US economy thread (2 Viewers)

[Stoneworker]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

 

[Sand]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

It is a great thing that our country has reduced poverty.

A living wage should cover basic needs required to enable a person or family to be self-sufficient. Examples: food, housing, healthcare, transportation, clothing, education, communication.

Going to clubs and movies and having pets don’t fit that definition. A person or family can live comfortably without any of those things.

The point was it proves that, if the basis for livable wage includes museum tickets, then we're doing a pretty good job on the whole of having an environment that has reduced real poverty to pretty low levels. The links I provided up above show that pretty effectively.

 

[Sand]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 30-hour workweek?

Me. Hell, I'd love to cut my work week in half.

Now those 20 year old pukes who want a 30 hour work week? Call us back on that in thirty years.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

It is a great thing that our country has reduced poverty.

A living wage should cover basic needs required to enable a person or family to be self-sufficient. Examples: food, housing, healthcare, transportation, clothing, education, communication.

Going to clubs and movies and having pets don’t fit that definition. A person or family can live comfortably without any of those things.

Just replace the term "living wage" with "middle class income." It's the exact same thing, except for the semantic change.

You're right of course that what's being described here isn't what people normally think of when they think of a "living wage." But it's still nice to have a general idea of what a middle class lifestyle costs.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

College students today are borderline illiterate, but somebody 100 years ago once said "Kids these days" so it's okay I guess.

 

[Snotbubbles]

You make great points, @SFBayDuck, but how can we do more for those "left behind"? That's 35% is a pretty big chunk of the population, and it seems like it's only going to grow as home ownership rates drop.

Stop spending like drunken sailors so that inflation cools and interest rates are allowed to drop. Also not importing 10M more people in in an uncontrolled manner to compete for housing. These two items will dramatically help.

so what, stop immigration? you realize the impacts to the economy if that happens, right?

Of course not. We have a robust legal immigration system.

Agree with Sand here. The best thing we can do for our kids is stop spending money we don't have. If the economy is doing so great there's no reason to run the government at such a large deficit.

I think most people agree with that but how we get there is a different story and where people just can't agree.

I've been getting bombarded with political junkmail and ads. Not one says, we should cut spending.

 

[massraider]

You're right of course that what's being described here isn't what people normally think of when they think of a "living wage." But it's still nice to have a general idea of what a middle class lifestyle costs

And "people" have different ideas in different parts of this massive country. And it's a different correct answer in different areas.

50 grand in Connecticut is different than 50 grand in Louisiana.

 

[Snotbubbles]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

If we went to a 4 day work week, my firm would just require us to work 10 hours a day.

 

[dkp993]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

If we went to a 4 day work week, my firm would just require us to work 10 hours a day.

As someone who 70+% of my employee base is mid to early 20somethings I think I can speak pretty intimately on the subject. I can tell you unequivocally, as I have been in dozens and dozens of these conversations with upset/stressed/tired employees over the past few years, this generations definition of “working hard” is 30-35 hrs a week.

 

[Max Power]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

I am! I'm in my 40s.

But to be fair, I'm lucky if the 20 year olds don't call out one day a week.

 

[massraider]

Wow, this is where we pretend Boomers weren't the acid taking hippies, and the Gen X wasn't the flannel slackers?

Let's just flip the narrative, and agree these kids today suck, and maybe we can address the real problem of how Boomers and Gen X are collectively the worst parents ever.

I mean..... where did they learn to be so lazy? They can't teach themselves can they???

Oh, I know you guys taught yourselves. You had it rough, right? probably had a hand-me-down Trapper Keeper, and only had 16 bit video games.

 

[Nugget]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

If we went to a 4 day work week, my firm would just require us to work 10 hours a day.

As someone who 70+% of my employee base is mid to early 20somethings I think I can speak pretty intimately on the subject. I can tell you unequivocally, as I have been in dozens and dozens of these conversations with upset/stressed/tired employees over the past few years, this generations definition of “working hard” is 30-35 hrs a week.

Is it kind of self fullfilling if you are hiring minimum wage fast food/restaurant employees? You would never see the motivated ones.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

If we went to a 4 day work week, my firm would just require us to work 10 hours a day.

As someone who 70+% of my employee base is mid to early 20somethings I think I can speak pretty intimately on the subject. I can tell you unequivocally, as I have been in dozens and dozens of these conversations with upset/stressed/tired employees over the past few years, this generations definition of “working hard” is 30-35 hrs a week.

