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 11-07-2018, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,160 posts, read 13,340,573 times
Reputation: 14041

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
I also know that the cheaper places to live also have fewer jobs and those jobs pay less money.
No, they don't. That is a gross generalization. There are some places, specifically extreme rural areas were that is true, but there are 39,000+ places to choose from that have populations between 100,000 to 500,000 where Cost-of-Living is low and there's jobs-a-plenty.

You just haven't done any research.

If that wasn't the case, people would be flocking by the millions to say, Cowville, Iowa, so they could make their $300,000 a year in the high tech jobs there and live in those $90,000 houses that are for sale.

Except that there are no high tech jobs in Cowville that pay $300,000 a year and if there were, the houses would then cost upwards of half a million bucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Awwww...I'm so sorry I insist on living.
Then you have to bear the cost.

I'm willing to cut some slack for those suffering through no fault of their own.

People with Type I Diabetes (diabetes mellitus) are born that way, but people with Type II Diabetes buy it.

They own it.

I'm not paying for it. They can get their lard asses up off the couch and go walk 15 minutes a day and alter their diet instead of bleeding everyone else dry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Part of the reason for the lack of 150 IQ workers is the education system and the new business models.
The education system never produces people with an IQ of 150.

Those people are born that way. You can only educate people to their maximum potential, and an IQ of 150 is not the maximum potential for 90% of the population.

If you want people with an IQ of 150 or better, then you need to start engaging in selective breeding.

That might not be a bad idea, actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
Pretty jerk response...
It's NOT my fault wages have jumped so little compared to everything else.
You consume, do you not? You're part of the problem.

You vote, do you not? Whether you do or not you're still part of the problem.

There is no law, theory or corollary in Economics that says wages must rise, except in the case of Monetary Inflation, and Monetary Inflation is practically non-existent in the economy, or when demand for a specific skill-set, and your government identifies 800+ skill-sets, in a given labor market is high or the supply is low, and there are several thousand labor markets in the US.

Prices are rising because of Demand-pull and Cost-push Inflation, and wages are not supposed to rise in either case, and both are your fault.

You vote for the politicians at the local, State and federal level that enact the laws, regulations and ordinances, as well as taxes and fees that drive up the prices of goods and services. That's Cost-push Inflation.

If you don't like it, then elect better government, and yes, that might mean you'll have to turn off the damn TV and spend 20-30 hours a week organizing a 3rd Party or campaigning for a candidate that will reduce Cost-push Inflation.

Demand-pull Inflation occurs when Demand exceeds Supply. You can stop consuming, or you can increase Supply, and, yes, that might mean you'll have to start a business that will increase the amount of goods and services affected in order to halt further price increases or lower prices.

If you can't or won't do any of those things, you'll just have to learn how to deal with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
As for relocating, you can bet we're looking into that...maybe a different country. Some of us have built a life for ourselves...we have roots...it's not so easy to just up and move.

Keep your tissues for yourself.
Well, you'll have to choose between roots and an higher Standard of Living.

Nobody said life was easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2018, 08:02 PM
 
1,598 posts, read 361,868 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
No, they don't. That is a gross generalization. There are some places, specifically extreme rural areas were that is true, but there are 39,000+ places to choose from that have populations between 100,000 to 500,000 where Cost-of-Living is low and there's jobs-a-plenty.

You just haven't done any research.

If that wasn't the case, people would be flocking by the millions to say, Cowville, Iowa, so they could make their $300,000 a year in the high tech jobs there and live in those $90,000 houses that are for sale.

Except that there are no high tech jobs in Cowville that pay $300,000 a year and if there were, the houses would then cost upwards of half a million bucks.



Then you have to bear the cost.

I'm willing to cut some slack for those suffering through no fault of their own.

People with Type I Diabetes (diabetes mellitus) are born that way, but people with Type II Diabetes buy it.

They own it.

I'm not paying for it. They can get their lard asses up off the couch and go walk 15 minutes a day and alter their diet instead of bleeding everyone else dry.



The education system never produces people with an IQ of 150.

Those people are born that way. You can only educate people to their maximum potential, and an IQ of 150 is not the maximum potential for 90% of the population.

