usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Sept 27, 2013 11:47:06 GMT -5
But our population is also aging so the % should increase.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 11:47:20 GMT -5
Contrary to claims about "stagnant wages", standard of living has also risen a lot in the last 30-50 years. Teenagers may simply be less inclined to look for jobs for one reason or another (i.e. family is not struggling, they get a great allowance, etc.). Not necessarily a bad thing. Plus, what DJ says about higher education. And what do college grads often do when they can't find a job? Many go back to school and get a masters degree. that might be true, ib- but it is also true that whatever wage gains were made were consumed by larger houses and bigger medical bills. i don't think either really improved the "standard of living" for the average American, but i might be mistaken. Medical costs are included in inflation, and total compensation has grown faster than inflation. Bigger houses would be an increase in the standard of living.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 11:51:55 GMT -5
that might be true, ib- but it is also true that whatever wage gains were made were consumed by larger houses and bigger medical bills. i don't think either really improved the "standard of living" for the average American, but i might be mistaken. Medical costs are included in inflation, and total compensation has grown faster than inflation. Bigger houses would be an increase in the standard of living. really? i am living fine in 1350 SF. better than i was in 2500 SF. i don't really understand the term "standard of living" too well. and my understanding was that every bit of wage gain in the 00's were eaten by rising medical expenses. and that was BEFORE the meltdown.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 13:44:20 GMT -5
Workforce participation. Important, as it's the least restrictive count for employment.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2013 13:47:53 GMT -5
Firstly, I mistyped - the U6 figure for 2000 should be 7%. Mea culpa. I have gone back and edited. Secondly, WFP rate is defined as the SUM of the employment and unemployment rate. If 7% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE are unemployed, and 67% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE are 'participating', then (67-7)%, or 60%, must be 'employed.' Thanks for catching my error though. WFP measures how many Employed+Unemployed/All people 18+. U6 is a ratio of Unemployed+Underemployed/Employed+Unemployed. You have to do the math as fairlycrazy did because the denominators don't match. The 7% for the U6 is 7% of the 67% because nowhere in the math does the U6 include all people 18+. I mentioned this earlier. We get the ratio of employed to 18+ from WFP · (1 - U6). Mojo must've missed it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2013 14:08:13 GMT -5
To me it depends on how you look at it. The average U.S. family is now living in a house that's a 1000 sq ft larger and has more bathrooms. We have all sorts of entertainment that wasn't previously available; tv, the internet, smartphones, and these devices have made older forms of entertainment cheaper and more accessible. You can listen a great opera without paying for tickets or buying an expensive record. We also have a much greater variety of food available to us. A typical family today spends much less of their income, as a percentage, on food and clothing than families did in the 60's and 70's. We're spending a ton more on healthcare than we did previously but the flip side is that the infant mortality rate has been cut in half since even the 90's. OTOH - it looks like income volatility has gone way up and job security has gone way down. Income disparity is increasing. The idea of a secure retirement seems increasingly elusive. A decent education has become so tied to the location of your home that people feel stuck buying in a good school district rather than buying something more affordable. College is expensive and "merit aid" is helping to increase the gap between upper middle class families and the rest. So on one hand we have a lot more material comforts and on the other hand we seem to have a lot less psychological comforts. Or we're just whiners since we haven't had WWII, or Vietnam, etc. You also have to realize that the added quality of the various goods we buy is factored "out" of CPI (core inflation) calcs through a process called "hedonic adjustments". It's why if you compound the CPI over a period of decades, the inflation it claims has happened is significantly less than the actual increase in product cost. For example, the CPI might claim that toilet paper has risen in price 150% since 1970, when the actual increase is 250%, but because current toilet paper has lotion built in, with extra cottony softness, they discount the current price based on how much these "improvements" would have added to the price in 1970. They do the same with housing. Houses built today have stricter codes, higher-quality insulation, etc., and hence they compensate for these when computing the CPI. Why does this matter? Because GDP is CPI-adjusted. Hence the lower they can make the inflation estimate, the higher nominal GDP becomes. You may only be producing 100 rolls of lotiony, cottony soft toilet paper instead of the 100 rolls of plain old toilet paper 40 years ago, but the corresponding "quality improvement" is factored out of the CPI and thus significantly boosts your nominal GDP. And in case you're wondering: Do they do hedonic adjustments the opposite way? Like the fact that a microwave manufactured in 1980 would last 15 years, while you're lucky if a microwave manufactured today can make it 18 months without falling apart? That would be "no".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 14:20:32 GMT -5
