Workforce Participation: Important/Not Important, and WHY?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 27, 2013 23:32:07 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sept 27, 2013 21:52:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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? 


 

i am being serious when i say that i don't think "standard of living" should have anything to do with "what people want".  what people want is not measurable, and the government, economists, and others have no business trying to quantify it.  what should be studied is ATTAINMENT.  now, it is TRUE that if people don't want things, they generally will NOT attain them.  but it is also true that the mere fact of wanting them does not "get you there".

[Deleted]

DJ, nobody was ever talking about things that people want but have not attained.  The subject was the increasing size of houses.  Something real.  Something attained.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 28, 2013 11:58:47 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

DJ, nobody was ever talking about things that people want but have not attained.  The subject was the increasing size of houses.  Something real.  Something attained.

ok, fine.  but i really don't understand how 5000 SF improves the life of anyone.  like i say, i don't really understand what SOL is measuring, if anything.  i hear the term a lot, but it sounds like "happiness" to me.

[Deleted]

I don't, either.  But it does.

Standard of living can be measured in many objective ways.  But I doubt there can be one single measurement like "Standard of Living Index".  It's too subjective.  But on a micro scale, it's easy to see the changes in specific products and services that have increased standard of living.  For example, cars that are much more reliable and less prone to break down while driving.  That has come at a financial cost, but it's not inflation.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 28, 2013 12:20:17 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I don't, either.  But it does.

Standard of living can be measured in many objective ways.  But I doubt there can be one single measurement like "Standard of Living Index".  It's too subjective.  But on a micro scale, it's easy to see the changes in specific products and services that have increased standard of living.  For example, cars that are much more reliable and less prone to break down while driving.  That has come at a financial cost, but it's not inflation.

yeah, and cars are more reliable, comfortable, and time-efficient than rickshaws, too.  i get it.  i really do.  i just have a hard time getting my head around how to measure it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 27, 2013 8:58:16 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

So, my question- and how we will determine the ultimate answer is: how important is workforce participation to those not participating in the workforce?

I would say it is very important to those who are out of the workforce but would like to get back in.  Dh is a SAHD and his father is retired, and both of them would love to get some part time gigs, but they both know their chances are slim while the economy is in the tank. 

That's another aspect of this, too- how many would like to be working, but aren't.  This one is a double-edged sword because I think there's room in the labor pool for virtually anyone determined to be there.  The caveat is that we might not all be doing what we wanted to be doing.  My company just took on a massive government contract for Hurricane Sandy relief work because there hasn't been a storm, and the money is there.  It goes against every Austrian bone in my body- it's malinvestment, it going to encourage the exact opposite of what we ought to be encouraging- 

1. If you live on a sand bar- move
2. If you're under-insured- suck it
3. If you're uninsured- suck it
4. If you're in default and your mortgage company took your insurance payout because the purpose of the pay out is to maintain the integrity of their asset, not for you to eat steak and lobster- suck it.

But we're gonna throw some government money around up here whether I get into this or not, so I agreed to bring a couple guys up here and do inspections and write hurricane damage estimates in line with the program guidelines.

There's been no storm activity- good for the country, not so great for yours truly.  So, I got into this line for a bit- and we'll see what happens.  Sandy hit the 28th of October, so nobody needs to relax just yet...

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2013 12:26:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 28, 2013 12:20:17 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I don't, either.  But it does.

Standard of living can be measured in many objective ways.  But I doubt there can be one single measurement like "Standard of Living Index".  It's too subjective.  But on a micro scale, it's easy to see the changes in specific products and services that have increased standard of living.  For example, cars that are much more reliable and less prone to break down while driving.  That has come at a financial cost, but it's not inflation.

yeah, and cars are more reliable, comfortable, and time-efficient than rickshaws, too.  i get it.  i really do.  i just have a hard time getting my head around how to measure it.

It's probably too subjective to measure.  But you can conceptually compare changes from one time period to a future time period.  To measure it, there are probably indirect measurements that could be used as metrics.

[formerroomate99]

Sept 28, 2013 12:03:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 28, 2013 11:58:47 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

DJ, nobody was ever talking about things that people want but have not attained.  The subject was the increasing size of houses.  Something real.  Something attained.

ok, fine.  but i really don't understand how 5000 SF improves the life of anyone.  like i say, i don't really understand what SOL is measuring, if anything.  i hear the term a lot, but it sounds like "happiness" to me.

