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.
But the unpleasant fact remains that the post-industrial workplace is structured, as it was for long before, to diminish the options, and bargaining power, of the self-reliant, and the measure of a skilled manager is often an ability to compel his/her subordinates to put in longer hours (often without direct compensation) at tasks for which they're obviously over-qualified.
Start by giving any kind of argument to support this absurd claim.
Food for Thought: And I think most of us know the reasons why.
But the unpleasant fact remains that the post-industrial workplace is structured, as it was for long before, to diminish the options, and bargaining power, of the self-reliant, and the measure of a skilled manager is often an ability to compel his/her subordinates to put in longer hours (often without direct compensation) at tasks for which they're obviously over-qualified.
Or, as Robert Frost expressed it a long time ago: "By working diligently eight hours a day, you may eventually get to be a boss -- and work diligently ten hours a day."
I'm just looking "to stir the pot"; and am interested in what some of our junior/recent members think, and have to say about this.
To the original question in the thread title, the answer is "because it doesn't work that way."
Start by giving any kind of argument to support this absurd claim.
For openers, The choice of a threefold increase in "standard of living' was arbitrary-- even when stretched over forty-five years rather than twenty; and I'll be the first to agree that supposed "standards" like a Consumer Price index don't take things like changes in needs as the individual advances in age fully into account.
And for a lot of us, there comes a time when promises of "advancement" -- tied exclusively to continued and/or intensified effort within a 40-hour-plus work week, a fully-taxable straight salary, and a rigid 9-to-5 "daylight" schedule (which is when most of the problems, and the people who cause them, show up) can eventually lead to a "culture of minimalism".
When coupled with a stagnant market, an inability to innovate. and a strong union culture, this can spell disaster for firms in tradition-bound industries. As an example, I'll cite almost all of the major meat packers (Hormel, with its extremely bitter 1986 strike, is the only exception I can think of) and many brewers, large and small alike, from half a century ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
As a libertarian, why haven't you either started your own business, or sought employment where your role was self-defined, and where the objective was abstract and open-ended, such as scientific research?
I have, mostly by seeking to work in industries not engaged in heavy exposure to a fickle public, and/or geared to 24-hour/7-day continuous operation, but even this strategy is under attack. I spent a number of years as a railroad signalman and dispatcher, sometimes undisturbed, save for cowirkers, in pleasant isolation. But by 1995, an industry which had employed about 30,000 in that capacity in 1960 was down to about a quarter of that figure, with the remaining jobs concentrated in central offices under much-tighter micromanagement. (There never was much of a market for self-employed "lighthouse keepers".)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
You've served up a "Nothing Burger."
What part of the "Nothing Burger" below can't you understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
For the 45-plus years of my working life, I sought roles where I knew what I was expected to do, and I knew how the results of my efforts were measured and rewarded, rather than "compensated"; the latter in return for complete surrender of one's time, attention, obedience and ability to reason to someone else -- and that "someone else", in turn, often bending to the unrealistic expectations of an outsider who has no idea of the process involved in attempting to satisfy his/her wants -- or the feelings and dignity of the person stuck with the dirty-work.
But as previously stated. I threw this subject out there only to get a few more people thinking, and "Korporate" tyrants always find this unsettling.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-22-2019 at 07:15 PM..
Start by giving any kind of argument to support this absurd claim.
For openers, The choice of a threefold increase in "standard of living" was arbitrary-- even when stretched over forty-five years rather than twenty; and I'll be the first to agree that supposed "standards" like a Consumer Price index don't take things like changes in needs as the individual advances in age fully into account.
And for a lot of us, there comes a time when promises of "advancement" -- tied exclusively to continued and/or intensified effort within a 40-hour-plus work week, a fully-taxable straight salary, and a rigid 9-to-5 "daylight" schedule (which is when most of the problems, and the people who cause them, show up) can eventually lead to a "culture of minimalism".
When coupled with a stagnant market, an inability to innovate. and a strong union culture, this can spell disaster for firms in tradition-bound industries. As an example, I'll cite almost all of the meat packers (Hormel, with its extremely bitter 1986 strike, is the only exception I can think of) and many brewers, large and small alike, from half a century ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
As a libertarian, why haven't you either started your own business, or sought employment where your role was self-defined, and where the objective was a abstract and open-ended, such as scientific research?
I have, mostly by seeking to work in industries geared to 24-hour/7-day continuous operation, but even this strategy is under attack. I spent a number of years as a railroad signalman and dispatcher, sometimes undisturbed in pleasant isolation. But by 1995, an industry which had employed about 30,000 in that capacity in 1960 was down to about a quarter of that figure, with the remaining jobs concentrated in central offices under much-tighter micromanagement. (And there never was much of a market for self-employed "lighthouse keepers").
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
You've served up a "Nothing Burger."
What part of the "Nothing Burger" below can't you understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
For the 45-plus years of my working life, I sought roles where I knew what I was expected to do, and I knew how the results of my efforts were measured and rewarded, rather than "compensated"; the latter in return for complete surrender of one's time, attention, obedience and ability to reason to someone else -- and that "someone else", in return, often bending to the unrealistic expectations of an outsider who has no grasp of the process involved in attempting to satisfy his/her wants -- or the feelings and dignity of the person stuck with the dirty-work.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-22-2019 at 07:11 PM..