If you want people with an IQ of 150 or better, then you need to start engaging in selective breeding.

That might not be a bad idea, actually.



You consume, do you not? You're part of the problem.

You vote, do you not? Whether you do or not you're still part of the problem.

There is no law, theory or corollary in Economics that says wages must rise, except in the case of Monetary Inflation, and Monetary Inflation is practically non-existent in the economy, or when demand for a specific skill-set, and your government identifies 800+ skill-sets, in a given labor market is high or the supply is low, and there are several thousand labor markets in the US.

Prices are rising because of Demand-pull and Cost-push Inflation, and wages are not supposed to rise in either case, and both are your fault.

You vote for the politicians at the local, State and federal level that enact the laws, regulations and ordinances, as well as taxes and fees that drive up the prices of goods and services. That's Cost-push Inflation.

If you don't like it, then elect better government, and yes, that might mean you'll have to turn off the damn TV and spend 20-30 hours a week organizing a 3rd Party or campaigning for a candidate that will reduce Cost-push Inflation.

Demand-pull Inflation occurs when Demand exceeds Supply. You can stop consuming, or you can increase Supply, and, yes, that might mean you'll have to start a business that will increase the amount of goods and services affected in order to halt further price increases or lower prices.

If you can't or won't do any of those things, you'll just have to learn how to deal with it.



Well, you'll have to choose between roots and an higher Standard of Living.

Nobody said life was easy.
It's a shame we haven't been able to accomplish more, and roll over even small amounts of wealth to give the next generation a head start. In both rich and poor, there's always a generation to lose it all, and start over. It is the human condition, sadly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 11:32 PM
 
4,442 posts, read 5,329,404 times
Reputation: 4506
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
Now if only I could pay market rate for healthcare instead of market rate + me subsidizing the poor and/or unhealthy...
This would be nice. If people want healthcare so badly, theyíll find a way to pay for it. Or not. Just like in every other time of history for every other animal, survival of the fittest works just fine. Iím tired of subsidizing fat, lazy, unhealthy slobs. It would be one thing if there was a pool for healthy young people and Iím subsidizing only people who get unlucky and have some fluke issue. But I donít think a dollar of my money should go to some smoker or a 300 pounder because they canít afford astronomical health bills. Iíd rather 80% of Americans have great health insurance and itís affordable and the 20% who live like pigs can pay the price for their poor decisions rather than act like itís everyone elseís job to subsidize their newest Twinkie binge eating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2018, 01:45 AM
 
4,859 posts, read 2,318,577 times
Reputation: 9034
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB View Post
Just like in every other time of history for every other animal, survival of the fittest works just fine.
I'm not sure those who didn't survive as long as the ones who were more fit would agree with your assessment that it works fine. There are also many animals that have evolved to have social bonds that facilitate survival of those less fit than the rest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2018, 03:49 AM
 
Location: Washington state
4,737 posts, read 2,340,564 times
Reputation: 13860
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
Libertarian? Ok, look.

Taxes are assessed to pay for municipal projects critical to a certain goal. Whether it's public education, paved roads, or running water. These taxes are enforced by law so that individual citizens can't pull the whole "well I didn't ask you to pave my road!" excuse. I don't care if your 4x4 can traverse the gaping potholes on Main St., a percentage of your income will be taken for the betterment of common infrastructure. In other words, you don't get to make those decisions, your city planning board does - they already have your money.

Public schools, while being far from ideal in some cities, offer a balanced curriculum most often requiring a math, an English, a science, and some form of social studies class each year. Without public schools, there would likely not have been a standard curriculum, and you'd have schools that only taught arts, only taught science, leaving large voids in their graduates' abilities.

Absent SOME local, state, or national standard for anything, traveling from one state to another would be like entering a foreign country. No cohesive ties or relationships... this opens many opportunities for exploitation of less densely populated (read: impoverished) states for their natural resources and labor.

