Decent living standards (affordable quality housing/health/edu/transport/energy) + reduced inequality between the top and the bottom should not be hard to achieve if its declared as an actual Goal.
Technology causes Price of Goods and Services to fall. Not rise. Yet the Fed says its inflation target is 2% which means Prices are always supposed to grow no matter what innovation happens or its speed. This makes no sense.
If living standards rise and debt levels drop due to increasing efficiencies and productivity then we should allow Prices to fall. Wont that take care of inequality and living standards?
The fear is that falling prices will contract the economy, because people will not spend today if they are going to be cheaper tomorrow. I don’t have any sense as to whether this fear is reasonable or not.
It is probably a fear, if ever expanding economies are defined as the Goal. But that goal doesn't make any sense since Technology shrinks activity. I think we have to work on testing out different goals beyond GDP and CPI targets. They seem outdated.
Holy hell, this guy gets it! I regret that I have but one upvote to give you, @mildchalupa.
It's really frustrating to wade through this sea of comments that includes a guy who is saying unironically that living in a tent while starting a business is a viable option for most people, and a whole bunch of other people who just don't seem to get the idea that the economy is literally people, and if it doesn't work for people, it doesn't work, period.
I think you're too focused on dollar amounts because the value of a dollar is in some ways arbitrary (hence why they can have an inflation target and have that make sense). You can have things practically get cheaper even with inflation. For example, if wages rose 10% in a year but prices rose 2% then in a practical sense things are much cheaper despite having 2% inflation.
But to me the goal of ever growing wages and prices doesn't make much sense, especially with technology constantly disrupting things. How is this supposed to work?
The idea is to disincentivize hoarding cash and promote active usage of money in the economy, because governments believe that having useful markets is better than not having them. Regardless of the current living standards and your wages. Rising prices and wages are not the goal per se.
So all your dollars are put on fire and lose 2% of their value annually. You can watch your cash burn to spite the Fed, or you can give it to someone else and make it their problem what to do with dollars while you enjoy whatever you bought.
"Hoarding cash" caused by deflation is actually good thing, because it encourages frugal living. Current inflationary policies result in companies trying to sell people all kinds of useless crap, thus wasting natural resources and human effort.
Sure, in deflationary environment overall GDP growth would be much slower, but it will also be more sustainable in the long run, without big boom-bust cycles.
Nothing is stopping people from saving (I mean, except for low real wages), even with inflation, it's incredibly easy nowadays to put money into investments. Also I don't understand how deflation would eliminate the boom/busy cycles
Sure, but cash is lower risk. While overall investments tend to do well, I've seen many do awful. Some are legitimate investments that just go bad, while others are scams. People are not as good at telling scams from legitimate investments as they like to think they are. If there was no inflation at all just keeping your money for a rainy day in your mattress (any place a thief is unlikely to look) would be good advice, but cash loses 2% every year so it isn't.
I'm pretty sure "deflationary environment" is synonymous with "depression".
It's a wonderful situation for people who have jobs. It's just that in a deflationary trap, the number of people who have jobs tends to dwindle until prices start to level out/rise.
The value of a dollar is arbitrary so having it slightly change over time works just fine, I don't really understand what you think would be the issue there.
Also, to be clear, the inflation target is not 2% because the Fed just like prices going up, I've always been told they target 2% because it gives them a bit more wiggle room with interest rates (higher inflation means higher interest rates) in case of a recession.
> I've always been told they target 2% because it gives them a bit more wiggle room with interest rates (higher inflation means higher interest rates) in case of a recession.
There are a number of reasons usually cited for preferring small positive inflation, but that's not one of the ones I’ve usually seen. Deflation being seen as more harmful than i inflation leading to a bias away from it, and noninal wages being sticky so small positi5 inflation making it easier for their to be gradual decline in real wages in low-demand industries, and thus better demand-based pricing signalling for labor (the alternative being wages that don't adhust as smoothly but more rapid job losses when demand falls.)
The way it's supposed to work is you realize that people are the economy. That means we, people, made up the rules, we can change them, and we should change them for our own betterment. If shareholders end up with a few less cents per share as a result, so be it. Growth for the sake of growth shouldn't be the goal: improving peoples' lives should be. That's the lesson we ought to be taking from the way things have gone over the past 50 years.