In adjusted dollars, GNP per capita is presently about $57,000.
Assuming OP was a teen 20 or so years ago, GNP per capita in 1995 was $40k. The trend is significant from $24k in 1970 to now, and really, pretty much across the board.
So it's not "triple," but there is substantial real increase in GNP per person, even when adjusted for inflation and allowing for multiples of population. I think the OP has the gist of a good question... if we're this much more productive (around 30% more just in recent decades), why are so many of us well below the curve or have lived through actual declines in personal wealth? We can't ALL be lazy welfare bums.
Well, now that we've beat the problem back to size, and need only to explain why we don't feel a 30% increase rather than needing to explain why we don't feel a 200% increase, it gets somewhat easier to address. A few things come to mind:
*The number of working years is smaller in proportion to lifespan. This is partly because people are entering the workforce later as a result of getting advanced degrees, partly a result of medical advances, etc. Education for the young and assisted living for the old are very costly. So perhaps a few percent can be explained this way. If you compress the proportion of life spent working, then this "uses up" some of the benefit that could be gained by increased productivity.
*Standards of living have continued to go up. For instance, the average square footage of a detached single family home in 1993 was about 2,000 sq ft. Now it is 2,600 sq ft. Which is itself a 30% increase. https://www.newhomesource.com/guide/...ts-your-family
The higher level of consumption requires a higher level of production to sustain it.
*With the aging population, health care eats up a higher proportion of GDP/GNP.
*Increased consumer debt ratios. As consumers increasingly fund purchases by borrowing instead of saving, their disposable incomes are claimed by required monthly repayments.
Can we explain it? If each of these 5 factors offset just 6% more of the GDP now than 20-25 years ago, this fully nullifies the 30% gain.
ETA: And one more: The rise in single-person households makes for very inefficient living when each person purchases their own housing, food, car, etc. with no, or minimal, sharing.
Can we explain it? If each of these 5 factors offset just 6% more of the GDP now than 20-25 years ago, this fully nullifies the 30% gain.
I'm good with that breezy, off-handed explanation.
Of course, some of those points, such as increased consumption not necessarily offset by increased individual purchasing power masked by a rising tide of consumer debt, deserve separate discussion. But I think you pretty well nailed the corrected version of the OP's question.
For openers, The choice of a threefold increase in "standard of living' was arbitrary-- even when stretched over forty-five years rather than twenty; and I'll be the first to agree that supposed "standards" like a Consumer Price index don't take things like changes in needs as the individual advances in age fully into account.
And for a lot of us, there comes a time when promises of "advancement" -- tied exclusively to continued and/or intensified effort within a 40-hour-plus work week, a fully-taxable straight salary, and a rigid 9-to-5 "daylight" schedule (which is when most of the problems, and the people who cause them, show up) can eventually lead to a "culture of minimalism".
When coupled with a stagnant market, an inability to innovate. and a strong union culture, this can spell disaster for firms in tradition-bound industries. As an example, I'll cite almost all of the major meat packers (Hormel, with its extremely bitter 1986 strike, is the only exception I can think of) and many brewers, large and small alike, from half a century ago.
That has nothing to do with the part of your post I quoted.
So again, give any kind of evidence to support the absurd claim that "the measure of a skilled manager is often an ability to compel his/her subordinates to put in longer hours"
Personally, I think you're saying absurd, off the wall things that don't warrant a serious response.
...
I have, mostly by seeking to work in industries not engaged in heavy exposure to a fickle public, and/or geared to 24-hour/7-day continuous operation, but even this strategy is under attack. I spent a number of years as a railroad signalman and dispatcher,....
Much of your frustrations can be ascribed to your preference for, how shall we say, rather quotidian and commoditized fields. Had you been, say, a professor of chemical engineering at a major research university, or an attorney specializing in corporate mergers, or a thoracic surgeon, then likely you'd have experienced a very different kind of autonomy, compensation, expectations from management or coworkers. But by choosing fields where one's labor is not specialized and one's training not erudite and rare, you've exposed yourself to the caprice of management. To be sure, the working-conditions and earning-potential of most people in such fields has indeed declined. But for those in the former list, and others like them, earnings have probably increased. Without a doubt, there have been winners and losers. Unfair? Perhaps. But what is the alternative?
Food for Thought: And I think most of us know the reasons why.
But the unpleasant fact remains that the post-industrial workplace is structured, as it was for long before, to diminish the options, and bargaining power, of the self-reliant, and the measure of a skilled manager is often an ability to compel his/her subordinates to put in longer hours (often without direct compensation) at tasks for which they're obviously over-qualified.
Or, as Robert Frost expressed it a long time ago: "By working diligently eight hours a day, you may eventually get to be a boss -- and work diligently ten hours a day."
I'm just looking "to stir the pot"; and am interested in what some of our junior/recent members think, and have to say about this.
to answer your thread title: Because you are buying three times as much.
Did you have a $800 cell phone in your pocket when you were a teen? I was lucky if I had a comb and that sealed prophylactic that I kept in my wallet for "just in case I got lucky".
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.
