This is probably mainly a US centered question, since in other parts of the world the dynamics are quite different.

It is generally thought that the period after the Civil War up to the Wall Street Crash of 29 (60 years or so), was an era dominated by Laissez-Faire economics, wild booms and big busts, few if any worker protections, and precarious working conditions. The system became excessively skewed towards the Corporate Baron and the natural response was the New Deal, Unions, and the pension systems and other benefits in the era between 1930 and 1980, of much greater power of both government regulators and workers. This in itself become too skewed and the response was Reaganomics and a 2nd era of boom and busts (there have been far more market crashes in the last 40+ years than in the period 1930-1980), and of far greater corporate power, that has continued to this day.

It is therefore somewhat natural to hypothesize that, given the increasing debates about massive corporate excess, the rise of Big Tech, low wages, the lack of benefits of American employees compared to peers overseas we have been noticing in the US, are all signs that we are nearing the end of this current Corporation dominated era. The fact that employees feel empowered to demand better conditions or quit, an insipient rebirth of unionized labor, 15 dollar minimum wage movements, and the rise of the populist right that has turned AGAINST big corporations and free trade (alongside a political left wing that still harbors their old distrust of unregulated capitalism and a natural sympathy for workers) all add further anecdotal evidence. Looking from a global perspective, just recently, the first ever WORLDWIDE minimum tax rate was agreed upon (at least in a very basic sense), by almost all nations on Earth. You see a lot more willingness to punish abuses, especially in the EU, and you see China cracking down on their own big corporations.

We are now also approaching 50 years of the current "corporate" era, and it seems that in the past the pendulum swings back right around the 50 year mark or so.

Do you think we are coming to a big change in our economic system? And that by the 2030s we will see a new era of workers benefits and increased prosperity for them that will dominate the mid 21st century? Or will corporations retain firm control of both politics, global trade, and employees?

We damn well better be. Our current structure is completely unsustainable. Companies being allowed to privatize profits and socialize loses - that's a losing system. The current ratio of executive pay to average worker pay is a pathetic joke. Minimum wage hasn't been raised in 15 years while cost of living has been climbing steadily and exponentially in the last year. If things don't become more worker friendly, America will fail (and it may still due to other factors).

CometII wrote:

This is probably mainly a US centered question, since in other parts of the world the dynamics are quite different.
It is generally thought that the period after the Civil War up to the Wall Street Crash of 29 (60 years or so), was an era dominated by Laissez-Faire economics, wild booms and big busts, few if any worker protections, and precarious working conditions. The system became excessively skewed towards the Corporate Baron and the natural response was the New Deal, Unions, and the pension systems and other benefits in the era between 1930 and 1980, of much greater power of both government regulators and workers. This in itself become too skewed and the response was Reaganomics and a 2nd era of boom and busts (there have been far more market crashes in the last 40+ years than in the period 1930-1980), and of far greater corporate power, that has continued to this day.

It is therefore somewhat natural to hypothesize that, given the increasing debates about massive corporate excess, the rise of Big Tech, low wages, the lack of benefits of American employees compared to peers overseas we have been noticing in the US, are all signs that we are nearing the end of this current Corporation dominated era. The fact that employees feel empowered to demand better conditions or quit, an insipient rebirth of unionized labor, 15 dollar minimum wage movements, and the rise of the populist right that has turned AGAINST big corporations and free trade (alongside a political left wing that still harbors their old distrust of unregulated capitalism and a natural sympathy for workers) all add further anecdotal evidence. Looking from a global perspective, just recently, the first ever WORLDWIDE minimum tax rate was agreed upon (at least in a very basic sense), by almost all nations on Earth. You see a lot more willingness to punish abuses, especially in the EU, and you see China cracking down on their own big corporations.

We are now also approaching 50 years of the current "corporate" era, and it seems that in the past the pendulum swings back right around the 50 year mark or so.

Do you think we are coming to a big change in our economic system? And that by the 2030s we will see a new era of workers benefits and increased prosperity for them that will dominate the mid 21st century? Or will corporations retain firm control of both politics, global trade, and employees?

Lol. Can you name a country where wages are higher than the US? I’ll help you, Norway. And that is only if you don’t count taxes.

Corporations are pretty sustainable. Microsoft has had no problem surviving, and it’s not going to have a problem lasting many years into the future - if not centuries.

The US government is the one behaving in an unsustainable way, as mentioned by Elon Musk. The US government has gone insane. The people running it - such as Biden and Harris - are people who have no real world experience where you actually need to be financially sustainable. Only government experience, where which has been divorced from financial realities for many years now.

There are many countries that have been destroyed by uneducated and incompetent money spenders. US may destroy itself, but this will not destroy corporations. They will just move around it. India is just coming online now. Corporations will be just fine for as long as any of us will be alive. Nothing will stop them. The rich will be fine. The question is, do you want to be involved in productive society or do you want to live in a gang-controlled favela. That is your only real choice.

But to answer your question, yes it seems workers will be treated better. Certain things are terrible about US conditions, namely development restrictions in cities, high medical and high college tuition. US wages have always been high and will continue to be high.

This is true as long as the job market is hot. When the job market is cold, consider it an employer's market .

Federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour. It is higher in some states, but the federal government set wages at $7.25 since 2009. For some service workers (those who receive tips) minimum wage can be $2.13 an hour. Keeping that in mind, France, Sweden Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Portugal, Australia all have higher wages. Couple that with we have to pay 100% out of pocket for health care and the cost of everything has been going up. Companies are under no obligation to provide any of that in the United States. They are not even obligated to give raises from $7.25 (or $2.13 depending).

Don't get me started with "but if we raise minimum wage, the cost of everything will go up!" Except the cost of everything has been going up anyway. We are due for a new system in the United States. One that favors the working class, who are the majority. This whole notion of "we can't tax the very wealthy because they are job creators" or "we can't tax the wealthy because you may be one someday" needs to stop. We can tax the rich. They will survive. Just as we had rich people in the 1950s and 1960s before tax rates for the rich were cut.

Corporations will automate as the cost per worker goes up. This is great for skilled workers (unless the skill is automated away a la the Ludites, not the unskilled history portrays them as). This will be an issue for the uneducated.


All my friends in automation cheer on higher labor costs. My current project is to automate heavily aerospace manufacturing. The will not be one QA on the floor, that is the computer's job. Production rates that make old assembly lines obsolete.

So yes a shift, but anyone expecting a socialist paradise doesn't understand only adapting companies will survive.

US wages are high. What matters is the total cost of employing someone (taxes, benefits, wages, regulatory compliance). The adaptable will thrive.

e.g., one of my relatives heads a team looking into Automating Amazon a little more every year. They succeed, every year.

I'm betting restaurants are next. Not in 2022, but soon.

Lightsaber

US wages, after medical, housing, transportation costs are miserably low for many essential service workers. Even many skilled jobs are not paying enough to attract new workers. Besides the collapse of the supply chains, a noticeable chunk of our inflation will be related to upping the wages of those people. We will be a better and more efficient economy/country for doing this.

