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.
A job there wont get what a job here will get and there is far more competition for a job there than there is here, but, they understand and feel a responsibility to provide work for their population that is lacking here. They are reshaping their economy. Growth.
China wants to provide jobs same as America wants to provide jobs, people working means a good economy and (more importantly for China) social stability. Of course China's economy is changing/growing faster than an established first world economy like the United States, but that doesn't mean there is some greater sense to provide jobs than anyone else. China's government wants to stay in power, control the people, and try to manage this transformation to consumerism without the wheels falling off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
Jobs have been flat for the past 15 years in America. But our population has grown and we've let more people in. Jobs are growing faster than population in China, population growing faster than jobs in the US. That puts downwards pressure on wages here and upwards pressure on wages there.
China's unemployment rate was lowest (and labor force participation rate highest) in the 80s before reforms when the labor market was tightly controlled and state owned (or quasi state owned) enterprises dominated. The labor force participation rate is projected to continue falling as their population ages rapidly due to one child policy, and the trend towards fewer workers supporting more retirees will be far more severe in China than most western countries.
The transformation to capitalism brings a lot more money, but doesn't necessarily translate to greater availability of jobs. No more iron rice bowl.
there is no official definition of middle class so exactly who is angry ?
in many locations those living middle class lifestyles are actually in the upper income ranges and upper percentiles and not median income ranges and many ain't angry . in order to live those middle class lifestyles like here in ny or other high cost areas they have to be doing quite well by a national standard .
if you go by a national standard those living on median income here with no subsidy's are not middle class life styles . in fact when i was a kid by the national definition of median income levels we lived in a low income nyc housing project at those levels of income and we were considered low income . .
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-04-2016 at 04:27 AM..
I remember the 50s and 60s. Teachers could actually buy a new house and have enough income to raise a family and take an annual vacation.
In my town, a masters + 20 public school teacher makes about $65,000 and has 2% per year vesting on their defined benefit pension. Assuming they started work at age 22, at age 42, they can trivially afford to buy a 3/1.5 on 1/4 acre in my town on one income. A married pair of teachers has $130K household income and probably has a boat in the harbor and takes some pretty major vacations.
Of course, in my part of the world, there are 100 applicants for any public school job in a good suburb. Unless you're a 1% teacher, you are working in the war zone school in the failed city (for the same pay) rather than the affluent suburban school where the parents are engaged and most of the students are there to learn.
Middle class is angry because people in this category can be easily manipulated by politicians. Who cares about the top 1% as long as there are jobs, the problem is once the politicians get to the White House, they don't do anything to create jobs. Maybe they don't know how, but if they said that up front, they will not be elected.
Middle class is angry because people in this category can be easily manipulated by politicians. Who cares about the top 1% as long as there are jobs, the problem is once the politicians get to the White House, they don't do anything to create jobs. Maybe they don't know how, but if they said that up front, they will not be elected.
Yeah, the problem is that everyone hates "the rich" (and we all have a different definition of what that is), but overall, "the rich" do way more for the economy and this country than the poor.
Everyone hates Walmart, for example. But let's consider Walmart for a minute.
Walmart employs 1.4 million people in the United States. The average full-time hourly wage for Walmart employees in the US is $12.96.
What's wrong with that? There is always the argument that Walmart expects the government to subsidize its payroll, but that is nonsense. The vast majority of low-skill, entry-level jobs pay minimum wage or close to it. Walmart should not be expected to pay more than what an employee's work is worth. At the end of the day, a job like a job at Walmart is for older people who are looking to work a few hours a week without screwing up their SS, college students, part-timers who are only looking for minimal work while taking care of kids or working a primary job, etc. Should you have to pay the teenager who cuts your grass enough to feed him and pay for his expenses all week, or should you pay him what the job is worth? Is it your problem that he isn't making enough otherwise to pay for such things?
Walmart paid $7.1 BILLION in taxes in 2010. That's a 32.4% tax rate.
Please tell me, who is contributing more to our economy -- big businesses that employ millions of people and pay billions of dollars in taxes, or welfare leaches who barely pay anything and get huge tax refunds, plus get free healthcare, food, housing, etc?
And I'm actually not a huge fan of Walmart -- I shop there probably 3-4 times a year. The point still remains, though.
Yeah, the problem is that everyone hates "the rich" (and we all have a different definition of what that is), but overall, "the rich" do way more for the economy and this country than the poor.
...
Personally I don't hate the rich. It is the nature of wealthy people to accumulate wealth. Nothing wrong with that as long as they do it in a way that is good for everyone not just them. If the rich accumulate wealth by overpaying their workers then everyone is better off, if they do it by loaning too much money for houses then we have a bubble and a lot of people get hurt. How they make their money is what matters.
Personally I don't hate the rich. It is the nature of wealthy people to accumulate wealth. Nothing wrong with that as long as they do it in a way that is good for everyone not just them. If the rich accumulate wealth by overpaying their workers then everyone is better off, if they do it by loaning too much money for houses then we have a bubble and a lot of people get hurt. How they make their money is what matters.
Meh. By any rational comparison to the rest of the people in the world, I'm rich. I'm not Goldman Sachs investment banker rich but at age almost 58, I could stop working today and have food, clothing, shelter, health care, and some discretionary spending for the rest of my life.
The middle class somehow thinks they're entitled to a level of affluence they see on television that isn't real. Everybody is supposed to live in that 4,000 square foot house with the granite/stainless kitchen, take elaborate vacations around the world, and have all the trappings of affluence that only the top-5% attain.
Meh. By any rational comparison to the rest of the people in the world, I'm rich. I'm not Goldman Sachs investment banker rich but at age almost 58, I could stop working today and have food, clothing, shelter, health care, and some discretionary spending for the rest of my life.
The middle class somehow thinks they're entitled to a level of affluence they see on television that isn't real. Everybody is supposed to live in that 4,000 square foot house with the granite/stainless kitchen, take elaborate vacations around the world, and have all the trappings of affluence that only the top-5% attain.
Actually, its not the middle class.. I make less than 100k and I'm still quite happy.
No, if you turn on the news you'll see that there are certain politicians pandering to a certain crowd - ie poor people, about things like "wealth redistribution" and raising the minimum wage to levels that exceed the value of labor that WARRANTS a minimum wage. There's your entitlement - it's not coming from any middle class people I know.
Actually, its not the middle class.. I make less than 100k and I'm still quite happy.
No, if you turn on the news you'll see that there are certain politicians pandering to a certain crowd - ie poor people, about things like "wealth redistribution" and raising the minimum wage to levels that exceed the value of labor that WARRANTS a minimum wage. There's your entitlement - it's not coming from any middle class people I know.
$35K to $75K is still middle class, right? I think both Bernie and Trump have their sweet spot in that demographic. It's why Hillary gets the traditional poor vote. They're already getting free stuff.
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.
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.