Productivity keeps rising, wages don't (to the same degree). Slice it how you want, that's the bottom line, and the reason is exploitation by people who are addicted to adding another zero to a number where the last few zeroes already made no difference, because the issue is in their head, not their bank account.
Deflation also increases the value of debt, so loans become harder to pay back. For those lucky enough to get a low interest rate loan a high inflation rate eats away at the value of the debt.
If we look at maxima and minima, Infinite deflation would make the value of debt infinitely high.
Infinate inflation would drive the value of debt to 0
I was thinking about that, sort of why I said -
> If living standards rise and DEBT levels DROP due to increasing efficiencies and productivity then we should allow Prices to fall.
I think with better goals we can get more comfortable with falling prices.
>If living standards rise and debt levels drop due to increasing efficiencies and productivity then we should allow Prices to fall. Wont that take care of inequality and living standards?
Sounds like a bunch of commie talk. The Almighty Mar-Ket demands perpetually increasing profits and growth, lest we all perish from its fearsome wrath.
Well Google managed to drop prices of email, chat, video, search etc to 0. Tech is capable of pushing prices down without debt piling up. But ofcourse as soon as they tried to get into stuff like Telcom or Retail or Auto they flubbed.
If a tech company manages to succeed in brick and motor space or banking we might end up with something we haven't seen before.
not sure if you meant "brick and mortar" (that's the traditional expression; I know there are a lot of non-English-native speakers here so it's OK!) but if you meant "brick and motor" as a joke, then Tesla seems to be doing the latter pretty well...
You know, the whole idea of a "cost of living" is actually pretty damn absurd. I can live on about $40k post-tax, even in the Bay Area, paying $2k/month rent. That's pretty much the most basic version of life I can live that includes being able to sleep inside a home with water, heat, and electricity, while also being able to take care of my dog and go to the park with her a few days a week.
But, if, somehow, I can't come up with $40k, I don't get to live even that basic life. That's cold, hard capitalism for ya. And even in California, there aren't even social programs available that can simultaneously keep someone from starving while also living indoors.
Oh, and the "cost of living" goes up all the time.
Now, I'm not saying I want to be a layabout and just not work, drink Mountain Dew, and eat Cheetos or something. People, including myself, actually love work, if it's work that has meaning to them. Being productive is something people are hardwired to love. What they don't like is being told what being productive is, and they especially don't like toiling away forever while watching other people get the vast majority of the benefit from them doing so.
The worst part about all this is that the rules of economics are just fucking made up, and we could literally change them at any time. Whether you think it was a good idea or not, we actually did that in 2020, when governments worldwide shut down things like bars, restaurants, gyms, travel, &c. We did that! For better or for worse, we did that! The fact that we all, collectively, could do a thing like that means that we can do other things that are just as big and seem just as impossible.
What we need is a reason. And that reason is (or, rather, ought to be) that we now have an economy that simply does not work for most people. Last I checked, around 2/3 of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck. Now, sure, that counts people who are just bad with money. There will always be people like that. Improving financial literacy is definitely something that needs to be done. But, for the most part, what that 2/3 statistic is saying is that we have an economy that normal people can't function in, if by "function," you mean "get through day to day life, while also being able to save back some resources for the future."
The way to fix all this is that we need to realign the economy. We have to make sure that the people who make the economy work (i.e. workers) gain most, or at least more of the benefits of doing so. I realize that's a pretty broad statement, and that a lot of this that I've written here sounds like a left wing populist stump speech, but I'm not running for office. I'm just a simple software engineer; I'm not rich enough to be able to drop everything and run a political campaign instead of working as a cog in the machine.[1]
What I'm saying is that we need to make sure people can afford to live. The median male worker now has to work 53 weeks to afford a year's worth of expenditures on housing, health insurance, transportation, and education.[2] The same source shows that the average female worker needs to work 66 weeks to afford those expenditures. As they so drolly quote the author of the study these figures come from, "This is a problem, as there are only 52 weeks in a year."
We also need to realign how work works. People, especially younger people, have gotten so alienated from the whole concept of work that there's a subreddit with hundreds of thousands of subscribers called "anti-work" that's all about this. And we definitely have to realize as a society and as a species that money is basically made up bullshit. The thing that needs to matter is people, not money.
I'm going to cut this off here, because it's already starting to look like I've written the first page of my manifesto lol.... But, I...
Kinda annoying that they compare FTEs against the size of the whole population and not against the labour market. It doesn't change the conclusion, but it's probably close to a quarter or a third of workers, given the LFPR is usually 60-something%.