We are in a temporary workers market, and that is going to destroy state and federal government budgets.
Currently many state workers/teachers in the south are quitting at an alarming rate due to salary increases in the public sector. Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the services that are needed at the government levels as well.

Workers will have leverage for awhile, especially as the baby boomers start retiring en masse.

CometII wrote:

It is therefore somewhat natural to hypothesize that, given the increasing debates about massive corporate excess, the rise of Big Tech, low wages, the lack of benefits of American employees compared to peers overseas we have been noticing in the US, are all signs that we are nearing the end of this current Corporation dominated era.

How are wage and benefits of American employees low, especially when compared to overseas? Do you know how much wages, benefits, and working conditions are workers in developing companies getting?
If the world continue to progress forward, and America cannot equip its citizens with unique advantage, then the American worker's wages and benefits will continue to lag behind to be catch up by workers from other parts of the world.

casinterest wrote:

We are in a temporary workers market, and that is going to destroy state and federal government budgets.
Currently many state workers/teachers in the south are quitting at an alarming rate due to salary increases in the public sector. Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the services that are needed at the government levels as well.

Workers will have leverage for awhile, especially as the baby boomers start retiring en masse.

I imagine you meant they’re going to the private sector or are public employees quitting because of too much money offered in the public sector? In any case, public sector pensions are a huge benefit, if they last.

Minimum wage rates in the UK are age related.

Currently £8.91 per hour over age 23.

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

Also this does not include tips, they are on top;

https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-guides/emp ... r-the-nlw-

'Can I ever receive less than the NMW or the NLW?
Your employer cannot pay you less than the NMW, or the NLW if you are entitled to it, even if you are willing to accept it.

In particular, you should note that employers must pay their employees at least the NMW or NLW as appropriate, regardless of any additional tips, gratuities or service charges they may obtain as part of their job. (In other words, workers entitled to the NMW/NLW must get at least the NMW/NLW in base pay with any tips being paid on top.)'

seb146 wrote:

Federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour. It is higher in some states, but the federal government set wages at $7.25 since 2009. For some service workers (those who receive tips) minimum wage can be $2.13 an hour. Keeping that in mind, France, Sweden Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Portugal, Australia all have higher wages. Couple that with we have to pay 100% out of pocket for health care and the cost of everything has been going up. Companies are under no obligation to provide any of that in the United States. They are not even obligated to give raises from $7.25 (or $2.13 depending).

Don't get me started with "but if we raise minimum wage, the cost of everything will go up!" Except the cost of everything has been going up anyway. We are due for a new system in the United States. One that favors the working class, who are the majority. This whole notion of "we can't tax the very wealthy because they are job creators" or "we can't tax the wealthy because you may be one someday" needs to stop. We can tax the rich. They will survive. Just as we had rich people in the 1950s and 1960s before tax rates for the rich were cut.

The only thing minimum wage does is it screws poor people, especially young and disadvantaged people who desperately need work training.

I was very privileged growing up, and my first commercial jobs paid 8-10$, about $11-13 today. I was glad to get the experience. My income steadily went up. To assume everyone is entitled to a high wage to raise a family and acquire a nice home, with no relevant skills or experience that would justify the wage, is delusional. There is no such thing as being entitled to a “living wage” at 16-18 or even 20 years of age. Share an apartment (I did). Ride public transport (I did). Getting your own home and cars is an achievement. Not some sort of human right. And minimum wage, like rent control, has as many negative consequences as positive. As they get more restrictive, the consequences, especially for poor people, grow worse.

The fact I had some privilege made it clearer to see whose sense of entitlement was completely out of control and into the realm of the bizarre. A lot of people have genuinely never had a job. I think that is tragic.

LCDFlight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour. It is higher in some states, but the federal government set wages at $7.25 since 2009. For some service workers (those who receive tips) minimum wage can be $2.13 an hour. Keeping that in mind, France, Sweden Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Portugal, Australia all have higher wages. Couple that with we have to pay 100% out of pocket for health care and the cost of everything has been going up. Companies are under no obligation to provide any of that in the United States. They are not even obligated to give raises from $7.25 (or $2.13 depending).

Don't get me started with "but if we raise minimum wage, the cost of everything will go up!" Except the cost of everything has been going up anyway. We are due for a new system in the United States. One that favors the working class, who are the majority. This whole notion of "we can't tax the very wealthy because they are job creators" or "we can't tax the wealthy because you may be one someday" needs to stop. We can tax the rich. They will survive. Just as we had rich people in the 1950s and 1960s before tax rates for the rich were cut.

The only thing minimum wage does is it screws poor people, especially young and disadvantaged people who desperately need work training.

I was very privileged growing up, and my first commercial jobs paid 8-10$, about $11-13 today. I was glad to get the experience. My income steadily went up. To assume everyone is entitled to a high wage to raise a family and acquire a nice home, with no relevant skills or experience that would justify the wage, is delusional. There is no such thing as being entitled to a “living wage” at 16-18 or even 20 years of age. Share an apartment (I did). Ride public transport (I did). Getting your own home and cars is an achievement. Not some sort of human right. And minimum wage, like rent control, has as many negative consequences as positive. As they get more restrictive, the consequences, especially for poor people, grow worse.

The fact I had some privilege made it clearer to see whose sense of entitlement was completely out of control and into the realm of the bizarre. A lot of people have genuinely never had a job. I think that is tragic.

Is that $8-10 per hour?.

Are you saying $2.13 is too high?.

As Thomas Sowell said, “the actual minimum wage is $0”. If your skills won’t produce value added, you won’t have a job. Employers aren’t there as welfare agencies. Low skill people are immeasurably harmed by minimum wage laws because they can’t find productive work. If their wage is too high, they’ll be replaced by capital i.e, technology. See waiters replaced by kiosks. Or waiters not appreciating hourly wage with no tipping policies. Decent waitstaff can far exceed the wage based on tips.

seb146 wrote:

Federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour. It is higher in some states, but the federal government set wages at $7.25 since 2009. For some service workers (those who receive tips) minimum wage can be $2.13 an hour.

Those people received tips still will receive more than 7.25 an hour, isn't it? Although American culture turned that into "tipping" instead of actual salary

Keeping that in mind, France, Sweden Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Portugal, Australia all have higher wages.

Japan have different minimum wage for different prefecture. https://stats-japan.com/t/kiji/11521 Lowest is 792 Yen or 6.99 USD at current exchange rate.

Don't get me started with "but if we raise minimum wage, the cost of everything will go up!" Except the cost of everything has been going up anyway. We are due for a new system in the United States. One that favors the working class, who are the majority. This whole notion of "we can't tax the very wealthy because they are job creators" or "we can't tax the wealthy because you may be one someday" needs to stop. We can tax the rich. They will survive. Just as we had rich people in the 1950s and 1960s before tax rates for the rich were cut.