To draw an analogy - and a good, simple one for illustrative purposes - city water. Very very few, if any residential properties at all, would have city water if each subscriber had to pay for the entire length of pipe from their house to the nearest pump station. Taxes pay for the water mains, to bring ACCESS to all homes within certain limits, and each connection (given a small 0.1 to 0.3 acre lot) usually costs about $1500. A lot less than a dedicated line. This enables modest new homes with modest incomes MILES from city center to access clean water instead of eating the initial cost of installing well and septic.
You're preaching to the choir here. My response was to this guy and what he said to me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
I can take care of myself and my family. Why can't other people? Your right to live begins to conflict with my right to live when I have to subsidize your healthcare which then jeopardizes my ability to my pay for my own.

Direct your post at him, not me. And Libertarian? You're a little off the mark there. Libertarians hate people like me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
No, they don't. That is a gross generalization. There are some places, specifically extreme rural areas were that is true, but there are 39,000+ places to choose from that have populations between 100,000 to 500,000 where Cost-of-Living is low and there's jobs-a-plenty.

You just haven't done any research.
I wasn't referring to jobs-a-plenty. I was referring to jobs that actually pay people enough to live on. Without an hour or two commute to that job, that is. There's jobs-a-plenty anywhere you go in the US right now. What people are looking for is a job that pays over minimum wage.

Quote:
The education system never produces people with an IQ of 150.

Those people are born that way. You can only educate people to their maximum potential, and an IQ of 150 is not the maximum potential for 90% of the population.

If you want people with an IQ of 150 or better, then you need to start engaging in selective breeding.

That might not be a bad idea, actually.

What is this, misquote rodentraiser day? I'm NOT the one who brought 150 IQ into the conversation. Go talk to this guy:


Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
This has way less to do with Cowville than the scarcity of the 150 IQ workers capable of doing that $300k tech job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2018, 04:15 AM
 
4,859 posts, read 2,318,577 times
Reputation: 9034
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
There's jobs-a-plenty anywhere you go in the US right now. What people are looking for is a job that pays over minimum wage.
Only 2.3% of hourly paid workers get paid minimum wage* as of 2017. If you say there are jobs-a-plenty anywhere you go in the US right now, you're also saying there are plenty of jobs that pay above minimum wage everywhere you go.

*source = https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min.../2017/home.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2018, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,737 posts, read 2,340,564 times
Reputation: 13860
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Only 2.3% of hourly paid workers get paid minimum wage* as of 2017. If you say there are jobs-a-plenty anywhere you go in the US right now, you're also saying there are plenty of jobs that pay above minimum wage everywhere you go.

*source = https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min.../2017/home.htm


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6d1f3a85705f

"Forty percent of jobs in the country pay less than $15.50, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute."

Perhaps I should have said instead: "...a job that pays a living wage." as even jobs double the minimum wage won't support a person.

Anyway, you just proved my point. If only 2.3% of hourly workers get minimum wage, then the rest of them must still be making starvation rations if 40% of the jobs today pay less than $15.50 an hour, wouldn't you say? People need to be making well over $20 if they want to cover living expenses. Low paying service jobs are a dime a dozen. Where are the jobs that pay a living wage?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money...eet/ar-BBMHmdi


"Yet a report out this week finds that almost half of Americans are having trouble paying for basic needs such as food and housing.


The Urban Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank, surveyed more than 7,500 adults about their experience making ends meet. It found that about 40% of people ages 18 to 64 faced some sort of hardship last year."








https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...ows/ar-BBLUiNe


"In fact, the real average wage, which Pew defines as "the wage after accounting for inflation" has roughly the same purchasing power as it did 40 years ago. And while some workers have seen gains, most of the increases have gone to those who were already the highest-paid."



"After adjusting for inflation, however, today's average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then," he wrote. "In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today."

"For some workers, the reality is actually worse. Real wages among the lowest-paid quarter of workers have increased just 4.3% since 2000, while the top tenth of earners has seen an increase of 15.7% to $2,112 a week (compared to $26 each week for the bottom 10%)."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2018, 09:35 PM
 
4,859 posts, read 2,318,577 times
Reputation: 9034
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Perhaps I should have said instead: "...a job that pays a living wage." as even jobs double the minimum wage won't support a person.
You're really going to imply you know enough about the living expenses of everyone to state that nobody can live on $15/hour? Pfft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Anyway, you just proved my point. If only 2.3% of hourly workers get minimum wage, then the rest of them must still be making starvation rations if 40% of the jobs today pay less than $15.50 an hour, wouldn't you say? People need to be making well over $20 if they want to cover living expenses. Low paying service jobs are a dime a dozen. Where are the jobs that pay a living wage?
So let me get this straight.