Including kids, retirees, anyone with a medical condition or disability, etc. in the other 80% isn't accurate, since a retired FTE or the child of two FTEs belongs in the top class still, and the permanently disabled or chronically unemployed are in a different situation.
Congratulations, you are smart enough, and literate enough, to learn software engineering.
Meanwhile the average American reads at a 5th grade level, and around 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate.
I'm guessing you also didn't have any chronic health conditions. Traumatic brain injury that keeps you from remembering things, or a form of PTSD that causes you to be unable to function in loud environments.
A lot of us in the technology field started off with very little and fought our way up to having something. Those of us with empathy realize it was a combination of hard work and a lot of other things going right as well that we didn't have control over.
They also expect people to be homeless and live in a tent, while collecting cans to earn the $200 to buy the cheapest possible laptop, and somehow be able to focus on learning software engineering while doing all that.
What things like this miss is that we can't all be rulers of the queen's navy. That is: we can't all be computer programmers and marketing executives and doctors and whatnot. We actually do need the cleaners, and farm hands, and landscapers, and people at Tesco, and so forth and so forth.
Anti-poverty efforts that focus mainly on education kind of miss this, IMHO. And sure, these efforts and not useless especially in the context of entire communities being impoverished, but someone will have to do those jobs regardless, and the problems are so much deeper.
If we need those jobs so much, then perhaps we should treat the people who do them with respect. Like by giving them predictable, full-time schedules and health insurance.
Yes I agree; that was my point more or less: people should be able to work these "poor jobs" and still have a reasonable standard of living. I'm okay with people being "poor relative to middle class", as long as everyone has a reasonable standard of living (barring exceptional circumstances).
This is an interesting comment because there are jobs like this out there. Absolutely companies exist which pay janitors very well. Companies exist owned by janitors who make tons of money. Many, many companies also exist that are absolutely of low quality.
It would be good to explore this disparity more. Just because there's a job called "janitor" doesn't mean it is valued the same way in every context, even if we might argue it should. Why?
I’m speaking from my personal experience of working such jobs. It’s a perspective that seems oddly rare on this forum. The well-respected, well-paid working class job may exist, but as someone who actually did the work and still knows a lot of people who do, I suspect it’s a myth.
I agree with you. In 1975, the janitor was an employee of a company whose premises they were cleaning. It was theoretically possible for the janitor to become CEO one day, or at least an executive. [1]
Today, the janitor probably works for a contractor hired by the company who bills them out at a multiple of what they actually get paid. They probably don't have very good benefits, are lucky if they can afford the health insurance offered, and probably can't really afford to contribute to a 401k.
I would much rather be a janitor in 1975 than 2023.
Even jobs like "mailman", which you'd think is a modest government job with decent benefits, have suffered. A lot of mail carriers are precarious contractors without a fixed schedule.
Someone does needs to do these jobs, but would you tell your kid who wants to be more than a janitor that "we all can't be successful programmers; what would the world do without be without impoverished people to do the jobs we don't want.
Sure someone has to do those jobs sure, but should they only be reserved for poor people?
Well, no, and I'll go even a step further and consider anyone saying such things to be a bad parent. But the context here isn't a parent trying to get the most for their kids, it's people thinking on how to organise a reasonably just and fair society. And in this context, I think it's important to realize that no matter what we do need people doing these jobs, and that these people also deserve a reasonable standard of living. I don't have a problem with "poor" per se, but there's different levels of "poor" and right now you can work an honest full-time job and not make rent – I don't consider that to be reasonable.
I would agree with you. Thank you for adding context. I'll admit I'm guilty of rolling out of bed and commenting so I may have missed the point in my foggy haze.
Right. I think almost everybody wants some version of "fairness", but for many fairness is actually defined by a remarkably strict hierarchy. It's not that they want McDonald's workers to suffer, exactly, but they want to be able to see, even at a glance, that they are doing better than the McD's workers (and of course they go to McD's and enjoy that convenience) And the same people will say, without a hint of irony, that people working low-wage jobs shouldn't have kids they can't afford. As in, not only should people doing essential jobs be restricted from enjoying life, they should also die off without reproducing.
The issue is that we don't have too few people willing to work at Tesco or be landscapers; we have far too many of them relatively, and way too few doctors, computer coders or other high-skilled jobs. One additional unit of landscaping or Tesco work contributes very little to society, and ultimately that's what sets the reward for work in a market economy.
