U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [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 06-15-2017, 07:07 AM
 
12,486 posts, read 7,585,778 times
Reputation: 4755

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Digby Sellers View Post
This is a loser's mentality
No....its called the TRUTH...lol. Is it a losers mentality to recognize that no matter how hard all the NFL teams work, no matter how smart they work, no matter how disciplined they are.....only 12 teams are going to make the playoffs, only two teams will make it to the Super Bowl and only one team is going to be champion in a given year? Look...NFL players are bigger, faster and stronger than they were 30 years ago. Yet, that does not change the fact that only a limited number of teams will make the playoffs, the Super Bowl and the fact there will only be one champ in a given year, no matter how much each team improves. Its not as finite as a sports league, but opportunity works close to the same way. Good opportunity is like making the playoffs and regardless of how hard everyone works and improves......only a finite number of people will make the economic playoffs.

There is good opportunity....but its finite and usually its a good opportunity due to the economic concept of "scarcity". Once a lot of people have the skill to do something, its no longer scarce and hence cannot demand a higher wage in the free market because the over supply will bid down the going wage. That is economics 101.

Hey.....I root for the Lions EVERY year.....and have my hopes up. Now that is a losers mentality...lol.

As Jesse Jackson used to say... "If you try....you might fail, but if you do not try you are assured to fail". I think its clear that everyone has to TRY and compete.....but everyone is not going to win or make the playoffs.

Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-15-2017 at 08:01 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2017, 09:16 AM
 
2,173 posts, read 2,815,818 times
Reputation: 2099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
No....its called the TRUTH...lol. Is it a losers mentality to recognize that no matter how hard all the NFL teams work, no matter how smart they work, no matter how disciplined they are.....only 12 teams are going to make the playoffs, only two teams will make it to the Super Bowl and only one team is going to be champion in a given year? Look...NFL players are bigger, faster and stronger than they were 30 years ago. Yet, that does not change the fact that only a limited number of teams will make the playoffs, the Super Bowl and the fact there will only be one champ in a given year, no matter how much each team improves. Its not as finite as a sports league, but opportunity works close to the same way. Good opportunity is like making the playoffs and regardless of how hard everyone works and improves......only a finite number of people will make the economic playoffs.

There is good opportunity....but its finite and usually its a good opportunity due to the economic concept of "scarcity". Once a lot of people have the skill to do something, its no longer scarce and hence cannot demand a higher wage in the free market because the over supply will bid down the going wage. That is economics 101.

Hey.....I root for the Lions EVERY year.....and have my hopes up. Now that is a losers mentality...lol.

As Jesse Jackson used to say... "If you try....you might fail, but if you do not try you are assured to fail". I think its clear that everyone has to TRY and compete.....but everyone is not going to win or make the playoffs.
I think old Jesse needs to give Henry Ford some attribution for that quote he lifted. lol

Let me put it another way -- everyone I know whose career hasn't worked out has that mentality. It's always something or someone else who did something to them and never their own personal shortcomings. That's where emotional IQ comes in -- you need to be able to face your own flaws and be able to fix them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
1,277 posts, read 1,071,638 times
Reputation: 1544
Also read that it's attributed to Thomas A. Knight, an 18th century botanist. In any case, it's a goody...and seems to be the motto of the barn swallows on my front porch. They never give up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 11:02 AM
 
12,486 posts, read 7,585,778 times
Reputation: 4755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Digby Sellers View Post
I think old Jesse needs to give Henry Ford some attribution for that quote he lifted. lol

Let me put it another way -- everyone I know whose career hasn't worked out has that mentality. It's always something or someone else who did something to them and never their own personal shortcomings. That's where emotional IQ comes in -- you need to be able to face your own flaws and be able to fix them.
First off....does it really matter who said it originally for it to have meaning? I only mentioned Jesse because it was not MY original thought, but what I had once heard him tell an audience of youth.

Secondly, anecdotal experiences amount to the fallacy of composition, the way you used it. In other words, its a fallacy to assume that the way something generally works, in the aggregate, can be proven by how they work in a few personal experiences that you know about....and....anecdotally, notwithstanding you seeing my reasoning as a loser mindset, I have a six figure salary.

Your theory only works with the assumption of "over abundance". Meaning that if you put in the work, the opportunity will be there for you to prosper. However if that is the case, keep in mind that if things are truly over abundant......that it has little value in the free market. Why pay pharmacist six figure salaries if there are more people who can do it than there is demand for that skill set? You can say the same for any high paying profession. Professions pay high because of SCARCITY of the people who know how to do it, in a truly free market and that helps keep certain skill sets pay high, ignoring union contracts or other negotiated pay that impedes the free market. (note: look what eventually happened to a lot of those high paying factory jobs that plenty of people could do. The union could not protect them from the free market forever.....as jobs were automated and went to low wage countries. ).