Get ready for a bunch of "Ok Boomer" comments from people who know perfectly well how helicopter parenting and cell phones affect childhood development.

 

[Sand]

Wow, this is where we pretend Boomers weren't the acid taking hippies, and the Gen X wasn't the flannel slackers?

Let's just flip the narrative, and agree these kids today suck, and maybe we can address the real problem of how Boomers and Gen X are collectively the worst parents ever.

I mean..... where did they learn to be so lazy? They can't teach themselves can they???

Oh, I know you guys taught yourselves. You had it rough, right? probably had a hand-me-down Trapper Keeper, and only had 16 bit video games.

I have two kids. My oldest will work any job, work any shift, work however many hours it takes. And then goes home to study. The youngest is happy to go to school, have a part time job, and play (way too much) video games.

When I look back at my friend group in high school/college they don't seem out of place.

So, basically, it's all the other Gen X parents' fault.

 

[Softballguy]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

College students today are borderline illiterate, but somebody 100 years ago once said "Kids these days" so it's okay I guess.

Funny, I bet when you go back generations and present them with the fact that they're just repeating the same lines previous generations did, they'd counter with, "yeah, but this time it's real!"

 

[ChicoCat]

https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/7btv14/the_more_things_change_the_more_they_stay_the/

“It’s an irony, but so many of us are a cautious, nervous, conservative crew that some of the elders who five years ago feared that we might come trooping home full of foreign radical ideas are now afraid that the opposite might be too true, and that we could be lacking some of the old American gambling spirit and enterprise.”

• The Care and Handling of a Heritage: One of the “scared-rabbit” generation reassures wild-eyed elders about future, Life
  1950

“Many [young people] were so pampered nowadays that they had forgotten that there was such a thing as walking, and they made automatically for the buses… unless they did something, the future for walking was very poor indeed.”

• Scottish Rights of Way: More Young People Should Use Them, Falkirk Herald
  1951

“A few [35-year-old friends] just now are leaving their parents’ nest. Many friends are getting married or having a baby for the first time. They aren’t switching occupations, because they have finally landed a ‘meaningful’ career – perhaps after a decade of hopscotching jobs in search of an identity. They’re doing the kinds of things our society used to expect from 25-year-olds.”

• Not Ready for Middle Age at 35, Wall Street Journal
  1984

“What really distinguishes this generation from those before it is that it's the first generation in American history to live so well and complain so bitterly about it.”

• The Boring Twenties, Washington Post
  1993

“The traditional yearning for a benevolent employer who can provide a job for life also seems to be on the wane… In particular, they want to avoid ‘low-level jobs that aren’t keeping them intellectually challenged.’”

• Meet Generation X, Financial Times
  1995

“They have trouble making decisions. They would rather hike in the Himalayas than climb a corporate ladder. They have few heroes, no anthems, no style to call their own. They crave entertainment, but their attention span is as short as one zap of a TV dial.”

• Proceeding with Caution, Time
  2001

 

[FreeBaGeL]

We're really arguing about people not working a full 40 hours per week....on an internet forum at 3pm on a Thursday?

 

[massraider]

So, basically, it's all the other Gen X parents' fault

Who can't agree with this?

 

[SoBeDad]

Food is still cheap compared to many countries and to decades ago. Globalization, efficiency. People get way more of their calories away from home than in the 1970s and earlier. Uber eats too. I'm often not sympathetic when I hear Anericans complain about the high price of food, with so many of us being overweight. There are alternatives, like cooking and eating more healthy food at home, but habits are hard to change, including spending a lot of time on social media and discussion boards!

There has been a recent leveling off of obesity in the USA. Is that because of Ozempic or food inflation?

I am very sympathetic when I hear about the high cost of housing, both renting and buying. Long-term, I think decreasing our national debt is part of the solution.

 

[RCon]

Back when people worked 80 hours a week, they were thrilled when it got reduced (on average) to 70 hours. Ditto all the way down to 40. For some reason, society has decided that anything less than 40 is "lazy". I thought the entire goal of progress is to spend less time on "have to" and more time on "want to". That's a good thing.

 

[fantasy stud]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

If we went to a 4 day work week, my firm would just require us to work 10 hours a day.

If I had that choice, I'd the the four 10 hour days in a heartbeat.

 

[Max Power]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

College students today are borderline illiterate, but somebody 100 years ago once said "Kids these days" so it's okay I guess.