(You can of course have some subsidies on top of that for low-income folks, to help them make rent and whatnot - and there's nothing wrong with that if they're carefully designed. The U.S. EITC and the German "Minijob" arrangements are pretty decent all things considered.)
We have too few coders? Then explain why job openings are getting hundreds of applicants in the first few hours and auto-rejecting people with many years of experience. I think you are mistaken.
The compensation for coders is high because there are few of those and the high compensation attracts job applications. I don't see any discrepancy here. If you could actually close any vacancy with one of the applications you got in a few hours then why anybody would have paid huge money to recruiters, had vacancies open for years, paid FTE rates well above any other profession that does not require formal credentials (actors, models, athletes, rock stars, writers etc are either contractors or self-employed) and kept raising the compensation?
Imagine a perfect scenario where everyone is skilled and educated. What would happen?
Wages would adjust. Everyone would want to be a remote-working software engineer (comfortable job) or a doctor (high-status job). That's why today's low-status, low-wage and hard jobs such as a fast-food worker or a janitor would actually become the best paying jobs.
The end result would be a much more productive and fair society.
The markets solves this. If everyone is smart, skilled and educated, those low-wage and low-status jobs would actually be the best paying jobs with lots of perks to attract workers.
You realize you're actually not really saying anything here, right? After spending 1/4 of one's life going to school, then (if one is lucky) another 1/4 of one's life working, and another 1/4 of one's life in old age, there's not very much life left to live.
Putting it more concretely, the US ranks 27th on the Global Social Mobility Index. That's great, if you're cool with hanging out with Latvia, Spain, Poland, and Cyprus. But, why do that, when you can be Denmark? The benefits are clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#G...) But I guess that just doesn't make enough money for the shareholders or something.
1) What's the cost of Denmark's social mobility? We already have a fairly progressive tax system in the US, what does Denmark do differently and to whom does it cost?
2) What's the benefit? (Note that although a rising tide floats all boats, it is unfortunately impossible to imagine the world that would result if opportunity was equitable)
I'm not arguing against it, I'm just saying it boils down to those things.
The better question is: what's the cost of the US's lack of social mobility. (A partial answer to this is in the wiki link in my comment, FYI. You should read it.)
When you say "cost," it doesn't always mean dollars and cents. Honestly, who cares if shareholders have a few less dollars in their pockets if everyone else is better off as a result?
That's the real problem, not realizing that dollars and cents aren't the be all and end all of everything.
Most of the countries 1-27 are homogeneous nations with populations below 5 million. They all have low wages too. The floor is raised a bit but the ceiling is lowered massively for what you can acheive. I don't want to live in a capped society. The US affords more opportunity; plain and simple. Look at the millions of people trying to get in every day, and the biggest foreign tech work force in the world.
How are low wages a problem? Affordability is the problem, and in at least the top 20, it seems the affordability situation regarding housing, healthcare, and the other basics of life (see, e.g. the bottom levels of Maslow's heirarchy) are all accessible to everyone.
You do also realize that you're saying the US somehow affords more opportunity than the 26 other countries that rank above it on the Global Social Mobility Index? I don't think you've fully understood the concept here.
Limiting opportunity is directly causal to a higher social mobility index though. Preventing people from earning high wages or accumulating wealth will directly increase that metric.
A country where everyone is in extreme poverty could have the top score for social mobility.
I like my high wage. I would get paid half of what I got paid today if I lived in one of those places, if not less. Why would I want that? I have everything I want here and more. I already pay high taxes too.
> Global Social Mobility Index
Look at the attributes that make up the index, they aren't objective like you're making them out to be. Also, its from the WEF, an organization that has a contentious reputation.
Have you consider perhaps that you aren't the center of the universe, and that there are millions of other people who are worse off than you? That if those people were better off, even at your personal expense, then that would be a better society to live in? Your comments are all "me me me," and I don't see any reason why "we we we" should assign any weight to them.
I'm already taxed nearly 45% of my income, pay insane property taxes on my home and car. Not to mention the goods I buy. How about the failing US government redirect its insane budget to improving things that matter, and not far away wars, foreign aid and ever-growing bureaucracy. Focus on domestic issues. Not global profiteering. People in the US, not just citizens but illegal immigrants as well, still have it pretty good compared to most places (free healthcare, EBT, housing vouchers). Thats why millions are trying to get here every year.