I was wondering when somebody was going to bring up hedonic adjustments. Did it have to be someone from out of the country . The adjustments work great for vehicle CPI too. A new fully loaded 3/4 ton domestic brand P/U truck in 1979 cost me $7,000 now it's around $50,000, no inflation there.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2013 14:33:01 GMT -5
I was wondering when somebody was going to bring up hedonic adjustments. Did it have to be someone from out of the country . The adjustments work great for vehicle CPI too. A new fully loaded 3/4 ton domestic brand P/U truck in 1979 cost me $7,000 now it's around $50,000, no inflation there. Yeah, but if you think inflation is $50K/$7K - 100% = 615%, you'd be so very wrong. Actual inflation in trucks is 120%. Why? Because the truck you buy today has "On Star" assist built in, and air bags, and an MP3 player rather than a crummy 8-trak player, and it uses 9% less gas. Hence you're getting "more truck" for your money. That's the logic.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 14:33:36 GMT -5
To me it depends on how you look at it. The average U.S. family is now living in a house that's a 1000 sq ft larger and has more bathrooms. We have all sorts of entertainment that wasn't previously available; tv, the internet, smartphones, and these devices have made older forms of entertainment cheaper and more accessible. You can listen a great opera without paying for tickets or buying an expensive record. We also have a much greater variety of food available to us. A typical family today spends much less of their income, as a percentage, on food and clothing than families did in the 60's and 70's. We're spending a ton more on healthcare than we did previously but the flip side is that the infant mortality rate has been cut in half since even the 90's. OTOH - it looks like income volatility has gone way up and job security has gone way down. Income disparity is increasing. The idea of a secure retirement seems increasingly elusive. A decent education has become so tied to the location of your home that people feel stuck buying in a good school district rather than buying something more affordable. College is expensive and "merit aid" is helping to increase the gap between upper middle class families and the rest. So on one hand we have a lot more material comforts and on the other hand we seem to have a lot less psychological comforts. Or we're just whiners since we haven't had WWII, or Vietnam, etc. You also have to realize that the added quality of the various goods we buy is factored "out" of CPI (core inflation) calcs through a process called "hedonic adjustments". It's why if you compound the CPI over a period of decades, the inflation it claims has happened is significantly less than the actual increase in product cost. For example, the CPI might claim that toilet paper has risen in price 150% since 1970, when the actual increase is 250%, but because current toilet paper has lotion built in, with extra cottony softness, they discount the current price based on how much these "improvements" would have added to the price in 1970. They do the same with housing. Houses built today have stricter codes, higher-quality insulation, etc., and hence they compensate for these when computing the CPI. Why does this matter? Because GDP is CPI-adjusted. Hence the lower they can make the inflation estimate, the higher nominal GDP becomes. You may only be producing 100 rolls of lotiony, cottony soft toilet paper instead of the 100 rolls of plain old toilet paper 40 years ago, but the corresponding "quality improvement" is factored out of the CPI and thus significantly boosts your nominal GDP. And in case you're wondering: Do they do hedonic adjustments the opposite way? Like the fact that a microwave manufactured in 1980 would last 15 years, while you're lucky if a microwave manufactured today can make it 18 months without falling apart? That would be "no". interesting analysis of "price -vs- value", Virgil.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 14:34:38 GMT -5
I was wondering when somebody was going to bring up hedonic adjustments. Did it have to be someone from out of the country . The adjustments work great for vehicle CPI too. A new fully loaded 3/4 ton domestic brand P/U truck in 1979 cost me $7,000 now it's around $50,000, no inflation there. Yeah, but if you think inflation is $50K/$7K - 100% = 615%, you'd be so very wrong. Actual inflation in trucks is 120%. Why? Because the truck you buy today has "On Star" assist built in, and air bags, and an MP3 player rather than a crummy 8-trak player, and it uses 9% less gas. Hence you're getting "more truck" for your money. That's the logic. define "actual inflation", Virgil. i think i know what you mean, but i doubt anyone else does.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 14:35:38 GMT -5
PS- i was astonished that trucks have gone up that much. a Ford F150 can still be had for $25k, but it is probably more spartan in appointments?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 14:48:16 GMT -5
I was wondering when somebody was going to bring up hedonic adjustments. Did it have to be someone from out of the country . The adjustments work great for vehicle CPI too. A new fully loaded 3/4 ton domestic brand P/U truck in 1979 cost me $7,000 now it's around $50,000, no inflation there. Yeah, but if you think inflation is $50K/$7K - 100% = 615%, you'd be so very wrong. Actual inflation in trucks is 120%. Why? Because the truck you buy today has "On Star" assist built in, and air bags, and an MP3 player rather than a crummy 8-trak player, and it uses 9% less gas. Hence you're getting "more truck" for your money. That's the logic. But it's costing me so much more to get a vehicle to haul the same type of cargo. Oh well, if I was still doing this as a business operation, I would pass this inflation cost on to the consumer at a dollar for dollar basis. They can hedonistic adjust till they're blue in the face. The product cost would reflect reality.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2013 14:55:17 GMT -5
What the compounded CPI says about inflation in trucks from 1980 until present.