Funny, I bet when you go back generations and present them with the fact that they're just repeating the same lines previous generations did, they'd counter with, "yeah, but this time it's real!"

And now they have the internet which is proven to rot their brains.

 

[Snotbubbles]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

If we went to a 4 day work week, my firm would just require us to work 10 hours a day.

If I had that choice, I'd the the four 10 hour days in a heartbeat.

No doubt, I used to do that.

 

[Redwes25]

You make great points, @SFBayDuck, but how can we do more for those "left behind"? That's 35% is a pretty big chunk of the population, and it seems like it's only going to grow as home ownership rates drop.

Stop spending like drunken sailors so that inflation cools and interest rates are allowed to drop. Also not importing 10M more people in in an uncontrolled manner to compete for housing. These two items will dramatically help.

so what, stop immigration? you realize the impacts to the economy if that happens, right?

Of course not. We have a robust legal immigration system.

Agree with Sand here. The best thing we can do for our kids is stop spending money we don't have. If the economy is doing so great there's no reason to run the government at such a large deficit.

I think most people agree with that but how we get there is a different story and where people just can't agree.

I've been getting bombarded with political junkmail and ads. Not one says, we should cut spending.

Not everyone thinks we should fix the deficit issue by cutting spending - like I said think people would like us not to run such huge deficits but solutions to getting there are much different.

 

[Jayrod]

We are no longer #1 on most of these lists. We used to be at or near the top of every world ranking.

And you all are admitting that entertainment is now considered part of a "living wage" in this country.

If people can't live without a smart phone and Netflix, that's weak, soft, lazy...whatever you want to call it but it isn't good.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Back when people worked 80 hours a week, they were thrilled when it got reduced (on average) to 70 hours. Ditto all the way down to 40. For some reason, society has decided that anything less than 40 is "lazy". I thought the entire goal of progress is to spend less time on "have to" and more time on "want to". That's a good thing.

And it's not like there's some study or statistic that dictates 40 as the optimal number. It's actually still well within the range where you could cut hours out and see very little and potentially 0 change to output/production (like we saw when cutting down to 40 in the first place).

People as a society are just quite the pushovers to their employers these days. Where working more for no additional pay is worn as a badge of honor rather than an admittance of being a doofus getting cucked out of family/free time to help a rich person get richer.

 

[Jayrod]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

We are no longer #1 on any of these lists. We used to be at or near the top of every world ranking.

And you all are admitting that entertainment is now considered part of a "living wage" in this country.

If people can't live without a smart phone and Netflix, that's weak, soft, lazy...whatever you want to call it but it isn't good.

Huh? The link you sent says we're #1 in 3 out of the first 5 on that list (and #2 in another) including median income and total wealth.

 

[dkp993]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

If we went to a 4 day work week, my firm would just require us to work 10 hours a day.

As someone who 70+% of my employee base is mid to early 20somethings I think I can speak pretty intimately on the subject. I can tell you unequivocally, as I have been in dozens and dozens of these conversations with upset/stressed/tired employees over the past few years, this generations definition of “working hard” is 30-35 hrs a week.

Is it kind of self fullfilling if you are hiring minimum wage fast food/restaurant employees? You would never see the motivated ones.

I’m not. Your point would make sense and be valid if I was. I’m not in that side of the Food and Beverage any more. The employees I’m speaking about are full time staff making 28 to 35 dollars an hour with nice quarterly bonuses. 60k to 75k a year staff.

 

[Tau837]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

It is a great thing that our country has reduced poverty.

A living wage should cover basic needs required to enable a person or family to be self-sufficient. Examples: food, housing, healthcare, transportation, clothing, education, communication.

Going to clubs and movies and having pets don’t fit that definition. A person or family can live comfortably without any of those things.

The point was it proves that, if the basis for livable wage includes museum tickets, then we're doing a pretty good job on the whole of having an environment that has reduced real poverty to pretty low levels. The links I provided up above show that pretty effectively.

I understand your point, but it is a distortion of the definition of living wage, which IMO reduces or eliminates its utility in economic discussions.

Just replace the term "living wage" with "middle class income." It's the exact same thing, except for the semantic change.

You're right of course that what's being described here isn't what people normally think of when they think of a "living wage." But it's still nice to have a general idea of what a middle class lifestyle costs.