Perhaps, but the data doesn't show that there's a bias towards or against, and if anything it could be easier for there to be upwards mobility in a larger country.
"Social Mobility Index" always seems like a particularly weird metric to me. Not just in the usual issues of vanity metrics or gaming the system or whatnot, but also because, I'm not sure that maximizing it is even a desirable outcome. It's a weird measure of like, societal churn.
I'd much rather look at quality of life metrics across all citizens than just check if the outcomes of children are uncorrelated to their parents decisions.
False. In industries with low levels of government regulation you can move very quickly out of poverty. It is only in areas where existing businesses obtain regulatory capture (meat processing, medical, etc) and prevent competition that social mobility goes down.
I went from poor to rich in 5 years after starting my website development service company. Lots and lots of things went wrong ranging from mistakes I made (drinking too much, hiring my girlfriend who made life a nightmare then sued me later, nepotism hiring my brother, being a bad manager at first, and many other issues).
False. You could move very quickly out of poverty by (probably) stumbling into success in an industry with very low levels of regulation. Not everyone can do that. You have to realize that half of everybody has a below average IQ, and that pretty much puts the kibosh on the whole "starting a company in an industry with low levels of government regulation."
How about this? Suppose we abolished all regulation tomorrow. How would that help people get out of poverty? Well, it wouldn't. How do I know that? Just look back to the 19th century, when we more or less didn't have regulation in the US. It was a terrible time to be a worker, but a great time to be a robber baron.
this almost never goes well. many relationships were ended by adding a working relationship element to the picture. this goes for friendships as well as pairings. extremely hard to make work, with long term damage resulting from it failing. you either have to compartmentalize the work relationship from the other relationship or... nope, that's pretty much what you have to do. I think what happens is that it's too easy to lean on forgiveness and slack due to the self-sustaining part of the relationship.
not sure if related but it also seems like adding sex to a normal friendship can also sink both. maybe it has to do with adding ulterior motives like "profit" and "orgasm", not sure. maybe compartmentalization would help there too, not sure.... you'd have the "friend" part of the relationship (intrinsically-motivated) and the compartmentalized "tit for tat" part of the relationship (extrinsically-motivated; sex, money, etc.). This might at least leave the "friend" part somewhat intact (eventually) if the other part fails.
For some reason, pure friendships are the most enduring relationships (and yes, even those can end if people grow apart, but still).
One thing you're possibly not factoring in is your possible "gifts" at doing this well, and whatever opportunities (educational, parents being supportive financially or otherwise, etc.) you might have benefited from on the ramp-up to your life.
were you actually poor? you don't sound like it. I don't think most poor people would be able to start a business, let alone afford a drinking problem on top of it, or to hire their close associates
I was poverty level growing up according to Uncle Sam... I received FAFSA loans and grants for college. My dad was a poverty level pastor who rented a duplex for us four kids and my mom stayed at home.
93 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 49.8 ms ] threadAlso, article is from 2017.
Non-paywall link: https://archive.ph/2Dcrc
Technology causes Price of Goods and Services to fall. Not rise. Yet the Fed says its inflation target is 2% which means Prices are always supposed to grow no matter what innovation happens or its speed. This makes no sense.
If living standards rise and debt levels drop due to increasing efficiencies and productivity then we should allow Prices to fall. Wont that take care of inequality and living standards?
It's really frustrating to wade through this sea of comments that includes a guy who is saying unironically that living in a tent while starting a business is a viable option for most people, and a whole bunch of other people who just don't seem to get the idea that the economy is literally people, and if it doesn't work for people, it doesn't work, period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_prof...
So all your dollars are put on fire and lose 2% of their value annually. You can watch your cash burn to spite the Fed, or you can give it to someone else and make it their problem what to do with dollars while you enjoy whatever you bought.
Sure, in deflationary environment overall GDP growth would be much slower, but it will also be more sustainable in the long run, without big boom-bust cycles.
It's a wonderful situation for people who have jobs. It's just that in a deflationary trap, the number of people who have jobs tends to dwindle until prices start to level out/rise.
Also, to be clear, the inflation target is not 2% because the Fed just like prices going up, I've always been told they target 2% because it gives them a bit more wiggle room with interest rates (higher inflation means higher interest rates) in case of a recession.