120% is a number I just made up. I don't know what the actual number is. I know the weighted core CPI claims something like 250% inflation (over all classes) since 1980, but a huge component of that is housing.
A while back I had an argument about it with (I believe?) investorbob. I got the prices for about 20 or so items ranging from houses to food to fuel to stamps to appliances as advertised in 1980-1982 and compared them to the same products (minus "enhancements") from today. The prices differences were all at least 200% greater than what the CPI had listed.
Bob argued that my data was "anecdotal"--basically, insufficient to prove my point--which is a relevant criticism to an extent. There is considerable price variability, regional variability, and 20 items is hardly a comprehensive sample.
To an extent I acknowledge that hedonic adjustments are fair. If a single TI-89 "calculator" can do today what it a $10K mainframe "calculator" could do 30 years ago, it's fair to use the mainframe as a baseline "calculator" rather than an actual 1980's handheld calculator to determine inflation. But it doesn't change the fact that if all you want the calculator for is to add and multiply some numbers, the TI-89 is 8 times as expensive as a 1980's handheld calculator, but you still derive the same effective functionality from the two.
And other "improvements" aren't improvements. Still other "improvements", especially electrical bits and bobs they tack on to cars, security systems, HVAC systems, etc. are prone to failing and significantly shorten MT2F, but as I mentioned, the shift to cheap, disposable everything isn't accounted for in the CPI. And still other improvements are technical improvements but not (what I'll call) "visceral" improvements. For example, cameras. Do we really derive more happiness from a 25 MPix camera than from a 20 MPix one? True, the picture quality is slightly better on the latter, and yes we can discount the improvement in the CPI calcs, but has our quality of life actually improved? Do we enjoy our photo albums more with ever-so-slightly clearer pictures?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 27, 2013 15:01:57 GMT -5
1) why is it happening?
I wouldn't know for sure without further research. My guess is changing demographics would play a major part. We do have an aging population, and a large protion of the population being in retirement age would drop the WFP. I would think looking at a chart that controls for age, meaning only includes adults of working age, would be a better indicator of the overall health of the labor market.
2) does it matter?
Again, without controlling for normal demographics factors, it's hard to make that judgement call. But if the WFP is declining among working age adults, then yes, I'd say that matters. Even if the decline in WFP is due to an aging population, SS and other social programs for the elderly rely on younger workers paying in.
3) why does it matter?
You need workers to support the government and the social programs we have. If the ratio gets out of balance, the programs become insolvent. Something has to give, either taxes or contributions to these programs need to increase for the existing workers, or the programs cannot payout promised benefits.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 15:04:08 GMT -5
1) why is it happening?
I wouldn't know for sure without further research. My guess is changing demographics would play a major part. We do have an aging population, and a large protion of the population being in retirement age would drop the WFP. I would think looking at a chart that controls for age, meaning only includes adults of working age, would be a better indicator of the overall health of the labor market.
2) does it matter?
Again, without controlling for normal demographics factors, it's hard to make that judgement call. But if the WFP is declining among working age adults, then yes, I'd say that matters.
3) why does it matter?