In light of that, if you saturate the market with Engineers, programmers, scientist, doctors, lawyers, etc, these professions salary would plummet. I do not know why this is difficult to see or understand. Its basic economic laws of supply and demand. Good salaries are the result of SCARCITY. Take away the scarcity and you take away the good salary. Hence, if everyone magically became super educated and learned the skill sets of currently high paying jobs eventually those high paying jobs would not be paying high wages anymore. Conversely, low wage jobs would theoretically bid up assuming the employer could afford to pay more due to having to compete for labor supply. In the real world the latter would never happen as long as their are poor people in the world who you can bring into the country as workers or ship the production to where the poor uneducated people live.

Finally, my point is simply that there is a relatively finite array of opportunities as well as money in circulation. Those monies get allocated to individuals by various means, work, investments, transfer payments etc. Therefore, for someone to get more of the money supplied, someone has to get less of it. Of course, you can just print or electronically bring money into existence, but is simply devaluing the money at the expense of increasing the money supply and reducing your purchasing power via inflation.

Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-15-2017 at 11:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
1,277 posts, read 1,071,638 times
Reputation: 1544
No, it really doesn't matter who said it originally. It's great advice.
As to the overabundance of STEM workers and doctors, no need to stress about that any time soon. Lawyers are having trouble though, and have been for some years now. It would be helpful to have a crystal ball; then we could always know what the best field will be in four years. In the meantime, common sense and best efforts will have to suffice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 11:41 AM
 
12,486 posts, read 7,585,778 times
Reputation: 4755
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkeith View Post
No, it really doesn't matter who said it originally. It's great advice.
As to the overabundance of STEM workers and doctors, no need to stress about that any time soon. Lawyers are having trouble though, and have been for some years now. It would be helpful to have a crystal ball; then we could always know what the best field will be in four years. In the meantime, common sense and best efforts will have to suffice.
Everything is eventually impacted by the laws of supply and demand, in a capitalistic system. That is why its a sellers market with housing. Housing prices go up due to demand and scarcity. Diamond prices are high not because the supply of diamonds in the world are scarce, rather, its because the diamond companies and miners collude to not put most of the diamonds on the market, creating artificial scarcity. Same with oil and the price of gas being dependent upon how much OPEC wants to produce. I think there is an effort to gentry American cities and keeping the supply of housing low helps push up prices and push out the poor.

Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-15-2017 at 12:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Metro Detroit
1,786 posts, read 1,930,463 times
Reputation: 3554
According to this Occupational Outlook published in 1978, a person in my career field (Geologist) graduaing with a 4 year degree could expect to earn $13,300 a year. According to Google, the average cost of a new house in '77 was $49,300 (370% of the new geologist's annual salary) and a new car cost $3,500 (26%).

Today a geologist is expected to obtain a 6 year degree, but if they are somehow able to find employment with a 4 year degree they'll earn about $44,000. The average cost to build a new home is $291,000 (661% of the annual salary) and the average cost of a new car is $33,560 (76%). Let us also not forget that this new geologist has no pension and may not ever be able to draw from the social security fund, so the expectation is that they set aside 10-15% of their salary for retirement. Oh, and also healthcare. Healthcare in 2017 is an absolute ****show. And do you think we're working less hours in 2017 than in 1977? I wasn't alive then, but if I had to parrot the only national politician who has ever made sense to me, "People are working longer hours for lower wages..."

So yeah, I think it's safe to say that a STEM graduate in 1977 was doing a lot better off than a STEM graduate in 2017, and this has nothing to do with supply/demand, because I can assure you that there is not an ever-growing source of geologists. My graduating class from a large public university was 6. I have no problem finding work, and I've since increased my salary above my starting wages by >50%, but mid-career wages of 2017 are well below mid-career wages of 1977 as well. This is simply the reality of 40+ years of the cost of living increasing at a higher rate than wages. Wealth continues to concentrate with the top 5% while the rest of the nation sits there wondering why life is so hard, despite feeling like we work so much more. So how does this relate to the Metro Detroit (and really, national) housing markets?