There are a number of reasons usually cited for preferring small positive inflation, but that's not one of the ones I’ve usually seen. Deflation being seen as more harmful than i inflation leading to a bias away from it, and noninal wages being sticky so small positi5 inflation making it easier for their to be gradual decline in real wages in low-demand industries, and thus better demand-based pricing signalling for labor (the alternative being wages that don't adhust as smoothly but more rapid job losses when demand falls.)
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14400.htm
Productivity keeps rising, wages don't (to the same degree). Slice it how you want, that's the bottom line, and the reason is exploitation by people who are addicted to adding another zero to a number where the last few zeroes already made no difference, because the issue is in their head, not their bank account.
Not according to the fed...
If we look at maxima and minima, Infinite deflation would make the value of debt infinitely high. Infinate inflation would drive the value of debt to 0
I think with better goals we can get more comfortable with falling prices.
Sounds like a bunch of commie talk. The Almighty Mar-Ket demands perpetually increasing profits and growth, lest we all perish from its fearsome wrath.
If a tech company manages to succeed in brick and motor space or banking we might end up with something we haven't seen before.
But, if, somehow, I can't come up with $40k, I don't get to live even that basic life. That's cold, hard capitalism for ya. And even in California, there aren't even social programs available that can simultaneously keep someone from starving while also living indoors.
Oh, and the "cost of living" goes up all the time.
Now, I'm not saying I want to be a layabout and just not work, drink Mountain Dew, and eat Cheetos or something. People, including myself, actually love work, if it's work that has meaning to them. Being productive is something people are hardwired to love. What they don't like is being told what being productive is, and they especially don't like toiling away forever while watching other people get the vast majority of the benefit from them doing so.
The worst part about all this is that the rules of economics are just fucking made up, and we could literally change them at any time. Whether you think it was a good idea or not, we actually did that in 2020, when governments worldwide shut down things like bars, restaurants, gyms, travel, &c. We did that! For better or for worse, we did that! The fact that we all, collectively, could do a thing like that means that we can do other things that are just as big and seem just as impossible.
What we need is a reason. And that reason is (or, rather, ought to be) that we now have an economy that simply does not work for most people. Last I checked, around 2/3 of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck. Now, sure, that counts people who are just bad with money. There will always be people like that. Improving financial literacy is definitely something that needs to be done. But, for the most part, what that 2/3 statistic is saying is that we have an economy that normal people can't function in, if by "function," you mean "get through day to day life, while also being able to save back some resources for the future."
The way to fix all this is that we need to realign the economy. We have to make sure that the people who make the economy work (i.e. workers) gain most, or at least more of the benefits of doing so. I realize that's a pretty broad statement, and that a lot of this that I've written here sounds like a left wing populist stump speech, but I'm not running for office. I'm just a simple software engineer; I'm not rich enough to be able to drop everything and run a political campaign instead of working as a cog in the machine.[1]
What I'm saying is that we need to make sure people can afford to live. The median male worker now has to work 53 weeks to afford a year's worth of expenditures on housing, health insurance, transportation, and education.[2] The same source shows that the average female worker needs to work 66 weeks to afford those expenditures. As they so drolly quote the author of the study these figures come from, "This is a problem, as there are only 52 weeks in a year."
We also need to realign how work works. People, especially younger people, have gotten so alienated from the whole concept of work that there's a subreddit with hundreds of thousands of subscribers called "anti-work" that's all about this. And we definitely have to realize as a society and as a species that money is basically made up bullshit. The thing that needs to matter is people, not money.
I'm going to cut this off here, because it's already starting to look like I've written the first page of my manifesto lol.... But, I...
Including kids, retirees, anyone with a medical condition or disability, etc. in the other 80% isn't accurate, since a retired FTE or the child of two FTEs belongs in the top class still, and the permanently disabled or chronically unemployed are in a different situation.
Meanwhile the average American reads at a 5th grade level, and around 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate.
I'm guessing you also didn't have any chronic health conditions. Traumatic brain injury that keeps you from remembering things, or a form of PTSD that causes you to be unable to function in loud environments.
A lot of us in the technology field started off with very little and fought our way up to having something. Those of us with empathy realize it was a combination of hard work and a lot of other things going right as well that we didn't have control over.
Anti-poverty efforts that focus mainly on education kind of miss this, IMHO. And sure, these efforts and not useless especially in the context of entire communities being impoverished, but someone will have to do those jobs regardless, and the problems are so much deeper.
