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 01-08-2019, 08:39 PM
 
Location: la la land
28,548 posts, read 12,085,001 times
Reputation: 20186

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeko156 View Post
This is true. For example, a receptionist job pays the same now as when I was doing it 25 years ago. Why should it pay more? There is no shortage of receptionists and it is unskilled, easily replaced if you should quit. Maybe not the best example, but I agree with mathjak107.
Why should that job pay more? Maybe because $1,000 in 1993 is equivalent in purchasing power to $1,737.69 in 2018
$1,000 in 1993
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2019, 04:19 AM
 
67,060 posts, read 68,036,576 times
Reputation: 44985
that is a highly debated topic ....

let me ask you a hypothetical question ..

if the weather destroys the tomato crop and you are a heavy user of tomatoes , is your employer obligated to give you an offsetting raise but since your neighbor works for the same company and is allergic to tomatoes and uses none , he gets no raise ? is it even the employers concern that you like tomatoes so much and want to buy them even though outside forces increased the prices ?

or , nice homes are tight in your market and because of short supply and locals wanting to buy homes , they are going for top dollar . should your employer be forced to pay you more because conditions have changed on homes yet your neighbor who works for the same company has no interest in a home so should your employer give you a raise but not him ?


i think most of us would say no . it is just a case of the money supply staying in bounds but supply , demand and local conditions are simply making these things more expensive . it is simply the fact if you want these things you need to increase your income outside of your job . your boss has no responsibility to absorb these factors and pay you more . so you need a 2nd job is what most of us would say ...


that is very different then if the money supply was cranked up and they printed 2 dollars for everyone out there . i think in that case most of us would say we need a raise and should get a raise because this is not just local supply and demand issues where if we wanted the price of tomatoes to fall we can all just stop buying tomatoes ..

two very different scenarios as far as what our expectations for a raise would be .

lots of price increases over the years are supply and demand inflation not monetary inflation . use less and stop over consuming the supply and prices would fall .

you would really need to examine every cost to see if you were in theory entitled to a raise or if it is simply user created price increases and use less and prices would fall.

so simply comparing prices really does not accurately compare because if demand fell on lots of things and we stopped over consuming them prices would fall .

hypothetically if we all stopped using gasoline for personal use gas prices would likely plunge as an example .. should our employer reduce our pay because we are spending less on gas ?.

Last edited by mathjak107; 01-09-2019 at 05:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
1,904 posts, read 927,780 times
Reputation: 4419
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Why should that job pay more? Maybe because $1,000 in 1993 is equivalent in purchasing power to $1,737.69 in 2018
$1,000 in 1993
And?

Trying to mandate that all members of a growing workforce must never lose purchasing power would be a guarantee for a hugely inflationary wage-price spiral.

Maybe the poor fellow you're weeping over should have learned something more useful in the 25 years that went by in your example? I know I certainly did... I make approximately twelve times more than I did in 1993, and so beat the cost of living by a factor of about 7.

Why should everyone lose the benefits of greater economic efficiency so a few can hold on to their obsolete jobs and not have to get with the times?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 01:57 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
28,806 posts, read 51,862,488 times
Reputation: 29526
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr View Post
And?

Trying to mandate that all members of a growing workforce must never lose purchasing power would be a guarantee for a hugely inflationary wage-price spiral.

Maybe the poor fellow you're weeping over should have learned something more useful in the 25 years that went by in your example? I know I certainly did... I make approximately twelve times more than I did in 1993, and so beat the cost of living by a factor of about 7.

Why should everyone lose the benefits of greater economic efficiency so a few can hold on to their obsolete jobs and not have to get with the times?
I have to agree. We get no annual "cost of living" increase. We are eligible for an annual performance-based raise, this year from 0-4.5%. For a top performer, that is going to be more than the 2.8% cost of living increase (according to Social Security Administration). If you want to beat inflation by more and even get ahead, it may require not only good performance but continual education and wider experience to achieve promotions, where a pay increase of at least 10% to 30% is common. Just for fun I just calculated my 1993-current and I didn't do quite as well, but still about 9 times more. And. . . my house payment is still the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 03:14 PM
 
Location: la la land
28,548 posts, read 12,085,001 times
Reputation: 20186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr View Post
And?
Trying to mandate that all members of a growing workforce must never lose purchasing power would be a guarantee for a hugely inflationary wage-price spiral.
Maybe the poor fellow you're weeping over should have learned something more useful in the 25 years that went by in your example? I know I certainly did... I make approximately twelve times more than I did in 1993, and so beat the cost of living by a factor of about 7.
Why should everyone lose the benefits of greater economic efficiency so a few can hold on to their obsolete jobs and not have to get with the times?
This is the post I was responding to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeko156 View Post
This is true. For example, a receptionist job pays the same now as when I was doing it 25 years ago. Why should it pay more? There is no shortage of receptionists and it is unskilled, easily replaced if you should quit. Maybe not the best example, but I agree with mathjak107.
I simply explained WHY jobs should pay more, so don't try to suck me into some kind of esoteric libertarian argument about the free market I have better things than that to waste my time on
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
1,904 posts, read 927,780 times
Reputation: 4419
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I simply explained WHY jobs should pay more, so don't try to suck me into some kind of esoteric libertarian argument about the free market I have better things than that to waste my time on
You simply waved your hands in the air and made some simplistic argument about how you think the world should work. There is no intrinsic reason why any particular job should pay more, or less, or even still exist. Labeling reality "esoteric" and proclaiming that you don't have time to waste on it doesn't change that reality one iota.

Like the song says, "You better start swimming, or you'll sink like a stone!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 05:43 PM
 
1,421 posts, read 696,816 times
Reputation: 1997
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Why should that job pay more? Maybe because $1,000 in 1993 is equivalent in purchasing power to $1,737.69 in 2018
$1,000 in 1993
I hear ya..but it doesn't pay more. I am not saying that is the way it should be, but for easy-to-fill, low skilled work, that is the way it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:21 PM
 
1,966 posts, read 1,128,435 times
Reputation: 2189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeko156 View Post
This is true. For example, a receptionist job pays the same now as when I was doing it 25 years ago. Why should it pay more? There is no shortage of receptionists and it is unskilled, easily replaced if you should quit. Maybe not the best example, but I agree with mathjak107.
If it pays the same it actually pays way, way less....
inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:31 PM
 
1,421 posts, read 696,816 times
Reputation: 1997
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
If it pays the same it actually pays way, way less....
inflation.
Absolutely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:59 AM
 
7,504 posts, read 8,384,399 times
Reputation: 5626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
No, they don't.

Download the most recent federal budget, or any of the historical federal budgets and show us where Congress allocates monies to Social Security or Medicare.

Neither Social Security nor Medicare are part of the federal budget, nor have they ever been.

Both programs are off-budget and have been since their inception.

Both programs are totally self-contained. If and when there was a surplus of FICA or HI (Medicare) tax revenues collected, the excess revenues were transferred to the Treasury Department, not Congress.


The OECD is expressly anti-American and has an agenda.


1. Both social security and medicare are "off budget" items but they are most definitely mandatory federal programs. Together they total roughly 62/63% of federal outlays. Further they are in no way, "totally self contained." Via legislation/administrative authority the .gov is on the hook to allocate monies into either program when needed to keep each running.

2. I agree with you the OECD has a strong pro-Europe slant. The worst is using the Euro definition of poverty/financial stress as 50% of median income. That number make the US look terrible because our median incomes are so high.
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

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.

2005-2019, 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