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.
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.
Because the resultant wealth has not been evenly distributed, and has increasingly been concentrated in the hands and accounts of a few. The ratios are getting... ludicrous. Everything else is pretty much collateral.
We've made very poor decisions on both economic and social policies for at least 30 years that have greatly exacerbated this natural tendency of a capitalist system. One result of that is the widespread - across economic tiers, down to relatively poor folks who should know better - trope that the rich are entitled to their near-continuous growth in relative wealth because anyone who wants to get rich can, and the only people who can't are lazy parasites looking for a handout. It's become a nearly religious dogma that the elect are entitled to all they have and the unwashed just don't matter.
Sure are an awful lot of us unwashed around. But at least we have the elect to worship.
(The truth, of course, being that the US is far from the top in economic mobility - many countries offer a straighter path to Horatio Alger success these days.)
Lol you’re still not getting it... Output or product does not equal standard of living. Also that output has been achieved primarily through the uses of public debt. If you go into debt at the same levels our country has then you can consume at similar levels to what your article implies you should be entitled to do.
But the unpleasant fact remains that the post-industrial workplace is structured,
False.
The key to the fallacy in your conclusions lies in the way you phrase your premise.
First, what you think is a fact is actually somewhere between a "fake fact" and "your opinion."
Second, you phrase your statement in the passive voice: "...IS STRUCTURED." That begs the question, "who is this Snidely Whiplash doing this nefarious structuring, why is he doing it?
The answer is clear: no one is doing any structuring. There is no Snidely Whiplash. There is no evil, nefarious person doing any structuring. That dismantles the rest of your argument, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
as it was for long before
False.
It was never structured. It was never true long before, just as it isn't true today and will not be true tomorrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
to diminish the options
False.
Options have never been better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
and bargaining power of the self-reliant
False.
The bargaining power is at all-time highs for all people, including the self-reliant
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
and the measure of a skilled manager is often an ability to compel his/her subordinates
False.
Managers do not compel anyone. They don't carry .44 Magnums into the office, hold it to the head of employees and compel them to do anything whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
to put in longer hours (often without direct compensation)
False.
Compensation is at all-time highs, of course, because the economy is going gangbusters.
Non-exempt employees are paid according to the various Federal and State statutes and regulations, and often under a collective bargaining agreement that puts the employer at an extreme disadvantage.
Exempt employees are paid to accomplish goals and objectives, not to put in hours, and at any rate are also subject to the various Federal and State statutes and regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
at tasks
False.
Exempt employees are not hired to "do tasks." They are employed to accomplish goals and objectives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
for which they're obviously over-qualified.
False.
Employers have hired anyone with a pulse who can show up to work on time, investing in extensive OJT and skillset enhancement in order to get work done, as we do not have enough quality employees available to do the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
I'm just looking "to stir the pot"...
That's clear, but you you've served up a "Nothing Burger." There is no meat.
Perhaps you should move this discussion over to the Politics forum where I'm sure you'll get a bunch of room-temperature IQ Bernie supporters to agree with you.
As I said in them original post, I know quite well why the "logic" in the thread title doesn't hold; (my personal political orientation is strongly libertarian -- though not in a doctrinal sense).
But as demonstrated by Post #2, there are a lot of slow minds over in the Lefty camp who buy into the fallacious argument, not to mention those who pander to them; and the transition to a post-industrial service- (or possibly I should say subservience-oriented) economy stokes the fires of resentment.
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 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.
My point was that due to several societal trends, the incidence of "structural" displacement and un/under-employment is at an all-time high, and the burden usually lands squarely on the shoulders of the displaced former breadwinner. I can offer no answer to it save to recognize that it happens, and possibly, to cushion some of the most painful blows to the displaced. Otherwise, a simplistic argument is placed in the hands of those hostile to entrepreneurship, which is the driving force behind all human progress.
But …….. have a nice day! ………..
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-22-2019 at 01:26 PM..
First, is the economy “three times larger” adjusted for inflation, and for population increase? Let’s see some links. I wonder by what amount the per-capita, inflation-adjusted economy is “larger”.
Second, how much of this increase has been efficiently deployed? How much of it goes to better food, improved education and so forth – vs. just costlier healthcare, or higher tuition? How much of the extra pay that we receive for extra work, just goes into creating other work, for people who are on the opposing side? New laws are written, requiring new professional positions to interpret those laws, to comply with them, to litigate against them. That there’s more economic activity, does mean that said activity really improves our material prosperity. … and I do mean strictly our material prosperity, without digression to the ineffable and the spiritual and so forth.
Third, how much of this benefit is at the margin, and therefore not readily palpable? If my dinner is bad, then having a better dinner matters. If my dinner is already good, then a slightly better dinner, which happens to cost twice as much, offers little additional benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
The big elephant in the room is that you forgot to adjust the economic growth numbers for inflation and population growth.
Exactly.
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,...
As a libertarian, why haven't you either started your own business, or sought employment where you role was self-defined, and where the objective was a abstract and open-ended, such as scientific research?
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.
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.
