall in inflation-adjusted terms. This is not an apples-to-apples comparison at all.
[+] [-] refurb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arebop|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuckermi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stochastastic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] galieos_ghost|8 years ago|reply
As long as america continue to allow free trade our wealth and jobs will flow out of the country as countries seek cheaper labor and sell it right back to America with no restrictions. The standard of living is raising in other countries while lowering in the US. Labor is already getting too expensive in China for cheap goods so companies are beginning to look at other countries for cheap labor, or bring manufacturing back to the US and us automation to make up the difference.
The US really has no incentive to allow this to happen. We have the largest market in the world and could very easily do what China does if other countries want access to it. The US allows anybody into our markets while China bends them over the bargaining table requiring them to give up IP and form joint ventures with Chinese companies. What incentive does the US have to do "fair" trade? We have all the leverage in any negotiation but for years haven't used that leverage. At some point we're going to have to or the citizens are going to either rebel or accept lower standard of living, lower income, and lower life expectancy.
I'm starting to believe that the reason Washington DC does nothing about the opioid crisis is because it benefits them. If thousands of unemployed, heavily armed rust belt men were not strung out and dying from addiction they probably would have organized and marched on DC a long time ago and got payback on the politicians who have sold them out for personal gain.
[+] [-] endorphone|8 years ago|reply
The US really has no incentive to allow this to happen
Except that it has opened trade for US companies, and the reported numbers are often laughably misleading. Apple, for instance, nets almost all of the profits from an iPhone, yet in the trade balance an iPhone magically counts as a $1000 deficit with China. Further, it yields cheaper goods for Americans, and more efficiency.
The US was literally built on free trade, and sits right near the top because of it, so to read these nonsensical "but what if" arguments borders on parody. It is just a profound ignorance of history and even the most rudimentary of economics. It is one of those amazing things where people really, really don't understand what they have until they lose it.
[+] [-] narrator|8 years ago|reply
For example, I recently heard from a friend with family in China that Americans who go to China can make $50 an hour private English tutoring rich Chinese kids. How can wages be rising so much in China and they are still wildly undercutting us?
The other weird thing is Americans who move to low cost south east Asia locations and run dropship ecommerce stores that make $2000 a month and live like they were making 10 times that in the bay area.
The friend of mine who makes his living expenses for two years in Argentina in two months doing webdev.
The bottom line is someting is wrong with prices for things in America. Prices for education, price for health care, prices for rent. Everything is so expensive that people can't live on low wages and be content. When they just change their location all the prices wildly change relative to each other and it all makes sense.
I don't have an easy answer, but some unusual economic phenomenon is going on that transcends national politics and it is important for a individual who can operate internationally to take note. of it.
[+] [-] jacquesm|8 years ago|reply
What an incredible nonsense. America has been pushing free trade all over the globe to be able to sell American products into other markets. They're not 'allowing' free trade, they have been pushing it for all it's worth and then some.
[+] [-] jlmorton|8 years ago|reply
Settings aside the fact that the US currently enjoys very low unemployment, with a steady rate of job creation that is now the longest jobs expansion in recorded US history, why do you believe other countries are willing to manufacture things and give them away to Americans for free?
Dollars are only valuable as a medium of exchange for American goods and services. Chinese companies will export goods and services to America because there is a demand for US dollars to purchase American goods and services, which are generated by labor and sold for a profit.
The idea that wealth and jobs could flow out of the country as a result of trade - whether free trade, or otherwise - is literally impossible.
[+] [-] cmurf|8 years ago|reply
Those disproportionately benefiting, are those invested in the stock market, and work as top tier management of those companies. As defacto owners and operators, their company gets cheaper labor without honoring the labor rights of the home country, and have become wealthier because of this. Ironically, perhaps, the home country benefits from this as well via tax collection.
The idea that that reverting to prior trade paradigms will be more fair is just stupid. Regression will be worse because it will deprive so many more people of what wealth they do have. It would destabilizing economically, and politically. Bilateral trade is as dead long term as petroleum. A silly president, who transparently favors bilateral trade either because he lacks the mental acuity to understand multilateral trade, or he's malevolent and wants to take advantage of others without being held accountable (his long standing business m.o. is split between the two), should have no say. And in practice the senate, American business, foreign leaders and businesses, nod and smile just so he doesn't poop his diaper again. Not because bilateral trade has a realistic chance.
Instead of taking an unserious person's advice, we need to double down on mutilateral trade combined with strong competition, anti-fraud, and ethics. And a lot of rational constructive arguing. The more who benefit, the wealthier and safer we all are. I win you lose is Trump's idea of winning strategy, and everyone knows it. His followers love the bully mentality, they think it works, and his detractors see it for what it is: shitty behavior you expect from shitty people best avoided as much as possible.
[1] A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery Ben Skinner
[+] [-] baxtr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcguire|8 years ago|reply
Yep, I'm a cynic.
Then, there's this:
"After declining in inflation-adjusted terms from 1998 to 2007, minimum wages rose almost 11% in real terms between 2007 and 2016, Abraham and Kearney estimated. Firms may have outsourced jobs or spent more on automation to offset the higher costs of low-skilled labor."
I was unaware there were many minimum wage jobs that could be outsourced or replaced. Most are in the service industries, right?
[+] [-] zaroth|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
The Medicaid expansion population is up to 138% of Federal Poverty Level, so it's not “available only if you don't work”, and the vast majority of states participating in the expansion impose cost sharing requirements (which work like deductibles, though at least the ones I know well are monthly rather than annual), so it's mostly not “with no copay or deductible”.
[+] [-] hisforehead|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yusuke10|8 years ago|reply
On the other hand, it seems like the lower class has barely budged, and has remained in place and their quality of life has suffered. They have been losing manufacturing jobs to China and other countries (20M at the height in 1970, 12M currently http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/07/news/economy/us-manufacturin...). However, now with an administration dedicated to bringing jobs back from overseas (with focus on manufacturing), and enacting tariffs on countries that competes by flooding the market and destroying local competition, the jobs for lower class should be growing starting this year. The current solar/washing machine tariff, and upcoming steel and aluminum tariffs against China should help.
[+] [-] humanrebar|8 years ago|reply
What if you have a family?
[+] [-] curuinor|8 years ago|reply
You can have natural experiments, but I don't see any. Did they try kidnapping Congress and forcing them to do a total embargo on China? Seems a no.
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] NumberSix|8 years ago|reply
"Asteroid from deep space kills millions. Asteroid causes death of millions."
No experiment is possible. Causation is clear.