U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2013, 04:58 PM
 
6,275 posts, read 6,116,041 times
Reputation: 2234

Advertisements

In the US, people with less than average skill/diligence/IQ could still live a comfortable life and more or less fulfill the "American dream".

However, now they are forced to compete with Chinese who had studied 12 hours a day in school, and Indians who are happy with $200/mo customer service jobs. Do you think mediocre people will be increasingly unemployed and falling in poverty? Maybe socialism is the only solution?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2013, 06:23 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,894 posts, read 57,997,675 times
Reputation: 29341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish View Post
Global economy = mediocre people suffer forever?

In the US, the overabundant surplus of people with less than average skill/diligence/IQ
could still live a comfortable life and more or less fulfill the "American dream".

Do you think mediocre people will be increasingly unemployed and falling in poverty?
Of course... most are already there.
Self sufficiency in the US requires no less than a $25,000 income per year.
In many larger cities (the ones with the jobs) that number is far higher.

This population simply does not have the skills needed to earn that much money.
(Even tweaking minimum wage won't help)

Quote:
Maybe socialism is the only solution?
Nope. But diligent use of $50 worth of latex each year sure could be the solution.

As noted the issue isn't that we have such people... we've always had them.
The issue is that we have in such abundance relative to the number of jobs they are qualified for.
The deeper problem is that even that number of jobs is dwindling.

We have too many people in all stratum's... but mostly too many at the bottom.
Most people at most of the higher stratum's have mostly self regulated their fertility rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 11:55 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,457,812 times
Reputation: 7274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish View Post
In the US, people with less than average skill/diligence/IQ could still live a comfortable life and more or less fulfill the "American dream".

However, now they are forced to compete with Chinese who had studied 12 hours a day in school, and Indians who are happy with $200/mo customer service jobs. Do you think mediocre people will be increasingly unemployed and falling in poverty? Maybe socialism is the only solution?
Those who put forth mediocre effort in terms of developing their potential will see mediocre limits in their lifestyles.

Competition separates those who are willing to put forth effort from the pack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 12:05 AM
 
4,829 posts, read 4,814,241 times
Reputation: 6172
Yup, yet another glorification of rat race by folks with narcissistic propensities, I suppose. If it's postulated that only those on the top should have the access to decent +/- life, what "diligence" etc. has to do with anything? Think, if there is no agreement on minimal levels of "diligence" guaranteeing decent+/- existence, what's your point exactly? Would tenfolding of the average "diligence" levels affect income and wealth distributions? Unlikely. So what's the point of your thinly veiled narcissism?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 07:39 AM
 
Location: "Daytonnati"
4,245 posts, read 5,756,939 times
Reputation: 2958
Yeah, this is the Rise of the Meritocracy. Intelligence + Effort = Merit.

Some good points on this thread:

1. Number of jobs are dwindling

2. Jobs that pay living wages are beyond the ability/effort of the great unwashed.

...and this is unprecdented in US history. In the past people of average ability and intelligence could find average work that still paid enough to house & feed themselves and their families. Nowadays this is increasingly not the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 07:59 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,894 posts, read 57,997,675 times
Reputation: 29341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Sux View Post
...and this is unprecedented in US history.
The full scale of it, depth and breadth of our current situation, would be hard to have predicted in detail
but don't act as though the current (then coming) no/low skilled job reduction wasn't known long before now.

This is why most of the now angry middle self regulated their own fertility (mostly at least, and certainly
within the limits of their ability to provide for them) and then did right by those kids promoting college
and similar preparation for the skilled jobs. They knew, we all knew it was coming.

Too many parents interpreted that "skilled jobs" thing to mean professional or executive level work,
rather than using a broader rubric that would include things like trade skills as well though. And that has
created a whole other problem for those (mostly well educated) kids inability to do better in the current recession.

Quote:
In the past people of (even below) average ability and intelligence could find average work that still paid enough to house & feed themselves and their families.
Over the last 30-40 years in the US... at the same time that we have shuttered our older industrial base,
off-shored other jobs and then through technology and process changes streamlined the remaining jobs
down to the point that we're phenomenally efficient at what we do get done...
even if those who are working are often putting in more hours than the past generation did to earn enough.

But during this same time... we have significantly, dangerously, boomed the raw number of our population.
This raw number of people (151M in 1950 to 203M in 1970 to 308M in 2010) impacts all manner of infrastructure limits and our resource reserves... aside from the economic aspect of feeding far more supply
of available labor into the machine than the machine has demand for.

Last edited by MrRational; 01-25-2013 at 08:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:28 AM
 
6,275 posts, read 6,116,041 times
Reputation: 2234
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Yup, yet another glorification of rat race by folks with narcissistic propensities, I suppose. If it's postulated that only those on the top should have the access to decent +/- life, what "diligence" etc. has to do with anything? Think, if there is no agreement on minimal levels of "diligence" guaranteeing decent+/- existence, what's your point exactly? Would tenfolding of the average "diligence" levels affect income and wealth distributions? Unlikely. So what's the point of your thinly veiled narcissism?
What's wrong with you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:43 AM
 
348 posts, read 358,915 times
Reputation: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish View Post
What's wrong with you?

That is a dangerous mindset that is being fed to our youth daily. We make more excuses and reasons as to why we cant succeed than anytime in history. We continue to buy into this hysteria of how bad things are, and yet their is some truth to it. But there are still a lot of people that are thriving because they choose to educate and build value within themselves to excel. Our identity as a nation has been tarnished by excuses and a mediocrity mindset. We are no longer ashamed of our personal dire situation.

A formal education is no longer good enough for the work place. The People that have merit spend hours education themselves, reading, attending seminars that are not mandatory. IF you spend your evenings in front of the television worshiping reality shows, dont expect to grow in your field of interest.

Not denying that our job climate is different than say 30 years ago, but to survive you must adapt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 10:01 AM
 
1,081 posts, read 1,702,028 times
Reputation: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish View Post
In the US, people with less than average skill/diligence/IQ could still live a comfortable life and more or less fulfill the "American dream".

However, now they are forced to compete with Chinese who had studied 12 hours a day in school, and Indians who are happy with $200/mo customer service jobs. Do you think mediocre people will be increasingly unemployed and falling in poverty? Maybe socialism is the only solution?
i think lots of people's are in complete denial about how competitive the world has become and continue to plod away in jobs earning lowish or average incomes, not really getting anywhere at least financially.

There brainwashed, they believe in the system, that if they just keep their head down and work, and be frugal everything will be OK.

Whilst this strategy might have worked in the past, and will get by with it, you won't be wealthy - I think that increasingly the people who are get rewarded are the creative types, or create their own income sources - who can actually apply a bit of creative thinking as opposed to the cloneish University going, middle class types who are just will end up just scraping to retirement with a subsistance income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Illinois
827 posts, read 910,871 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Yup, yet another glorification of rat race by folks with narcissistic propensities, I suppose. If it's postulated that only those on the top should have the access to decent +/- life, what "diligence" etc. has to do with anything? Think, if there is no agreement on minimal levels of "diligence" guaranteeing decent+/- existence, what's your point exactly? Would tenfolding of the average "diligence" levels affect income and wealth distributions? Unlikely. So what's the point of your thinly veiled narcissism?
Cool story, bro. Whine much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top