You do realise the 'standard of living' and happiness  are two different things? 
Yes, I'm right with you that working yourself to death and living on the edge to buy a huge house and a bunch of crap to fill it will not make me happy.  All our relatives think DH and I are crazy to live in a tiny house so I'll have a short commute and DH can stay home with the kids.  But for us, having more time to enjoy each other and the children is more important than square footage and gadgets. 

But again, you can't go on complaining how people are poorer than they used to be when they have bigger houses and more stuff than previous generations.  And if having bigger houses,  more stuff means, and getting it all earlier means they aren't as financially secure as previous generations, well, that is their choice.  It isn't the fault of government, corporations or the Men in Black that today's families value square footage and creature comforts over leisure time and financial security. 

[formerroomate99]

i am being serious when i say that i don't think "standard of living" should have anything to do with "what people want". what people want is not measurable, and the government, economists, and others have no business trying to quantify it. what should be studied is ATTAINMENT. now, it is TRUE that if people don't want things, they generally will NOT attain them. but it is also true that the mere fact of wanting them does not "get you there".

Do you honestly think that previous generations didn't want bigger houses or more bathrooms?  But different people have different priorities.  Some people value financial security and some value square footage.  The only thing that has really changed is the priorities of the majority. 

[phil5185]

yeah, and cars are more reliable, comfortable, and time-efficient than rickshaws, too. i get it. i really do. i just have a hard time getting my head around how to measure it.

lol - you 'get it' in theory.  But if you plod out into the cattle yard, catch up the team of horses, curry the snow off their backs, lead them to where the harnesses are hung, lift on the harnesses and collars, string the reins thru the hames. Then hand pull the buggy out of the shed, lead the team to the buggy, back them in, hitch the traces to the double-tree - and then drive the team up to the house for grandpa so that he can go to town. Then you get it. 

I can't define the metric either - but I sure do know that it's way nicer to punch the garage door opener and roll out in a 2013 car-of-choice.

[Opti]

But again, you can't go on complaining how people are poorer than they used to be when they have bigger houses and more stuff than previous generations.

Some people have bigger houses and more stuff than previous generations and some do not.
There are people who live in rooms. They are kinda constrained on the stuff end. People get lazy and point to the people who have most of the stuff as an increase of the standard of living, but they aren't the full story. The homeless guy of 2013 probably isn't living all that much better than the homeless guy of 1960. Likewise, guy living in a room in 2013 might have a very similar standard of living to guy in a room in 1960 if neither have a phone, tv, or computer. The standard of living in any given country is far from uniform.

[skweet]

1. The primary reason for lack of participation is the lack of competitiveness of the US worker.  This is a reflection of improved competition and globalization not of degradation of skills by US labor.  Portable work is done far cheaper offshore, and non-portable labor is being taken by non-documented labor on US soil.
- I agree that the aging population plays a role, but to a lesser extent.  I also believe aging workers are able, and do work a significantly longer career, enough to soften the aging affect.

2.  Yes.

3.  It is important, because it inefficiently utilizes labor resources in the US causing a net drain on the economy.  What's even more important is that a solution documenting undocumented labor does nothing to solve efficiency.

4.  The solutions to this problem are not pleasant, but are necessary.  First we need to drop minimum wage laws appreciably.  Our labor needs to be competitive, if they are to utilized.  Business doesn't buy the most expensive equipment, materials or infrastructure.  It makes a value analysis and chooses the best value for their respective end product.  US labor is not worth it's cost according to the marketplace.  No amount of whining will get the competition to raise prices.  Welfare support needs to be dropped to a point well below the price point of the actual value of US labor, so that people have no perverse incentive to not work. Welfare for the elderly needs to match the mortality age, as it was originally intended, let's say 74.  Our healthcare allows them to live longer and healthier.  Touring the country in an RV should be the reward for exceptional success, not a rite of turning 67.

None of my solutions will help shrink the earnings/wealth gap nor make the base laborer's quality of life equal to that of middle class.  It shouldn't as those are signs of a withering economy.  They will create a much healthier economy, and create a far greater quality of life for those that earn middle class status.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2013 9:39:00 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Sept 28, 2013 12:03:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, fine.  but i really don't understand how 5000 SF improves the life of anyone.  like i say, i don't really understand what SOL is measuring, if anything.  i hear the term a lot, but it sounds like "happiness" to me.