The majority of people in the US do not live on minimum wage, according to my understanding?
Google search say that is 1.5% US population, as of 2020.

seb146 wrote:

Federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour. It is higher in some states, but the federal government set wages at $7.25 since 2009. For some service workers (those who receive tips) minimum wage can be $2.13 an hour. Keeping that in mind, France, Sweden Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Portugal, Australia all have higher wages. Couple that with we have to pay 100% out of pocket for health care and the cost of everything has been going up. Companies are under no obligation to provide any of that in the United States. They are not even obligated to give raises from $7.25 (or $2.13 depending).

Sorry but including Japan in that list is plain false. Average minimum wages in Japan are equivalent to about $7.50/hour and as a general rule, salaries in Japan are far lower than in the US or Europe. A college graduate at a large company can expect to make about $1800/month, a middle manager around $3500/month, and a senior manager around $5000/month. Only specializations and some business owners are able to earn beyond that.

LCDFlight wrote:

Share an apartment (I did). Ride public transport (I did). Getting your own home and cars is an achievement.

Unfortunately, the infrastructure in the US in most places requires you to have access to a Car to be able to get anywhere to have a job in the first place. Only in a few locations in this country is Public Transport a real viable option (Mainly the Acela Corridor, Chicago, San Francisco and a couple of other places). We are really lacking in public transport in this country, and most people in congress prefer it that way because every time a project comes up to improve it, it always gets opposed by many in congress, especially on the right.

I am also sick and tired of hearing about these so-called unskilled workers that they should not be able to earn a living wage, which is being advocated on this very thread. I agree that if you are able bodied and do not want to work that you should not be entitled to anything. That being said, if you work hard you should be able to earn enough to support yourselves. That is not the attitude of corporate america, and the US Economy. The US Economy does not currently reward hard work as much as it rewards gambling. The only thing incentivized is the need to maximize profits and make sure that shareholders who do absolutely nothing for a company other than own a piece of it get all the rewards and that the workers who earn all the profit for the company get as little as possible. On an AA earnings call a while back, well known Wall Street Aviation analyst Jamie Baker said the quiet part out loud when he called out Doug Parker for actually paying his employees. Here is the article about that.

https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-airlines-raise

The part that gets forgotten as well is if you do not have a middle class, the economy will eventually collapse because you will have too few people chasing too many products.


Anyways, I hope we have a new workers era. Let's raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars and also tie it to inflation. Let's help more workers unionize. And lastly, lets create an economy where companies treat their workers the right way, and not making them resort to peeing in bottles the way Amazon does.

apodino wrote:

Unfortunately, the infrastructure in the US in most places requires you to have access to a Car to be able to get anywhere to have a job in the first place. Only in a few locations in this country is Public Transport a real viable option (Mainly the Acela Corridor, Chicago, San Francisco and a couple of other places). We are really lacking in public transport in this country, and most people in congress prefer it that way because every time a project comes up to improve it, it always gets opposed by many in congress, especially on the right.

It is not possible to have good public transit without dense, compact cities, and unfortunately opposition against it is across party line in the US.

I am also sick and tired of hearing about these so-called unskilled workers that they should not be able to earn a living wage, which is being advocated on this very thread. I agree that if you are able bodied and do not want to work that you should not be entitled to anything. That being said, if you work hard you should be able to earn enough to support yourselves. That is not the attitude of corporate america, and the US Economy. The US Economy does not currently reward hard work as much as it rewards gambling.

Question is, why should American worker, be entitled to a certain level of wage, even though his job can be completed either overseas or by machine at half the suggested level of wage? Yes the worker might be hard-working but that cannot overcome the efficiency of machine nor make product of their work more valueable than production from oversea workers.

I personally think people who work full time but still cannot earn "liveable" wage should be assisted by e.g. government, either through extra social financial support, or by getting additional training and support to make them be able to land themselves in a better job.

c933103 wrote:

Question is, why should American worker, be entitled to a certain level of wage, even though his job can be completed either overseas or by machine at half the suggested level of wage? Yes the worker might be hard-working but that cannot overcome the efficiency of machine nor make product of their work more valueable than production from oversea workers.

I personally think people who work full time but still cannot earn "liveable" wage should be assisted by e.g. government, either through extra social financial support, or by getting additional training and support to make them be able to land themselves in a better job.

It's ultimately better for the economy either way - whether they have a livable wage or through extra social support - but a lot of people don't see it that way. The problem is you will never get all 50 states to do either, so conditions will continue to be disparate from region to region and within metropolitan areas.

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Question is, why should American worker, be entitled to a certain level of wage, even though his job can be completed either overseas or by machine at half the suggested level of wage? Yes the worker might be hard-working but that cannot overcome the efficiency of machine nor make product of their work more valueable than production from oversea workers.

I personally think people who work full time but still cannot earn "liveable" wage should be assisted by e.g. government, either through extra social financial support, or by getting additional training and support to make them be able to land themselves in a better job.

It's ultimately better for the economy either way - whether they have a livable wage or through extra social support - but a lot of people don't see it that way. The problem is you will never get all 50 states to do either, so conditions will continue to be disparate from region to region and within metropolitan areas.

Then, given the differences in economic development and believes, wouldn't it be better for the policy be determined individually by each states and each metropolitan area?
If federal minimum wage is to increase to like 15USD, then that mean places like Northern Mariana which just spent year 2007-2018 to catch up the federal minimum wage from US$3.05 to US$7.25 is going to again more than double their minimum wage in such short time span and amid the economic situation. Google say they now have double digit percentage point unemployment there.

Another race to the bottom?.

The elephant in the room is medical. A family policy now generally comes in over $20K. That is ten dollars an hour for a 2000 hour a year full time worker. If mom and dad are working, both full time, this means, on average, that the first $5 of each hour of work medical. Assume old metric that benefits are 30% in addition to that $7.25 minimum wage, All benefit plus a couple dollars of salary goes for medical. Take out Social Security, Medicare insurance for old age and there is almost nothing left for food, housing, and transportation. Unsustainable. Remember that all of those nursing assisters, cleaners, garbage haulers, most food service people are essential to the functioning of the city. Another unsustainable statistic, in no state or county in the US, as I read three or four years ago, can a minimum age worker rent a two bedroom apartment. All of this may be contributing to so many people are not getting married having 2.1 kids to maintain the population, and feeling just a little bit desperate. All of this has some fairly serious political consequences.

apodino wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Share an apartment (I did). Ride public transport (I did). Getting your own home and cars is an achievement.

Unfortunately, the infrastructure in the US in most places requires you to have access to a Car to be able to get anywhere to have a job in the first place. Only in a few locations in this country is Public Transport a real viable option (Mainly the Acela Corridor, Chicago, San Francisco and a couple of other places). We are really lacking in public transport in this country, and most people in congress prefer it that way because every time a project comes up to improve it, it always gets opposed by many in congress, especially on the right.