That's all well and good. Then define two different terms -- living wage and middle class wage. They are not the same thing, and IMO no one should pretend they are. (Not saying you are doing this.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

 

[Runkle]

I see people online (especially Reddit) all the time saying a "minimum wage 40-hour work week should pay enough for a 2-bedroom apartment to support a single mother with kids", so the metrics are all over the place.

 

[ChicoCat]

I see people online (especially Reddit) all the time saying a "minimum wage 40-hour work week should pay enough for a 2-bedroom apartment to support a single mother with kids", so the metrics are all over the place.

Support is a bit too vague of a word. Should a minimum wage 40 hour work week give someone a "subsistence"(it itself a bit of a problematic word) level life or a thriving life?

 

[Nugget]

I see people online (especially Reddit) all the time saying a "minimum wage 40-hour work week should pay enough for a 2-bedroom apartment to support a single mother with kids", so the metrics are all over the place.

Support is a bit too vague of a word. Should a minimum wage 40 hour work week give someone a "subsistence"(it itself a bit of a problematic word) level life or a thriving life?

"Poverty Wage" would likely be a number I would be more interested in.

$600 One bedroom apartment
$400 food
$150 medical
$200 transportation
$100 Clothes/household goods/tolietries
$50 phone/internet

$1500 month would require 55 hours a week at minimum wage in Kansas. This is not really allowing for any sick time/missed work/ time away. No savings, education funds, emergency fund.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I see people online (especially Reddit) all the time saying a "minimum wage 40-hour work week should pay enough for a 2-bedroom apartment to support a single mother with kids", so the metrics are all over the place.

Support is a bit too vague of a word. Should a minimum wage 40 hour work week give someone a "subsistence"(it itself a bit of a problematic word) level life or a thriving life?

“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.”

 

[The Z Machine]

I see people online (especially Reddit) all the time saying a "minimum wage 40-hour work week should pay enough for a 2-bedroom apartment to support a single mother with kids", so the metrics are all over the place.

Support is a bit too vague of a word. Should a minimum wage 40 hour work week give someone a "subsistence"(it itself a bit of a problematic word) level life or a thriving life?

"Poverty Wage" would likely be a number I would be more interested in.

$600 One bedroom apartment
$400 food
$150 medical
$200 transportation
$100 Clothes/household goods/tolietries
$50 phone/internet

$1500 month would require 55 hours a week at minimum wage in Kansas. This is not really allowing for any sick time/missed work/ time away. No savings, education funds, emergency fund.

And only 1 minor disaster away from being bankrupt.

 

[Stoneworker]

I see people online (especially Reddit) all the time saying a "minimum wage 40-hour work week should pay enough for a 2-bedroom apartment to support a single mother with kids", so the metrics are all over the place.

Support is a bit too vague of a word. Should a minimum wage 40 hour work week give someone a "subsistence"(it itself a bit of a problematic word) level life or a thriving life?

“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.”

And yet the law FDR passed in 1938 for "living wages" was $0.25 / hour, which is the equivalent of $5.55 in 2024 dollars. Hardly the wages of a "decent living."

Clearly FDR's actions didn't match his words on this topic, which is why it is ridiculous to constantly quote him as some sort of arbiter of how minimum wage should be set in the modern economy.

 

[Sand]

from the MIT living wage model...

The most recent update to the calculator included a few changes to its methodology. The calculator’s estimates now include cell phone and Wi-Fi expenses, as well as civic engagement expenditures, such as pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions.

LMFAO at including "pets, clubs and movie or museum excursions" as part of a living wage model. That is laughable.

On the contrary, I think it's quite a good thing. It shows unequivocally that we, as a country, have done a fantastic job of stamping out actual poverty.

Except that level of privilege yields unreasonable expectations and a lack of work ethic that is going to destroy this country from the inside out.

Our kids' generation is even softer than ours (which isn’t all that great) and will give it all away before we even know what happened. It's happening already and will result in regression to the mean (think global mean) sooner rather than later.

So said every generation in history...

No, not really. Cool story, though.

Yes, really. This has been covered ad nauseum. My favorite version is a series of quotes about how the next generation is this or that. They all sound like something you'd hear today, but they're from different eras dating back to the 1800s.

Which generation is currently clamoring for the 4-day workweek?

If we went to a 4 day work week, my firm would just require us to work 10 hours a day.

If I had that choice, I'd the the four 10 hour days in a heartbeat.

We're on 9/80 and folks like it a lot. I'd bet 4/10 would go over even better.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I see people online (especially Reddit) all the time saying a "minimum wage 40-hour work week should pay enough for a 2-bedroom apartment to support a single mother with kids", so the metrics are all over the place.