You do realise the 'standard of living' and happiness  are two different things?  . 

of course.  it was a comparison.  comparisons only work when they are not the same thing.

(GOD this board is frustrating sometimes)

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2013 9:43:44 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

i am being serious when i say that i don't think "standard of living" should have anything to do with "what people want". what people want is not measurable, and the government, economists, and others have no business trying to quantify it. what should be studied is ATTAINMENT. now, it is TRUE that if people don't want things, they generally will NOT attain them. but it is also true that the mere fact of wanting them does not "get you there".

Do you honestly think that previous generations didn't want bigger houses or more bathrooms? 

i have no clue what people "want".  i only know that we did the 2500SF house, and it was about 1000SF too much.  i don't want to spend half my weekends tidying up, thanks.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2013 10:59:39 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

yeah, and cars are more reliable, comfortable, and time-efficient than rickshaws, too. i get it. i really do. i just have a hard time getting my head around how to measure it.

lol - you 'get it' in theory.  But if you plod out into the cattle yard, catch up the team of horses, curry the snow off their backs, lead them to where the harnesses are hung, lift on the harnesses and collars, string the reins thru the hames. Then hand pull the buggy out of the shed, lead the team to the buggy, back them in, hitch the traces to the double-tree - and then drive the team up to the house for grandpa so that he can go to town. Then you get it. 

i don't have to live it to get it, phil.  i read the little house on the prarie books, and i have NO DESIRE to live that life, thanks.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2013 22:47:28 GMT -5 skweet said:

1. The primary reason for lack of participation is the lack of competitiveness of the US worker.  This is a reflection of improved competition and globalization not of degradation of skills by US labor.  Portable work is done far cheaper offshore, and non-portable labor is being taken by non-documented labor on US soil.
- I agree that the aging population plays a role, but to a lesser extent.  I also believe aging workers are able, and do work a significantly longer career, enough to soften the aging affect.

2.  Yes.

3.  It is important, because it inefficiently utilizes labor resources in the US causing a net drain on the economy.  What's even more important is that a solution documenting undocumented labor does nothing to solve efficiency.

4.  The solutions to this problem are not pleasant, but are necessary.  First we need to drop minimum wage laws appreciably.  Our labor needs to be competitive, if they are to utilized.  Business doesn't buy the most expensive equipment, materials or infrastructure.  It makes a value analysis and chooses the best value for their respective end product.  US labor is not worth it's cost according to the marketplace.  No amount of whining will get the competition to raise prices.  Welfare support needs to be dropped to a point well below the price point of the actual value of US labor, so that people have no perverse incentive to not work. Welfare for the elderly needs to match the mortality age, as it was originally intended, let's say 74.  Our healthcare allows them to live longer and healthier.  Touring the country in an RV should be the reward for exceptional success, not a rite of turning 67.

None of my solutions will help shrink the earnings/wealth gap nor make the base laborer's quality of life equal to that of middle class.  It shouldn't as those are signs of a withering economy.  They will create a much healthier economy, and create a far greater quality of life for those that earn middle class status.

thanks for your replies, but i don't think competitiveness has much to do with it, unless you mean "American workers are not willing to work for $1.24/hr", in which case i agree.

[dumdeedoe]

Sounds good skweet, now if you can just marginalize the 70% of Americans that are considered labor, and convince them to take a Chinese wage with out tearing this country down to the ground It may work.. And by the way, if you reduce wages, you reduce demand, and reduce the overall us economy...

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2013 23:55:10 GMT -5 dumdeedoe said:

Sounds good skweet, now if you can just marginalize the 70% of Americans that are considered labor, and convince them to take a Chinese wage with out tearing this country down to the ground It may work.. And by the way, if you reduce wages, you reduce demand, and reduce the overall us economy...

what people don't get (but they will, trust me) is that a thriving middle class is the key to having a good economy.  if we lose that, we lose the whole ball of wax.  now, it might be true that US corporations don't care: they are busy offshoring for profit.  but the US public WILL care, when they see how they are getting the shaft from businesses that many of them, and their parents, helped build.

[skweet]

Sept 30, 2013 23:58:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 30, 2013 23:55:10 GMT -5 dumdeedoe said:

Sounds good skweet, now if you can just marginalize the 70% of Americans that are considered labor, and convince them to take a Chinese wage with out tearing this country down to the ground It may work.. And by the way, if you reduce wages, you reduce demand, and reduce the overall us economy...

what people don't get (but they will, trust me) is that a thriving middle class is the key to having a good economy.  if we lose that, we lose the whole ball of wax.  now, it might be true that US corporations don't care: they are busy offshoring for profit.  but the US public WILL care, when they see how they are getting the shaft from businesses that many of them, and their parents, helped build.