I am also sick and tired of hearing about these so-called unskilled workers that they should not be able to earn a living wage, which is being advocated on this very thread. I agree that if you are able bodied and do not want to work that you should not be entitled to anything. That being said, if you work hard you should be able to earn enough to support yourselves. That is not the attitude of corporate america, and the US Economy. The US Economy does not currently reward hard work as much as it rewards gambling. The only thing incentivized is the need to maximize profits and make sure that shareholders who do absolutely nothing for a company other than own a piece of it get all the rewards and that the workers who earn all the profit for the company get as little as possible. On an AA earnings call a while back, well known Wall Street Aviation analyst Jamie Baker said the quiet part out loud when he called out Doug Parker for actually paying his employees. Here is the article about that.

https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-airlines-raise

The part that gets forgotten as well is if you do not have a middle class, the economy will eventually collapse because you will have too few people chasing too many products.


Anyways, I hope we have a new workers era. Let's raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars and also tie it to inflation. Let's help more workers unionize. And lastly, lets create an economy where companies treat their workers the right way, and not making them resort to peeing in bottles the way Amazon does.

You can definitely support yourself in this country on a beginner wage, but you can’t get your own apartment. You may be sharing a room. This is a hard position for me. I am not obligated to buy someone a $750,000 studio apartment in Manhattan or SF because they work in Starbucks and somehow deserve it as a human right. Nope. Share a room.

If you aren’t making ends meet in your chosen city, it is time to look for opportunities in a lower cost location. Not everybody can afford Manhattan, Maui or Beverly Hills. It’s not a human right to have homes there.

Another common solution to living costs is finding a significant other and/or getting married. This allows you to share a room with somebody you like, cutting costs in half.

Some BLS facts on minimum wage work—1.5% of workers, mostly young. 1% are white, 2% black. Using minimum wage as a living wage is a hardly representative of all workers. Nobody on minimum wage should expect to have a house, children, or a middle class life. For those, it takes higher skills, work experience.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimu ... 0/home.htm

LCDFlight wrote:

If you aren’t making ends meet in your chosen city, it is time to look for opportunities in a lower cost location. Not everybody can afford Manhattan, Maui or Beverly Hills. It’s not a human right to have homes there.

Another common solution to living costs is finding a significant other and/or getting married. This allows you to share a room with somebody you like, cutting costs in half.

Glad you mentioned Maui: if you haven't lived in Hawaii, you have no idea how rough it can be for locals there, and that's part of the reason the state moved to a large benefits scheme and state-managed healthcare decades ago.

Average rent on that island is about $2K, but the average salary is around $45K. That barely cuts it for an adult without kids - MIT estimates they would need $40K after taxes to cover expenses there. 2 adults would need $100K to cover expenses with two children. The culture in the islands strongly emphasizes family and having children - so you can imagine the predicament people get into. Even with kama'aina discounts for locals, a lot of costs run high both due to isolation and presence of tourists. Unless you're a specialist or have a Master's in hospitality management, good luck pulling over $75K in one of the most expensive states. It's a rural culture and a lot of the youth in Hawaii don't recognize the importance of doing well in school till it's too late...are you saying they should move to the mainland? What if you're born to ranchers or coffee farmers on the Big Island?

https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/15009

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

If you aren’t making ends meet in your chosen city, it is time to look for opportunities in a lower cost location. Not everybody can afford Manhattan, Maui or Beverly Hills. It’s not a human right to have homes there.

Another common solution to living costs is finding a significant other and/or getting married. This allows you to share a room with somebody you like, cutting costs in half.

Glad you mentioned Maui: if you haven't lived in Hawaii, you have no idea how rough it can be for locals there, and that's part of the reason the state moved to a large benefits scheme and state-managed healthcare decades ago.

Average rent on that island is about $2K, but the average salary is around $45K. That barely cuts it for an adult without kids - MIT estimates they would need $40K after taxes to cover expenses there. 2 adults would need $100K to cover expenses with two children. The culture in the islands strongly emphasizes family and having children - so you can imagine the predicament people get into. Even with kama'aina discounts for locals, a lot of costs run high both due to isolation and presence of tourists. Unless you're a specialist or have a Master's in hospitality management, good luck pulling over $75K in one of the most expensive states. It's a rural culture and a lot of the youth in Hawaii don't recognize the importance of doing well in school till it's too late...are you saying they should move to the mainland? What if you're born to ranchers or coffee farmers on the Big Island?

https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/15009

Maui is a nice place, but it is not somebody's right to live there only because 2 centuries ago their ancestors had a kingdom there.

Yes, people should move to the mainland - it's a good option. It sucks, I wish I could live in Maui too. These people have valuable US citizenship and have the right to go to school, learn a trade or get a job anywhere in the US. Many rural areas such as Maui have been converted to more expensive uses. Manhattan and Beverly Hills (again) are also examples of agricultural land that became too expensive for farm hands to live on. We all know many other examples. It happens, and that is legal in our country.

The Hawaii thing is tough, but it is part of the United States, and is not a native reservation. I don't think any one ethnic group should be considered the owner of any US state.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

If you aren’t making ends meet in your chosen city, it is time to look for opportunities in a lower cost location. Not everybody can afford Manhattan, Maui or Beverly Hills. It’s not a human right to have homes there.

Another common solution to living costs is finding a significant other and/or getting married. This allows you to share a room with somebody you like, cutting costs in half.

Glad you mentioned Maui: if you haven't lived in Hawaii, you have no idea how rough it can be for locals there, and that's part of the reason the state moved to a large benefits scheme and state-managed healthcare decades ago.

Average rent on that island is about $2K, but the average salary is around $45K. That barely cuts it for an adult without kids - MIT estimates they would need $40K after taxes to cover expenses there. 2 adults would need $100K to cover expenses with two children. The culture in the islands strongly emphasizes family and having children - so you can imagine the predicament people get into. Even with kama'aina discounts for locals, a lot of costs run high both due to isolation and presence of tourists. Unless you're a specialist or have a Master's in hospitality management, good luck pulling over $75K in one of the most expensive states. It's a rural culture and a lot of the youth in Hawaii don't recognize the importance of doing well in school till it's too late...are you saying they should move to the mainland? What if you're born to ranchers or coffee farmers on the Big Island?

https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/15009

Maui is a nice place, but it is not somebody's right to live there only because 2 centuries ago their ancestors had a kingdom there.

Yes, people should move to the mainland - it's a good option. It sucks, I wish I could live in Maui too. These people have valuable US citizenship and have the right to go to school, learn a trade or get a job anywhere in the US. Many rural areas such as Maui have been converted to more expensive uses. Manhattan and Beverly Hills (again) are also examples of agricultural land that became too expensive for farm hands to live on. We all know many other examples. It happens, and that is legal in our country.