Support is a bit too vague of a word. Should a minimum wage 40 hour work week give someone a "subsistence"(it itself a bit of a problematic word) level life or a thriving life?

“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.”

And yet the law FDR passed in 1938 for "living wages" was $0.25 / hour, which is the equivalent of $5.55 in 2024 dollars. Hardly the wages of a "decent living."

Clearly FDR's actions didn't match his words on this topic, which is why it is ridiculous to constantly quote him as some sort of arbiter of how minimum wage should be set in the modern economy.

The bill was for 40 cents per hour. They were just worried about the shock value of going from 0 to 40, so they agreed to ease into it on a rolling basis from 25 to 40 as part of the bill.

S ec. 6. (a) Every employer shall pay to each o f his employees who
is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce
wages at the follow ing rates—

(1) during the first year from the effective date of this section,
not less than 25 cents an hour,
(2) during the next six years from such date, not less than 30
cents an hour,
(3) after the expiration of seven years from such date, not less
than 40 cents an hour

At 40 cents an hour versus the minimum wage now, it took...

9,750 hours worked to get to the median home price, versus 67,000 hours worked now
2,150 hours worked to get to the median car price, versus 6,671 hours worked now
One hour at the minimum wage could purchase 4 gallons of gas, versus 2.25 gallons now

Surprisingly, food is not really any more expensive now (even with post-covid inflation), if not actually a little cheaper. Food was REALLY cheap pre-covid.

 

[Jayrod]

We are no longer #1 on any of these lists. We used to be at or near the top of every world ranking.

And you all are admitting that entertainment is now considered part of a "living wage" in this country.

If people can't live without a smart phone and Netflix, that's weak, soft, lazy...whatever you want to call it but it isn't good.

Huh? The link you sent says we're #1 in 3 out of the first 5 on that list (and #2 in another) including median income and total wealth.

My bad. Most of the list. I spent about 5 seconds looking at it. You cherry picked the financial section only where we are #1 in 3/13. In all of the other 8 sections we aren't even close to #1 in any single metric and sometimes middle of the world or bottom half.

Not quite the gotcha you made it out to be but since when does the truth matter?

When you have to be deceptive and cherry pick your data, it doesn't bode well for your argument.

We are on the decline and anyone who is honest with themselves know it. Now some may think that is fine, but don't lie to everyone about it.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

We are no longer #1 on any of these lists. We used to be at or near the top of every world ranking.

And you all are admitting that entertainment is now considered part of a "living wage" in this country.

If people can't live without a smart phone and Netflix, that's weak, soft, lazy...whatever you want to call it but it isn't good.

Huh? The link you sent says we're #1 in 3 out of the first 5 on that list (and #2 in another) including median income and total wealth.

My bad. Most of the list. I spent about 5 seconds looking at it. You cherry picked the financial section only where we are #1 in 3/13. In all of the other 8 sections we aren't even close to #1 in any single metric and sometimes middle of the world or bottom half.

Not quite the gotcha you made it out to be but since when does the truth matter?

When you have to be deceptive and cherry pick your data, it doesn't bode well for your argument.

We are on the decline and anyone who is honest with themselves know it. Now some may think that is fine, but don't lie to everyone about it.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I literally clicked on the link you provided, and looked at the first few things where we were ranked #1 right there at the top multiple times after being told it was a list where we were ranked #1 in nothing. I didn't even scroll down. Nor am I necessarily taking a stance either in agreement or disagreement with what you're saying (though since this is the economy thread, the economics section seems to be the relevant section).

 

[Jayrod]

We are no longer #1 on any of these lists. We used to be at or near the top of every world ranking.

And you all are admitting that entertainment is now considered part of a "living wage" in this country.

If people can't live without a smart phone and Netflix, that's weak, soft, lazy...whatever you want to call it but it isn't good.

Huh? The link you sent says we're #1 in 3 out of the first 5 on that list (and #2 in another) including median income and total wealth.

My bad. Most of the list. I spent about 5 seconds looking at it. You cherry picked the financial section only where we are #1 in 3/13. In all of the other 8 sections we aren't even close to #1 in any single metric and sometimes middle of the world or bottom half.

Not quite the gotcha you made it out to be but since when does the truth matter?

When you have to be deceptive and cherry pick your data, it doesn't bode well for your argument.