Well 40 years ago, a new STEM graduate could reasonably budget to build a new house in a developing suburb like Livonia or Troy. That's why these towns grew so much. Even in the 90s, if both partners were working (as was common) they could build a new house in Rochester Hills or Canton while still affording childcare. Today, that's not a thing. The only people my age who can afford to build new homes in a town like South Lyon or Macomb TWP are couple who both have college degrees, and have agreed not to have kids (or at least to put them off 'til 40), or trust fund babies. Meanwhile the majority of us are buying 70 year old bungalows and driving the prices up on formerly affordable family cities, in the hopes that someday we can sell our "starter homes" and move some place nice like the 40 year old colonials houses our parents were able to have us, raise us, and will likely retire in. The demand for new homes in the exurbs doesn't exist because the economy to support building them doesn't exist. Instead it supports buying 70 year old homes in Hazel Park and Wyandotte, which is why you'll see places like these become more desirable in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 07:08 AM
 
2,173 posts, read 2,815,818 times
Reputation: 2099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
According to this Occupational Outlook published in 1978, a person in my career field (Geologist) graduaing with a 4 year degree could expect to earn $13,300 a year. According to Google, the average cost of a new house in '77 was $49,300 (370% of the new geologist's annual salary) and a new car cost $3,500 (26%).

Today a geologist is expected to obtain a 6 year degree, but if they are somehow able to find employment with a 4 year degree they'll earn about $44,000. The average cost to build a new home is $291,000 (661% of the annual salary) and the average cost of a new car is $33,560 (76%). Let us also not forget that this new geologist has no pension and may not ever be able to draw from the social security fund, so the expectation is that they set aside 10-15% of their salary for retirement. Oh, and also healthcare. Healthcare in 2017 is an absolute ****show. And do you think we're working less hours in 2017 than in 1977? I wasn't alive then, but if I had to parrot the only national politician who has ever made sense to me, "People are working longer hours for lower wages..."

So yeah, I think it's safe to say that a STEM graduate in 1977 was doing a lot better off than a STEM graduate in 2017, and this has nothing to do with supply/demand, because I can assure you that there is not an ever-growing source of geologists. My graduating class from a large public university was 6. I have no problem finding work, and I've since increased my salary above my starting wages by >50%, but mid-career wages of 2017 are well below mid-career wages of 1977 as well. This is simply the reality of 40+ years of the cost of living increasing at a higher rate than wages. Wealth continues to concentrate with the top 5% while the rest of the nation sits there wondering why life is so hard, despite feeling like we work so much more. So how does this relate to the Metro Detroit (and really, national) housing markets?

Well 40 years ago, a new STEM graduate could reasonably budget to build a new house in a developing suburb like Livonia or Troy. That's why these towns grew so much. Even in the 90s, if both partners were working (as was common) they could build a new house in Rochester Hills or Canton while still affording childcare. Today, that's not a thing. The only people my age who can afford to build new homes in a town like South Lyon or Macomb TWP are couple who both have college degrees, and have agreed not to have kids (or at least to put them off 'til 40), or trust fund babies. Meanwhile the majority of us are buying 70 year old bungalows and driving the prices up on formerly affordable family cities, in the hopes that someday we can sell our "starter homes" and move some place nice like the 40 year old colonials houses our parents were able to have us, raise us, and will likely retire in. The demand for new homes in the exurbs doesn't exist because the economy to support building them doesn't exist. Instead it supports buying 70 year old homes in Hazel Park and Wyandotte, which is why you'll see places like these become more desirable in the future.
That's rough, but most professions do not stagnate at mid-career like yours did. I would say yours is the exception to the rule for 4-year degreed professionals with several years of experience.

Marketing Manager is a pretty common job title within my profession, and using your same online tool it shows a median salary of $94,000 for Detroit. Maybe slightly high, but I think that's a pretty accurate median/average for someone with a bachelor's and 5-7 years of expeirence. That's probably in the range what mid-career accountants, engineers and other professionals are making, if not higher. The demand for existing and new builds in exurbs like South Lyon is still red hot and being fueled by these professionals.

I think you're just projecting your personal experience again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
1,277 posts, read 1,071,638 times
Reputation: 1544
There is no way that my husband and I could afford a brand new build in the late '70's! Even less so with childcare in addition. We had to save for a down-payment first. Our first house was a small '40's cape, and we were both working in STEM fields, making average salaries. Part of our down-payment was from wedding gift money. We lived in Buffalo, NY.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 09:34 AM
 
12,486 posts, read 7,585,778 times
Reputation: 4755
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkeith View Post
There is no way that my husband and I could afford a brand new build in the late '70's! Even less so with childcare in addition. We had to save for a down-payment first. Our first house was a small '40's cape, and we were both working in STEM fields, making average salaries. Part of our down-payment was from wedding gift money. We lived in Buffalo, NY.
Back then people were paying 14-18% on a mortgage. Those times were refereed to as "stagflation". The consequence of stagflation is that home prices were a lot cheaper. High interest rates discourage borrowing and low interest rates encourage borrowing and since most have to borrow to buy a home, demand for houses fall when rates are high. Interest rates and home prices are inversely correlated. If the Feds keep raising interest rates, look for housing market to cool off in terms of prices.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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