The Hawaii thing is tough, but it is part of the United States, and is not a native reservation. I don't think any one ethnic group should be considered the owner of any US state.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to have a conversation with the locals using those same words. Not just the 'native' ones either, because there are actually quite few who can claim that, but the now-fourth and fifth generation Filipino/Chinese/Portuguese/Japanese folks who have called the islands home for 100+ years now. A lot of them are not interested in living on the mainland because they don't like our harried and stressful culture. They never asked the resorts and high prices to come - they were supposed to stay on Oahu in Waikiki. This is similar to the predicament rural folks find themselves facing throughout the rust belt and midwest - everyone is telling them to 'just move', but when you sit down and talk to them, it comes down to them not liking how we city folk live. And they'll say the same thing as Hawaiians...they never asked the plants to close - those decisions were made by city folk far away.

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Glad you mentioned Maui: if you haven't lived in Hawaii, you have no idea how rough it can be for locals there, and that's part of the reason the state moved to a large benefits scheme and state-managed healthcare decades ago.

Average rent on that island is about $2K, but the average salary is around $45K. That barely cuts it for an adult without kids - MIT estimates they would need $40K after taxes to cover expenses there. 2 adults would need $100K to cover expenses with two children. The culture in the islands strongly emphasizes family and having children - so you can imagine the predicament people get into. Even with kama'aina discounts for locals, a lot of costs run high both due to isolation and presence of tourists. Unless you're a specialist or have a Master's in hospitality management, good luck pulling over $75K in one of the most expensive states. It's a rural culture and a lot of the youth in Hawaii don't recognize the importance of doing well in school till it's too late...are you saying they should move to the mainland? What if you're born to ranchers or coffee farmers on the Big Island?

https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/15009

Yes, people should move to the mainland - it's a good option. It sucks, I wish I could live in Maui too. These people have valuable US citizenship and have the right to go to school, learn a trade or get a job anywhere in the US. Many rural areas such as Maui have been converted to more expensive uses. Manhattan and Beverly Hills (again) are also examples of agricultural land that became too expensive for farm hands to live on. We all know many other examples. It happens, and that is legal in our country.

The Hawaii thing is tough, but it is part of the United States, and is not a native reservation. I don't think any one ethnic group should be considered the owner of any US state.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to have a conversation with the locals using those same words. Not just the 'native' ones either, because there are actually quite few who can claim that, but the now-fourth and fifth generation Filipino/Chinese/Portuguese/Japanese folks who have called the islands home for 100+ years now. A lot of them are not interested in living on the mainland because they don't like our harried and stressful culture. They never asked the resorts and high prices to come - they were supposed to stay on Oahu in Waikiki. This is similar to the predicament rural folks find themselves facing throughout the rust belt and midwest - everyone is telling them to 'just move', but when you sit down and talk to them, it comes down to them not liking how we city folk live. And they'll say the same thing as Hawaiians...they never asked the plants to close - those decisions were made by city folk far away.

True and not so much. People have had to migrate throughout history for reasons they had zero control over. My grandparents left the “old country”; Austro-Hungary, Poland, Ukraine in 1915 for the US because of war. They flourished, then went bankrupt during the Depression, raised two middle class sons who went on to middle class lives. My father’s cousin captured by Germans, eventually surrendered to the British and lives on in his late 90s in Canada. The sons who stayed behind vanished during the Holodomar and WW II. The daughters who stayed in the old town in western Ukraine farming and living in near poverty. My generation there have stayed and remain mired. Lesson: doing nothing is the greatest risk.

All migration has been forced on people, moving out of Coal Country or Maui is hardly as difficult.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Yes, people should move to the mainland - it's a good option. It sucks, I wish I could live in Maui too. These people have valuable US citizenship and have the right to go to school, learn a trade or get a job anywhere in the US. Many rural areas such as Maui have been converted to more expensive uses. Manhattan and Beverly Hills (again) are also examples of agricultural land that became too expensive for farm hands to live on. We all know many other examples. It happens, and that is legal in our country.

The Hawaii thing is tough, but it is part of the United States, and is not a native reservation. I don't think any one ethnic group should be considered the owner of any US state.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to have a conversation with the locals using those same words. Not just the 'native' ones either, because there are actually quite few who can claim that, but the now-fourth and fifth generation Filipino/Chinese/Portuguese/Japanese folks who have called the islands home for 100+ years now. A lot of them are not interested in living on the mainland because they don't like our harried and stressful culture. They never asked the resorts and high prices to come - they were supposed to stay on Oahu in Waikiki. This is similar to the predicament rural folks find themselves facing throughout the rust belt and midwest - everyone is telling them to 'just move', but when you sit down and talk to them, it comes down to them not liking how we city folk live. And they'll say the same thing as Hawaiians...they never asked the plants to close - those decisions were made by city folk far away.

True and not so much. People have had to migrate throughout history for reasons they had zero control over. My grandparents left the “old country”; Austro-Hungary, Poland, Ukraine in 1915 for the US because of war. They flourished, then went bankrupt during the Depression, raised two middle class sons who went on to middle class lives. My father’s cousin captured by Germans, eventually surrendered to the British and lives on in his late 90s in Canada. The sons who stayed behind vanished during the Holodomar and WW II. The daughters who stayed in the old town in western Ukraine farming and living in near poverty. My generation there have stayed and remain mired. Lesson: doing nothing is the greatest risk.

All migration has been forced on people, moving out of Coal Country or Maui is hardly as difficult.

I highly doubt either sees their situation as remoty similar to that of war-torn peoples, rightly or wrongly.

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Glad you mentioned Maui: if you haven't lived in Hawaii, you have no idea how rough it can be for locals there, and that's part of the reason the state moved to a large benefits scheme and state-managed healthcare decades ago.

Average rent on that island is about $2K, but the average salary is around $45K. That barely cuts it for an adult without kids - MIT estimates they would need $40K after taxes to cover expenses there. 2 adults would need $100K to cover expenses with two children. The culture in the islands strongly emphasizes family and having children - so you can imagine the predicament people get into. Even with kama'aina discounts for locals, a lot of costs run high both due to isolation and presence of tourists. Unless you're a specialist or have a Master's in hospitality management, good luck pulling over $75K in one of the most expensive states. It's a rural culture and a lot of the youth in Hawaii don't recognize the importance of doing well in school till it's too late...are you saying they should move to the mainland? What if you're born to ranchers or coffee farmers on the Big Island?

https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/15009

Maui is a nice place, but it is not somebody's right to live there only because 2 centuries ago their ancestors had a kingdom there.

Yes, people should move to the mainland - it's a good option. It sucks, I wish I could live in Maui too. These people have valuable US citizenship and have the right to go to school, learn a trade or get a job anywhere in the US. Many rural areas such as Maui have been converted to more expensive uses. Manhattan and Beverly Hills (again) are also examples of agricultural land that became too expensive for farm hands to live on. We all know many other examples. It happens, and that is legal in our country.