We're not talking about 70%, we're talking about a maximum of 37% and I assume a a portion of that 37% is incapable in fact the difference of 2000, the peak(ish) and now is only about 4%.  Essentially over 63% of our labor is correctly priced.  I will pull a number out of my "thinker" and say 80% participation is super-efficiency, as it is far higher than the peak, and would mean a much healthier economy.  Is it too much to ask that 17% of labor reevaluate their actual value per hour?  Is it fair that the middle class should sacrifice their hard earned labor value to prop up those 17% that are to proud to accept work at their actual value.

Labor does not have to match China labor prices, but it does need to match labor plus shipping.  We are creating our own ceiling on our middle class, by protectionism to benefit more basic labor.

[Deleted]

Outsourcing has never reduced the number of available jobs, anyway. It has only changed the type of jobs available.

[formerroomate99]

Sept 30, 2013 11:27:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

But again, you can't go on complaining how people are poorer than they used to be when they have bigger houses and more stuff than previous generations.

Some people have bigger houses and more stuff than previous generations and some do not.
There are people who live in rooms. They are kinda constrained on the stuff end. People get lazy and point to the people who have most of the stuff as an increase of the standard of living, but they aren't the full story. The homeless guy of 2013 probably isn't living all that much better than the homeless guy of 1960. Likewise, guy living in a room in 2013 might have a very similar standard of living to guy in a room in 1960 if neither have a phone, tv, or computer. The standard of living in any given country is far from uniform.

The Median size of houses has increased dramatically in the past 40-60 years and home ownership rates haven't exactly plummeted.  So while there are winners and loosers in the game, most of us are living at a higher standard of living than our grandparents had at our age. 

The neighbhorhood my father was raised in (actually, he was a teenager before they got this house) is now inhabited by singles and DINKS who move out the moment they have a kid.  Anyone actually raising a family in the neighborhood, that was considered a middle class family neighborhood in my father's time, would be considered poor by today's standards, and is likely on all kinds of government aid. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2013 2:06:16 GMT -5 skweet said:

Sept 30, 2013 23:58:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what people don't get (but they will, trust me) is that a thriving middle class is the key to having a good economy.  if we lose that, we lose the whole ball of wax.  now, it might be true that US corporations don't care: they are busy offshoring for profit.  but the US public WILL care, when they see how they are getting the shaft from businesses that many of them, and their parents, helped build.

We're not talking about 70%, we're talking about a maximum of 37% and I assume a a portion of that 37% is incapable in fact the difference of 2000, the peak(ish) and now is only about 4%.  Essentially over 63% of our labor is correctly priced. 

sorry, where are you getting these numbers?  who are the 37%?  those making over $200k? 

[dumdeedoe]

By lowering wages on 37% of the workers and making them accept their "place" you will increase governmental responsibility to provide welfare, medical, and food to that bracket. It also decreases demand for products.
As you force them into cohabitation it depresses the housing market, and curtails ovens,refrigerators, ect.
The secret is to get them into the middle class and get them into consuming. Jobs are not created from investments they are created by demand for product. Investors can give you 10 billion dollars but if there is no demand for your product there is no reason to hire anyone or grow your business.
Businesses are sitting on record amounts of cash right now.www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/03/19/u-s-companies-stashing-more-cash-abroad-as-stock-piles-hit-record-1-45t/

They fear the tax burden of bringing that cash back into America. We badly need to lower that tax rate.

A higher or (living) wage puts the opening burden on businesses but hand in hand with trade limits will create a robust consumer driven economy.  As demand goes up prices follow and maybe we could elevate the GDP past this debt problem.

 This can be seen in Australia, They have lower unemployment,haven't had a recession in 20 years, and have out grown our GDP %  consistently ever since they installed the highest minimum wage in the world. They were able to pull this off by protectionism, plain and simple. They also are one of the only nations to have a higher standard of living than the US. And they pulled this off while being a island with no (or very little) natural resourses.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2013 8:41:23 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Sept 30, 2013 11:27:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

The Median size of houses has increased dramatically in the past 40-60 years and home ownership rates haven't exactly plummeted.  So while there are winners and loosers in the game, most of us are living at a higher standard of living than our grandparents had at our age. 