You need workers to support the government and the social programs we have. If the ratio gets out of balance, the programs become insolvent. Something has to give, either taxes or contributions to these programs need to increase for the existing workers, or the programs cannot payout promised benefits. insolvency is only a probable outcome if nothing changes. that seems like a really strange thing to assume, since things change all the time, but it DOES seem to be the assumption that most people operate under. other than that, i agree with your replay.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 15:06:29 GMT -5
What the compounded CPI says about inflation in trucks from 1980 until present. 120% is a number I just made up. I don't know what the actual number is. ok, that is what i was asking. thanks.I know the weighted core CPI claims something like 250% inflation (over all classes) since 1980, but a huge component of that is housing. A while back I had an argument about it with (I believe?) investorbob. I got the prices for about 20 or so items ranging from houses to food to fuel to stamps to appliances as advertised in 1980-1982 and compared them to the same products (minus "enhancements") from today. The prices differences were all at least 200% greater than what the CPI had listed. Bob argued that my data was "anecdotal"--basically, insufficient to prove my point--which is a relevant criticism to an extent. There is considerable price variability, regional variability, and 20 items is hardly a comprehensive sample. To an extent I acknowledge that hedonic adjustments are fair. If a single TI-89 "calculator" can do today what it a $10K mainframe "calculator" could do 30 years ago, it's fair to use the mainframe as a baseline "calculator" rather than an actual 1980's handheld calculator to determine inflation. But it doesn't change the fact that if all you want the calculator for is to add and multiply some numbers, the TI-89 is 8 times as expensive as a 1980's handheld calculator, but you still derive the same effective functionality from the two. And other "improvements" aren't improvements. Still other "improvements", especially electrical bits and bobs they tack on to cars, security systems, HVAC systems, etc. are prone to failing and significantly shorten MT2F, but as I mentioned, the shift to cheap, disposable everything isn't accounted for in the CPI. And still other improvements are technical improvements but not (what I'll call) "visceral" improvements. For example, cameras. Do we really derive more happiness from a 25 MPix camera than from a 20 MPix one? True, the picture quality is slightly better on the latter, and yes we can discount the improvement in the CPI calcs, but has our quality of life actually improved? Do we enjoy our photo albums more with ever-so-slightly clearer pictures? like i say, this is an interesting analysis. much food for thought.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 27, 2013 15:24:59 GMT -5
Contrary to claims about "stagnant wages", standard of living has also risen a lot in the last 30-50 years. Teenagers may simply be less inclined to look for jobs for one reason or another (i.e. family is not struggling, they get a great allowance, etc.). Not necessarily a bad thing. Plus, what DJ says about higher education. And what do college grads often do when they can't find a job? Many go back to school and get a masters degree. that might be true, ib- but it is also true that whatever wage gains were made were consumed by larger houses and bigger medical bills. i don't think either really improved the "standard of living" for the average American, but i might be mistaken. Well honestly, if this generation wants to work themselves to death and live paycheck to paycheck so they can have huge houses, that isn't the fault of society, corporations or whoever. One reason my depression era grandparents had financial security is because they valued it, and were willing to make sacrifices most young people today wouldn't even think about making.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 15:34:46 GMT -5
that might be true, ib- but it is also true that whatever wage gains were made were consumed by larger houses and bigger medical bills. i don't think either really improved the "standard of living" for the average American, but i might be mistaken. Well honestly, if this generation wants to work themselves to death and live paycheck to paycheck so they can have huge houses, that isn't the fault of society, corporations or whoever. i wasn't assigning blame. but i think it is a PROBLEM.One reason my depression era grandparents had financial security is because they valued it, and were willing to make sacrifices most young people today wouldn't even think about making. whatever. i made plenty of sacrifices. i was homeless for almost 2 years because i could not afford housing, for example. when i worked as an engineer in the city, i lived in a crappy little 360SF apartment so that i could save and invest. do i know a lot of people like me? no. i really don't. but i am not very social, despite how it may appear on the boards.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Sept 27, 2013 17:07:09 GMT -5
You should look up bass boats or RV's heh.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 17:28:58 GMT -5
Medical costs are included in inflation, and total compensation has grown faster than inflation. Bigger houses would be an increase in the standard of living. really? i am living fine in 1350 SF. better than i was in 2500 SF. i don't really understand the term "standard of living" too well. and my understanding was that every bit of wage gain in the 00's were eaten by rising medical expenses. and that was BEFORE the meltdown. What does your living situation have to do with anything? Houses are getting bigger because that is what people want. As far as wages goes, I'm not going to talk about wages. You know as well as I that it is not a legitimate measure of total compensation. And while medical costs are going up, a lot of that is a result of things like beating cancer, living a normal life with AIDS, diseases cured, conditions treated, etc. All those things are increases in the standard of living.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 17:37:23 GMT -5
really? i am living fine in 1350 SF. better than i was in 2500 SF. i don't really understand the term "standard of living" too well. and my understanding was that every bit of wage gain in the 00's were eaten by rising medical expenses. and that was BEFORE the meltdown. What does your living situation have to do with anything? Houses are getting bigger because that is what people want. if "what people want" figures into standard of living, then i have even less faith as to it's meaning than i did before you brought it up today.As far as wages goes, I'm not going to talk about wages. You know as well as I that it is not a legitimate measure of total compensation. And while medical costs are going up, a lot of that is a result of things like beating cancer, living a normal life with AIDS, diseases cured, conditions treated, etc. All those things are increases in the standard of living. right now, the metrics are not making any sense to me, ib. but that is probably more my fault than yours. so, never mind. thanks for trying.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 17:48:42 GMT -5
It is impossible for it NOT to be factored in! If people didn't want it, it wouldn't be happening!