The Hawaii thing is tough, but it is part of the United States, and is not a native reservation. I don't think any one ethnic group should be considered the owner of any US state.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to have a conversation with the locals using those same words. Not just the 'native' ones either, because there are actually quite few who can claim that, but the now-fourth and fifth generation Filipino/Chinese/Portuguese/Japanese folks who have called the islands home for 100+ years now. A lot of them are not interested in living on the mainland because they don't like our harried and stressful culture. They never asked the resorts and high prices to come - they were supposed to stay on Oahu in Waikiki. This is similar to the predicament rural folks find themselves facing throughout the rust belt and midwest - everyone is telling them to 'just move', but when you sit down and talk to them, it comes down to them not liking how we city folk live. And they'll say the same thing as Hawaiians...they never asked the plants to close - those decisions were made by city folk far away.

The bottom line is that they have the same right as I do live in my state. And I have the same right as they do to live in theirs. Is it problematic? Of course! But not nearly as problematic as mapping where people can live based on their race.

Let me get this straight - they want to live a carefree lifestyle in Hawaii without paying the going rate for property there. Wow. We all have dreams.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I think you'd be hard-pressed to have a conversation with the locals using those same words. Not just the 'native' ones either, because there are actually quite few who can claim that, but the now-fourth and fifth generation Filipino/Chinese/Portuguese/Japanese folks who have called the islands home for 100+ years now. A lot of them are not interested in living on the mainland because they don't like our harried and stressful culture. They never asked the resorts and high prices to come - they were supposed to stay on Oahu in Waikiki. This is similar to the predicament rural folks find themselves facing throughout the rust belt and midwest - everyone is telling them to 'just move', but when you sit down and talk to them, it comes down to them not liking how we city folk live. And they'll say the same thing as Hawaiians...they never asked the plants to close - those decisions were made by city folk far away.

True and not so much. People have had to migrate throughout history for reasons they had zero control over. My grandparents left the “old country”; Austro-Hungary, Poland, Ukraine in 1915 for the US because of war. They flourished, then went bankrupt during the Depression, raised two middle class sons who went on to middle class lives. My father’s cousin captured by Germans, eventually surrendered to the British and lives on in his late 90s in Canada. The sons who stayed behind vanished during the Holodomar and WW II. The daughters who stayed in the old town in western Ukraine farming and living in near poverty. My generation there have stayed and remain mired. Lesson: doing nothing is the greatest risk.

All migration has been forced on people, moving out of Coal Country or Maui is hardly as difficult.

I highly doubt either sees their situation as remoty similar to that of war-torn peoples, rightly or wrongly.

The point is some moved for reasons not under control, whether war or economic changes, and flourished; while others stood pat and reaped a miserable future.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Maui is a nice place, but it is not somebody's right to live there only because 2 centuries ago their ancestors had a kingdom there.

Yes, people should move to the mainland - it's a good option. It sucks, I wish I could live in Maui too. These people have valuable US citizenship and have the right to go to school, learn a trade or get a job anywhere in the US. Many rural areas such as Maui have been converted to more expensive uses. Manhattan and Beverly Hills (again) are also examples of agricultural land that became too expensive for farm hands to live on. We all know many other examples. It happens, and that is legal in our country.

The Hawaii thing is tough, but it is part of the United States, and is not a native reservation. I don't think any one ethnic group should be considered the owner of any US state.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to have a conversation with the locals using those same words. Not just the 'native' ones either, because there are actually quite few who can claim that, but the now-fourth and fifth generation Filipino/Chinese/Portuguese/Japanese folks who have called the islands home for 100+ years now. A lot of them are not interested in living on the mainland because they don't like our harried and stressful culture. They never asked the resorts and high prices to come - they were supposed to stay on Oahu in Waikiki. This is similar to the predicament rural folks find themselves facing throughout the rust belt and midwest - everyone is telling them to 'just move', but when you sit down and talk to them, it comes down to them not liking how we city folk live. And they'll say the same thing as Hawaiians...they never asked the plants to close - those decisions were made by city folk far away.

The bottom line is that they have the same right as I do live in my state. And I have the same right as they do to live in theirs. Is it problematic? Of course! But not nearly as problematic as mapping where people can live based on their race.

Let me get this straight - they want to live a carefree lifestyle in Hawaii without paying the going rate for property there. Wow. We all have dreams.

Not exactly - I think they are happy to pay going rates when possible. The problem is unlike NY or CA, places with similar COL, salaries and wages are not high there.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/c ... ilua%2C+HI

As a result a lot of locals do what you talked about upthread - roomshare if single and more than one family to a house.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

True and not so much. People have had to migrate throughout history for reasons they had zero control over. My grandparents left the “old country”; Austro-Hungary, Poland, Ukraine in 1915 for the US because of war. They flourished, then went bankrupt during the Depression, raised two middle class sons who went on to middle class lives. My father’s cousin captured by Germans, eventually surrendered to the British and lives on in his late 90s in Canada. The sons who stayed behind vanished during the Holodomar and WW II. The daughters who stayed in the old town in western Ukraine farming and living in near poverty. My generation there have stayed and remain mired. Lesson: doing nothing is the greatest risk.

All migration has been forced on people, moving out of Coal Country or Maui is hardly as difficult.

I highly doubt either sees their situation as remoty similar to that of war-torn peoples, rightly or wrongly.

The point is some moved for reasons not under control, whether war or economic changes, and flourished; while others stood pat and reaped a miserable future.

I’m not sure about the descendents of Asian farmers but I have talked to native Hawaiians and they have a mindset not unlike some tribes in the mainland. They see a future of modern life and economics as miserable and would like to be left alone to fish/farm sustainably and take care of their community. They prefer living off the land to supermarkets.

If possible, workers want to work from home. I truly believe this.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I highly doubt either sees their situation as remoty similar to that of war-torn peoples, rightly or wrongly.

The point is some moved for reasons not under control, whether war or economic changes, and flourished; while others stood pat and reaped a miserable future.

I’m not sure about the descendents of Asian farmers but I have talked to native Hawaiians and they have a mindset not unlike some tribes in the mainland. They see a future of modern life and economics as miserable and would like to be left alone to fish/farm sustainably and take care of their community. They prefer living off the land to supermarkets.

Then isn't the central to the issue being lack of protection on Hawaiian natives when Hawaii turned into a state?

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

To generally answer one of the earlier posts (I believe LCDflight), regarding US wages, as some other people mentioned, while they may be higher than most countries (I'll assume that as a fact for the sake of the discussion), there is no doubt that it is a from a very be dichotomy. Part of the American workforce maybe very well compensated (which brings up the averages for the country), but the other part (mainly the services and manufacturing) are being annihilated by poor salaries and walloping living costs. As some others mentioned, wages alone cannot tell you the whole picture. If you make a higher wage than an Italian or German worker, but then 75% of that immediately is burned up by housing, medical, and transportation costs (compared to say, less than 30% for the European counterpart), then the comparison is more complex.

Another comment that I found interesting is how automation is changing the world, basically a 2nd industrial Revolution. Another poster (Lightsaber), mentioned how the talk of workers empowerment only creates more job opportunities for the tech guys that are engineering the next generation roboticized workplaces. While this process is inevitable (if the technology is available), you would think that the logical conclusion to this process (if the goal is to automatize and replace humans as much as possible in every aspect of the chain of production and service), is to replace the engineers themselves. Ultimately, robots will be able to design better robots, no? I guess that is the typical Skynet scenario.