1. You tried to claim there are jobs everywhere but hard to find ones that make over min wage
2. It's pointed out to you that the 97.7% of of hourly jobs make over min wage

You are now saying that item#2 above proved your point, which was item #1. That's a leap of logic that could easily go over the moon.



Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
The Urban Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank, surveyed more than 7,500 adults about their experience making ends meet. It found that about 40% of people ages 18 to 64 faced some sort of hardship last year."
People answering to a survey with something as nebulously defined as "some sort of hardship" isn't something that can be used to prove a certain wage threshold is starvation wages.



Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
"In fact, the real average wage, which Pew defines as "the wage after accounting for inflation" has roughly the same purchasing power as it did 40 years ago. And while some workers have seen gains, most of the increases have gone to those who were already the highest-paid."

[/i]"After adjusting for inflation, however, today's average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then," he wrote. "In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today."

"For some workers, the reality is actually worse. Real wages among the lowest-paid quarter of workers have increased just 4.3% since 2000, while the top tenth of earners has seen an increase of 15.7% to $2,112 a week (compared to $26 each week for the bottom 10%)."
Real wages having the same purchasing power as 40 years ago isn't something that can be used to prove a certain wage threshold is starvation wages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2018, 09:16 AM
 
8,972 posts, read 2,493,138 times
Reputation: 8396
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
You're really going to imply you know enough about the living expenses of everyone to state that nobody can live on $15/hour? Pfft.

Real wages having the same purchasing power as 40 years ago isn't something that can be used to prove a certain wage threshold is starvation wages.
I can speak to that. I was there.

I lived in rural TN in the early 70's. My wage as a helper at a residential construction site (unskilled) was $5 an hour. That is about $25 today.

I guess the first question is whether such a person makes $25 an hour today? I'll bet not - more like $15 or $16.

Next in line, the living wage. Construction can't go on 100% of the time due to weather, financing and other such delays. You might get lucky to work 4 days per week. We lived VERY simply at the time and could barely make it on that $5 an hour.

This is in low-wage TN.

It's not hard to figure out the real cost of living. Sure, you can throw out somewhere in bumfork, ID where you can claim you hunt your own Bear. But short of that.....

Let's talk about a married couple with one child. He makes 30K ($15 per) and she is raising the child so only makes 10K doing some part time. Household income = 40K

1. It cost 11K per year per person for health care in this country. That's a real number....either you pay it or someone else does. So 33K per year for this family.

2. It cost 12K per year for public school - we pay it in property and other taxes. 12K to our sample family - again, one way or another.

3. Each household pays many thousands of dollars for our Federal and other Governments - military, police, etc - a low figure would be 6K. Let's add that to the mix - 6K.

4. The family needs at least one car. Any way you look at it, the total cost for a car and gas and insurance, etc. is $300 a month. We'll add $3600 to the tally.

5. Housing - at the very lowest end, $1500 a months for apt, utilities, etc - add 18K to the total.

6. Clothes, household goods, phone, etc - we'll be frugal and add $2 per year - 2K.

I'm sure that I missed a lot, but that is a foundation for a low-end life.

Credits = 40K - Net=34K (after all taxes, SS, medicare, etc.)
Debits above = 58K

Yeah, I'm sure you can figure out how they can take more welfare or live in mom's basement, but I didn't put a penny in there for travel to attend a funeral or a wedding nor anything about saving for the future - nor anything about what happens if either parent gets sick, etc.

It shouldn't be too hard to grasp the facts in these matters. States with household incomes approaching the figures given have incredibly high poverty rates along with many of the other social ills (opiate addiction, suicide, etc.)....

If we want to go back to squatters cities then we can live on those wages. But we can't live decently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2018, 10:46 AM
 
3,719 posts, read 3,049,230 times
Reputation: 10121
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post

If we want to go back to squatters cities then we can live on those wages. But we can't live decently.
You may be thinking that some of the more ardent economic moralists here actually care about other people living decently.
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
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