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Sept 27, 2013 18:02:39 GMT -5
So the drop in labor participation over the last 10 years or so, is a direct result of more youth in school? Between 2000 and 2010, the number of 18- to 24-year-olds increased from 27.3 million to 30.7 million, an increase of 12 percent, and the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 35 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2010. In recent years, the percentage increase in the number of students age 25 and over has been larger than the percentage increase in the number of younger students, and this pattern is expected to continue. From: nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98Between 2000 and 2010, total enrollment increased 37 percent, from 15.3 million to 21.0 million. The 16-19 year-olds are the biggest drop(in labor participation) at 17% So it looks like school enrollments and parents not wanting their kids working is the real reason behind the labor participation rate dropping. Drats, I was wanting to rant about lazy kids more .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 18:58:29 GMT -5
I was wondering when somebody was going to bring up hedonic adjustments. Did it have to be someone from out of the country . The adjustments work great for vehicle CPI too. A new fully loaded 3/4 ton domestic brand P/U truck in 1979 cost me $7,000 now it's around $50,000, no inflation there. Yeah, but if you think inflation is $50K/$7K - 100% = 615%, you'd be so very wrong. Actual inflation in trucks is 120%. Why? Because the truck you buy today has "On Star" assist built in, and air bags, and an MP3 player rather than a crummy 8-trak player, and it uses 9% less gas. Hence you're getting "more truck" for your money. That's the logic. And the logic is sound. Inflation is the change in consumer price of an identical item from one period to another. Inflation measurements would be completely worthless if those adjustments were not made. Speaking of, can you point to the BLS documentation that says they only adjust for improvements in products and not for declining quality? Seems unlikely, but I would only be guessing. Edit: It looks like you are also saying that the logic is sound. So FYI, I'm not trying to be argumentative.
|
|
frankq
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2013 18:48:45 GMT -5
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by frankq on Sept 27, 2013 19:36:47 GMT -5
Part of the issue, along with the demographics as dj suggests, could be the rise of outsourcing that began in the mid 1980's. The jobs started leaving, but the people didn't. At first, it wasn't much of an issue, but as the pace increased, well one would think it would have to affect the participation rate. I really don't know, but it is interesting how the timeline between the two compare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 20:15:13 GMT -5
I don't think outsourcing has had any impact on job availability. Types of jobs, yes. And probably has depressed wages a little. At the peak of outsourcing, unemployment was very low. Now jobs are starting to come back, and unemployment is high.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2013 21:52:25 GMT -5
It is impossible for it NOT to be factored in! If people didn't want it, it wouldn't be happening! i see. so, i want $10M and a 5000SF mansion. therefore, i am poor?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 27, 2013 23:32:07 GMT -5
It is impossible for it NOT to be factored in! If people didn't want it, it wouldn't be happening! i see. so, i want $10M and a 5000SF mansion. therefore, i am poor? A lot of people think that way for some reason- I love the people that call into Dave Ramsey's show making 200K+ a year in debt up to their eyeballs and the problem is they don't make enough money That reminds me of some sob story from NY from some woman that said as much- that 200K isn't shit and is barely middle class- and she listed all of her 'problems'. Wonder what she thinks of the clerks that wait on her that make 1/10th of that and manage to survive without writing a whiney letter about taxes being to high. There is a solid point to be made about housing though- people today are not satisfied living in a normal sized home- they have redefined normal into mcmansions that anyone that has spent time living in one can tell you are a freaking waste of space, energy, and money. If someone needs 5000 square feet or six bathrooms they have issues- unless of course they plan on moving in an extended family or are playing eight is enough. I think those people are crazy- I don't enjoy cleaning one bathroom- and I don't like the idea of paying people to come into my home and work on a regular basis- much less some of these super-rich people that- job creators they may be- have to employ a staff to keep the home and property up. Who needs that kind of daily intrusion?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 27, 2013 23:35:59 GMT -5
Just thought of a good analogy- people buying these giant homes are just like cities that buy these new sports arenas. Sure- they are great to show off to people, have a big party in, gain some bullshit status with- but for the most part sit almost vacant for the year and cost a shitload of money to upkeep.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 0:45:45 GMT -5
DJ, I'm not sure where you're going with this. All I was saying was that changes in standard of living result from supply and demand. And demand is a result of wants and needs.
|
|