One thing that is very concerning to me, is that if this period of AI and automation is like a 2nd industrial revolution, this time there is no outlet or relief valve for the world population that is or will be displaced by this process. You see, in the 19th century, the industrialization of Europe (also Japan, and to a lesser extend Russia, China and Turkey among others), led to the biggest voluntary migration flows in human history. The industrial revolution has always been cited as the major factor in this process. Millions upon millions of British, German, Scandinavians, Irish, Italians, Spanish, French, Chinese, Russians, Poles, Japanese, and Southwestern Europeans (Ottomans, Greeks, Balkan people, then under Austria-Hungary), migrated to the booming economies and wide open fertile lands of the New World. The United States was developing into a superpower, Canada was in massive need of "filling up" both people and jobs and farms, Brazil had massive vast land and resources, Argentina (at the time) had a soaring level of economic expansion. These New World nations absorbed by some estimates over 50 million European, Near East, and Asian immigrants. What would have happened if that valve had not existed at all and they all had to remain home?

Fast forward to today? Where will the millions upon millions of people all over the world, whose jobs will be made obsolete, be able to go? They will not find jobs in their country (either because they don't have the training or education for them, or the pay is too low to really make much of a difference to them), and there is no Promise Land with high growth where you can sail off and start over. I believe the social tensions you see in much of the world today are caused by this economic insecurity with no outlet in sight for those affected.

If the prosperous classes (the politicians, the financiers, the well-educated, and the celebrities), think this imbalance will not affect them, history has shown they will be wrong.

CometII wrote:

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

To generally answer one of the earlier posts (I believe LCDflight), regarding US wages, as some other people mentioned, while they may be higher than most countries (I'll assume that as a fact for the sake of the discussion), there is no doubt that it is a from a very be dichotomy. Part of the American workforce maybe very well compensated (which brings up the averages for the country), but the other part (mainly the services and manufacturing) are being annihilated by poor salaries and walloping living costs. As some others mentioned, wages alone cannot tell you the whole picture. If you make a higher wage than an Italian or German worker, but then 75% of that immediately is burned up by housing, medical, and transportation costs (compared to say, less than 30% for the European counterpart), then the comparison is more complex.

Another comment that I found interesting is how automation is changing the world, basically a 2nd industrial Revolution. Another poster (Lightsaber), mentioned how the talk of workers empowerment only creates more job opportunities for the tech guys that are engineering the next generation roboticized workplaces. While this process is inevitable (if the technology is available), you would think that the logical conclusion to this process (if the goal is to automatize and replace humans as much as possible in every aspect of the chain of production and service), is to replace the engineers themselves. Ultimately, robots will be able to design better robots, no? I guess that is the typical Skynet scenario.

One thing that is very concerning to me, is that if this period of AI and automation is like a 2nd industrial revolution, this time there is no outlet or relief valve for the world population that is or will be displaced by this process. You see, in the 19th century, the industrialization of Europe (also Japan, and to a lesser extend Russia, China and Turkey among others), led to the biggest voluntary migration flows in human history. The industrial revolution has always been cited as the major factor in this process. Millions upon millions of British, German, Scandinavians, Irish, Italians, Spanish, French, Chinese, Russians, Poles, Japanese, and Southwestern Europeans (Ottomans, Greeks, Balkan people, then under Austria-Hungary), migrated to the booming economies and wide open fertile lands of the New World. The United States was developing into a superpower, Canada was in massive need of "filling up" both people and jobs and farms, Brazil had massive vast land and resources, Argentina (at the time) had a soaring level of economic expansion. These New World nations absorbed by some estimates over 50 million European, Near East, and Asian immigrants. What would have happened if that valve had not existed at all and they all had to remain home?

Fast forward to today? Where will the millions upon millions of people all over the world, whose jobs will be made obsolete, be able to go? They will not find jobs in their country (either because they don't have the training or education for them, or the pay is too low to really make much of a difference to them), and there is no Promise Land with high growth where you can sail off and start over. I believe the social tensions you see in much of the world today are caused by this economic insecurity with no outlet in sight for those affected.

If the prosperous classes (the politicians, the financiers, the well-educated, and the celebrities), think this imbalance will not affect them, history has shown they will be wrong.

As you say, it is fine producing a billion widgets, but if no one has any money to buy them...

Many of the world's great economists, not just Keynes, have said the hours worked a year for a full time job needs to go down. In addition if those service jobs payed better we all could live better. Day care for children (parents can work or go off for a few days vacation - both activities add to the economy), house, office building, streets and parks all need cleaning and maintaining, old folks need in house assistance, it is fun and part of the good life to eat out at restaurants, live entertainment - if those providing these services were honored with enough income to also life the 'good life', we would all be better and happier. I am not bothered by how rich the super rich are, but I am distressed by my neighbor is not fed, housed, and receiving medical care.

CometII wrote:

If the prosperous classes (the politicians, the financiers, the well-educated, and the celebrities), think this imbalance will not affect them, history has shown they will be wrong.

It's a question on the entire society, not just people in some classes. Some people are in position which have more power to make decisions affecting other people in their countries, but they themselves won't be able to turn the tide of the forthcoming history.

I see many here reciting their Reagan, even though 40 years later his theories have obviously failed. Anyone seeing the trickling down from Bezos, Musk and Gates ?

As for automation (and offshoring) I'm not an engineer designing it, but I'm a technician putting it to use. I've no doubt what I'm doing will disappear in a few years, I'm confident I can do other things, but everyone isn't so lucky.

Aesma wrote:

I see many here reciting their Reagan, even though 40 years later his theories have obviously failed. Anyone seeing the trickling down from Bezos, Musk and Gates ?

As for automation (and offshoring) I'm not an engineer designing it, but I'm a technician putting it to use. I've no doubt what I'm doing will disappear in a few years, I'm confident I can do other things, but everyone isn't so lucky.

I don’t see where the economics failed, the economy has grown tremendously, about 3 times in real dollars since 1981; we’ve had four decades of low inflation, US population is 50% larger. The US tax policy is basically the same as it was in 1986 when he made a deal with Tip O’Neil and Dan Rostenkowski.

I hinted at the issue, the bigger economy isn't bigger for everyone. Bill Gates isn't 3 times richer than in 1986, but 300 times.

Interesting discussion about Hawaii. I was doing some wikipedia surfing and found out an actress was living there, I started looking at real estate prices for fun, and found quite affordable flats, except there is something I didn't get about "extending the lease", and more importantly, once you buy the flat, you still need to pay 2000$/month in various fees to live there ! Not so affordable in the end. Where the actress lives (same place Obama had his "winter white house" ) everything is above 1 million $.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I see many here reciting their Reagan, even though 40 years later his theories have obviously failed. Anyone seeing the trickling down from Bezos, Musk and Gates ?