The neighbhorhood my father was raised in (actually, he was a teenager before they got this house) is now inhabited by singles and DINKS who move out the moment they have a kid.  Anyone actually raising a family in the neighborhood, that was considered a middle class family neighborhood in my father's time, would be considered poor by today's standards, and is likely on all kinds of government aid. 

My grandmother has a half double to rent. She insists on listing it as a 3 bedroom. I know she rised 4 kids with her husband in the equivalent other side, but no way anyone is going to consider that a 3 bedroom. You walk through one at he top of the stairs to get to the only bath ( a good place for a computer) ... And the other two are one into another... And the back one so small it would work for a young child, or closet... 

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2013 2:06:16 GMT -5 skweet said:

  Is it too much to ask that 17% of labor reevaluate their actual value per hour?  Is it fair that the middle class should sacrifice their hard earned labor value to prop up those 17% that are to proud to accept work at their actual value.

You mean less than 7.25 an hour? 

Maybe things are different in the country, but at less than that I could exact more benefit on my own without working... Plant, can, sew, etc... I'd just opt further out of the economy.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2013 20:04:25 GMT -5 dumdeedoe said:

By lowering wages on 37% of the workers and making them accept their "place" you will increase governmental responsibility to provide welfare, medical, and food to that bracket. It also decreases demand for products.
As you force them into cohabitation it depresses the housing market, and curtails ovens,refrigerators, ect.
The secret is to get them into the middle class and get them into consuming. Jobs are not created from investments they are created by demand for product. Investors can give you 10 billion dollars but if there is no demand for your product there is no reason to hire anyone or grow your business.
Businesses are sitting on record amounts of cash right now.www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/03/19/u-s-companies-stashing-more-cash-abroad-as-stock-piles-hit-record-1-45t/

They fear the tax burden of bringing that cash back into America. We badly need to lower that tax rate.

A higher or (living) wage puts the opening burden on businesses but hand in hand with trade limits will create a robust consumer driven economy.  As demand goes up prices follow and maybe we could elevate the GDP past this debt problem.

 This can be seen in Australia, They have lower unemployment,haven't had a recession in 20 years, and have out grown our GDP %  consistently ever since they installed the highest minimum wage in the world. They were able to pull this off by protectionism, plain and simple. They also are one of the only nations to have a higher standard of living than the US. And they pulled this off while being a island with no (or very little) natural resourses.

minimum wage is $16.88 in Australia.

but you are wrong about the natural resources.  they are plentiful in AUS.

[djAdvocate]

topping, because people are still arguing about this rubbish. 

[zibazinski]

Oct 1, 2013 8:41:23 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Sept 30, 2013 11:27:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

Some people have bigger houses and more stuff than previous generations and some do not.
There are people who live in rooms. They are kinda constrained on the stuff end. People get lazy and point to the people who have most of the stuff as an increase of the standard of living, but they aren't the full story. The homeless guy of 2013 probably isn't living all that much better than the homeless guy of 1960. Likewise, guy living in a room in 2013 might have a very similar standard of living to guy in a room in 1960 if neither have a phone, tv, or computer. The standard of living in any given country is far from uniform.

The Median size of houses has increased dramatically in the past 40-60 years and home ownership rates haven't exactly plummeted.  So while there are winners and loosers in the game, most of us are living at a higher standard of living than our grandparents had at our age. 

The neighbhorhood my father was raised in (actually, he was a teenager before they got this house) is now inhabited by singles and DINKS who move out the moment they have a kid.  Anyone actually raising a family in the neighborhood, that was considered a middle class family neighborhood in my father's time, would be considered poor by today's standards, and is likely on all kinds of government aid. 

This is what happened in my Grandmother's neighborhood. My mom and my aunts lived and went to school there. Now it's ghetto and the high school has a daycare for the unwed mothers where the custodians used to keep their equipment. No one in their right mind wants to buy a house zoned into that school district. But it once was a decent middle class neighborhood and a good school district.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 4, 2016 19:10:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

topping, because people are still arguing about this rubbish. 

I invite anyone to read it through and assess whose arguments are rubbish.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 4, 2016 19:26:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 4, 2016 19:10:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

topping, because people are still arguing about this rubbish. 

I invite anyone to read it through and assess whose arguments are rubbish.

me too.  without hesitation.