It would be good to explore this disparity more. Just because there's a job called "janitor" doesn't mean it is valued the same way in every context, even if we might argue it should. Why?
Today, the janitor probably works for a contractor hired by the company who bills them out at a multiple of what they actually get paid. They probably don't have very good benefits, are lucky if they can afford the health insurance offered, and probably can't really afford to contribute to a 401k.
I would much rather be a janitor in 1975 than 2023.
---
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Monta%C3%B1ez
E.g. janitors of the future maintaining advanced robots and lighting systems that keep everything operational and healthy.
Sure someone has to do those jobs sure, but should they only be reserved for poor people?
(You can of course have some subsidies on top of that for low-income folks, to help them make rent and whatnot - and there's nothing wrong with that if they're carefully designed. The U.S. EITC and the German "Minijob" arrangements are pretty decent all things considered.)
Wages would adjust. Everyone would want to be a remote-working software engineer (comfortable job) or a doctor (high-status job). That's why today's low-status, low-wage and hard jobs such as a fast-food worker or a janitor would actually become the best paying jobs.
The end result would be a much more productive and fair society.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
Putting it more concretely, the US ranks 27th on the Global Social Mobility Index. That's great, if you're cool with hanging out with Latvia, Spain, Poland, and Cyprus. But, why do that, when you can be Denmark? The benefits are clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#G...) But I guess that just doesn't make enough money for the shareholders or something.
2) What's the benefit? (Note that although a rising tide floats all boats, it is unfortunately impossible to imagine the world that would result if opportunity was equitable)
I'm not arguing against it, I'm just saying it boils down to those things.
When you say "cost," it doesn't always mean dollars and cents. Honestly, who cares if shareholders have a few less dollars in their pockets if everyone else is better off as a result?
That's the real problem, not realizing that dollars and cents aren't the be all and end all of everything.
You do also realize that you're saying the US somehow affords more opportunity than the 26 other countries that rank above it on the Global Social Mobility Index? I don't think you've fully understood the concept here.
A country where everyone is in extreme poverty could have the top score for social mobility.
> Global Social Mobility Index
Look at the attributes that make up the index, they aren't objective like you're making them out to be. Also, its from the WEF, an organization that has a contentious reputation.
I'm already taxed nearly 45% of my income, pay insane property taxes on my home and car. Not to mention the goods I buy. How about the failing US government redirect its insane budget to improving things that matter, and not far away wars, foreign aid and ever-growing bureaucracy. Focus on domestic issues. Not global profiteering. People in the US, not just citizens but illegal immigrants as well, still have it pretty good compared to most places (free healthcare, EBT, housing vouchers). Thats why millions are trying to get here every year.
I'd much rather look at quality of life metrics across all citizens than just check if the outcomes of children are uncorrelated to their parents decisions.
I went from poor to rich in 5 years after starting my website development service company. Lots and lots of things went wrong ranging from mistakes I made (drinking too much, hiring my girlfriend who made life a nightmare then sued me later, nepotism hiring my brother, being a bad manager at first, and many other issues).
How about this? Suppose we abolished all regulation tomorrow. How would that help people get out of poverty? Well, it wouldn't. How do I know that? Just look back to the 19th century, when we more or less didn't have regulation in the US. It was a terrible time to be a worker, but a great time to be a robber baron.
> hiring my brother
this almost never goes well. many relationships were ended by adding a working relationship element to the picture. this goes for friendships as well as pairings. extremely hard to make work, with long term damage resulting from it failing. you either have to compartmentalize the work relationship from the other relationship or... nope, that's pretty much what you have to do. I think what happens is that it's too easy to lean on forgiveness and slack due to the self-sustaining part of the relationship.
not sure if related but it also seems like adding sex to a normal friendship can also sink both. maybe it has to do with adding ulterior motives like "profit" and "orgasm", not sure. maybe compartmentalization would help there too, not sure.... you'd have the "friend" part of the relationship (intrinsically-motivated) and the compartmentalized "tit for tat" part of the relationship (extrinsically-motivated; sex, money, etc.). This might at least leave the "friend" part somewhat intact (eventually) if the other part fails.
For some reason, pure friendships are the most enduring relationships (and yes, even those can end if people grow apart, but still).
One thing you're possibly not factoring in is your possible "gifts" at doing this well, and whatever opportunities (educational, parents being supportive financially or otherwise, etc.) you might have benefited from on the ramp-up to your life.