As for automation (and offshoring) I'm not an engineer designing it, but I'm a technician putting it to use. I've no doubt what I'm doing will disappear in a few years, I'm confident I can do other things, but everyone isn't so lucky.

I don’t see where the economics failed, the economy has grown tremendously, about 3 times in real dollars since 1981; we’ve had four decades of low inflation, US population is 50% larger. The US tax policy is basically the same as it was in 1986 when he made a deal with Tip O’Neil and Dan Rostenkowski.

GDP growing and workers doing well are two different lines on a chart. By multiple measures, the Reagan boom failed the average Joe. I think it’s clear to most economists that from the early 80s, nominal wages increased, but real wages declined, especially for the blue collar crowd. Household debt increased, as did costs of housing.

Interestingly, aside from oft-blamed globalization and automation, this economist also argues that the 80s boom accelerated the labor market concentrations we see today that can stagnate wages over time:

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.ed ... merica/amp

Aesma wrote:

I hinted at the issue, the bigger economy isn't bigger for everyone. Bill Gates isn't 3 times richer than in 1986, but 300 times.

Interesting discussion about Hawaii. I was doing some wikipedia surfing and found out an actress was living there, I started looking at real estate prices for fun, and found quite affordable flats, except there is something I didn't get about "extending the lease", and more importantly, once you buy the flat, you still need to pay 2000$/month in various fees to live there ! Not so affordable in the end. Where the actress lives (same place Obama had his "winter white house" ) everything is above 1 million $.

That’s Kailua for you - but it’s actually the 2nd most exclusive area on Oahu. The priciest is Kahala, on the east side of Honolulu. It’s the BH of the islands.

Aesma wrote:

I hinted at the issue, the bigger economy isn't bigger for everyone. Bill Gates isn't 3 times richer than in 1986, but 300 times.

Interesting discussion about Hawaii. I was doing some wikipedia surfing and found out an actress was living there, I started looking at real estate prices for fun, and found quite affordable flats, except there is something I didn't get about "extending the lease", and more importantly, once you buy the flat, you still need to pay 2000$/month in various fees to live there ! Not so affordable in the end. Where the actress lives (same place Obama had his "winter white house" ) everything is above 1 million $.

Is the world economy actually getting bigger, or is it just the numbers that are getting bigger?
As I forgot who have said, energy consumption is an indication of economic development. Yet, since the 1973 oil crisis, https://www.investing.com/analysis/worl ... rts-116764 , global energy consumption per capita essentially stagnated.
Thanks to technology advance, we can now use the same energy to do things more efficiently, energy efficient and resource efficient are the king in our current era.
Yet, does that mean our economy is actually growing? Or is our economy actually stagnated and just getting deeper and deeper into a hole?

Aesma wrote:

I see many here reciting their Reagan, even though 40 years later his theories have obviously failed. Anyone seeing the trickling down from Bezos, Musk and Gates ?

As for automation (and offshoring) I'm not an engineer designing it, but I'm a technician putting it to use. I've no doubt what I'm doing will disappear in a few years, I'm confident I can do other things, but everyone isn't so lucky.

How many people are employed by Bezos, Musk, and Gates? Its more than a few. How many of those folks make a livable wage? How many folks are gainfully employed in businesses that support those three's businesses? It's not that they will give their money to other people, its that their success will support many many other people.

bpatus297 wrote:

How many people are employed by Bezos, Musk, and Gates? Its more than a few.

How many of those would still be employed if Bezos, Musk and Gates had to pay more taxes. I don’t believe there would be mass layoffs, because the work needs to be done.

It might take Musk a few more weeks or even months (!) to get his private space station, that’s all that would happen.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

We are in a temporary workers market, and that is going to destroy state and federal government budgets.
Currently many state workers/teachers in the south are quitting at an alarming rate due to salary increases in the public sector. Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the services that are needed at the government levels as well.

Workers will have leverage for awhile, especially as the baby boomers start retiring en masse.

I imagine you meant they’re going to the private sector or are public employees quitting because of too much money offered in the public sector? In any case, public sector pensions are a huge benefit, if they last.

Public sector pensions, aren't really that much in the south, especially in NC, when you consider what a 401K can make. However the lies of the right continue to cause this kind of mentality to be pushed. Cities and counties in the North, (not the states), that tax the heck out of their communities have some pretty cushy pensions, but it isn't really happening in the south.

I wonder if the large loss of lives from the series of tornadoes that hit over several USA states this past Saturday was in a factory in Kentucky and an Amazon warehouse in IL (by East St. Louis) will motivate workers to improve their work conditions and pay.
Between both sites about 100 persons died or are presumed dead in the buildings that were destroyed by the tornadoes. There was a lack of monitoring of the weather by site management or owners of potential risks. With the Amazon warehouse workers cannot have their personal cellphones on them so didn't get any warnings until it was too late. Neither structures were built for such severe weather, neither had storm spaces if a severe storm, likely no training by management or to workers as to evacuation or 'stay in place' to minimize risk as not required by law. When I worked until recently in NY City office buildings, we had drills 1-2 a year for fire, if a shooting or terrorist act in the building or nearby.
Likely there will be huge lawsuits filed against the owners of the factory in KY and Amazon for the large number of deaths and injuries. Its too bad it take many killed to perhaps motivate reforms in workplaces.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I see many here reciting their Reagan, even though 40 years later his theories have obviously failed. Anyone seeing the trickling down from Bezos, Musk and Gates ?

As for automation (and offshoring) I'm not an engineer designing it, but I'm a technician putting it to use. I've no doubt what I'm doing will disappear in a few years, I'm confident I can do other things, but everyone isn't so lucky.

How many people are employed by Bezos, Musk, and Gates? Its more than a few. How many of those folks make a livable wage? How many folks are gainfully employed in businesses that support those three's businesses? It's not that they will give their money to other people, its that their success will support many many other people.

How many people a corporation employs is irrelevant. What matters to a society is overall employment levels and how well remunerated these employees are on average. The difference between a company that employs 50,000 and 10,000 companies that employ only 5 each only matters if these employees are rewarded differently. It used to be true that larger corporations would reward their employees better for a given job on average. I'm honestly not sure this is always the case anymore, especially when talking about companies like Amazon...

We have to stop idolizing and defending large corporations. They do play a role in the economy but SMEs are and always will be where the majority of a workforce lies within a nation and where the majority of the GDP is generated.

Any company will always seek to reduce labor costs and tax liabilities. Large corporations are much more efficient at doing so thanks to the inherent efficiencies that come with scale, the legal teams they can afford and the lobbying powers their money can buy... The first thing Musk tried to do with Tesla is to replace every single assembly line worker by a robot.
As such, you could easily make the case that the larger the company, the less it contributes to society compared to a group of SMEs employing the same amount of people (within the same industry as payroll/revenue ratios vary greatly depending on industry sectors). Especially when considering their tax-evasion capabilities.