We are on the decline and anyone who is honest with themselves know it. Now some may think that is fine, but don't lie to everyone about it.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I literally clicked on the link you provided, and looked at the first few things where we were ranked #1 right there at the top multiple times after being told it was a list where we were ranked #1 in nothing. I didn't even scroll down. Nor am I necessarily taking a stance either in agreement or disagreement with what you're saying (though since this is the economy thread, the economics section seems to be the relevant section).

Economics is the 2nd section.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

We are no longer #1 on any of these lists. We used to be at or near the top of every world ranking.

And you all are admitting that entertainment is now considered part of a "living wage" in this country.

If people can't live without a smart phone and Netflix, that's weak, soft, lazy...whatever you want to call it but it isn't good.

Huh? The link you sent says we're #1 in 3 out of the first 5 on that list (and #2 in another) including median income and total wealth.

My bad. Most of the list. I spent about 5 seconds looking at it. You cherry picked the financial section only where we are #1 in 3/13. In all of the other 8 sections we aren't even close to #1 in any single metric and sometimes middle of the world or bottom half.

Not quite the gotcha you made it out to be but since when does the truth matter?

When you have to be deceptive and cherry pick your data, it doesn't bode well for your argument.

We are on the decline and anyone who is honest with themselves know it. Now some may think that is fine, but don't lie to everyone about it.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I literally clicked on the link you provided, and looked at the first few things where we were ranked #1 right there at the top multiple times after being told it was a list where we were ranked #1 in nothing. I didn't even scroll down. Nor am I necessarily taking a stance either in agreement or disagreement with what you're saying (though since this is the economy thread, the economics section seems to be the relevant section).

Economics is the 2nd section.

And the first section has one thing listed...

Not sure what you're looking for here. This is what I saw when I clicked the link you sent where we "rank #1 for nothing".

"Here's a link where we rank #1 for nothing"
<clicks link>
Immediately bombarded with stuff we're #1 or #2 for right away

 

[SFBayDuck]

So for the 2-3 of you ever so subtly hinting that the US society and economy will devolve into a dystopian hellscape any day now, mostly thanks to these darn lazy kids, what countries will take the baton going forward? Because that’s what has happened throughout history. When we fall, someone steps into the vacuum, right? So who is up next?

China’s economy is a giant mess, even worse than they’ll ever let on, so that doesn’t seem likely. India? While we talk about pets and concerts, 60% of their population lives on $3.10 or less a day. A seceded People’s Republic of California? Borat leading the Republic of Kazakhstan to glory? Who is doing it so much better and will be in position to take advantage of our imminent implosion?

Asking for a friend looking for investment opportunities.

 

[Terminalxylem]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Personally, I don’t expect us to stay at the top forever, but doubt we’ll drop too far. I’d be fine to settle somewhere around most European countries, which I think is a realistic floor for the next couple hundred years.

 

[Jayrod]

We are no longer #1 on any of these lists. We used to be at or near the top of every world ranking.

And you all are admitting that entertainment is now considered part of a "living wage" in this country.

If people can't live without a smart phone and Netflix, that's weak, soft, lazy...whatever you want to call it but it isn't good.

Huh? The link you sent says we're #1 in 3 out of the first 5 on that list (and #2 in another) including median income and total wealth.

My bad. Most of the list. I spent about 5 seconds looking at it. You cherry picked the financial section only where we are #1 in 3/13. In all of the other 8 sections we aren't even close to #1 in any single metric and sometimes middle of the world or bottom half.

Not quite the gotcha you made it out to be but since when does the truth matter?

When you have to be deceptive and cherry pick your data, it doesn't bode well for your argument.

We are on the decline and anyone who is honest with themselves know it. Now some may think that is fine, but don't lie to everyone about it.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I literally clicked on the link you provided, and looked at the first few things where we were ranked #1 right there at the top multiple times after being told it was a list where we were ranked #1 in nothing. I didn't even scroll down. Nor am I necessarily taking a stance either in agreement or disagreement with what you're saying (though since this is the economy thread, the economics section seems to be the relevant section).

Economics is the 2nd section.

And the first section has one thing listed...

Not sure what you're looking for here. This is what I saw when I clicked the link you sent where we "rank #1 for nothing".

"Here's a link where we rank #1 for nothing"
<clicks link>
Immediately bombarded with stuff we're #1 or #2 for right away

Ok. You got me. I made an incorrect statement.

Now that we got that out of the way, what of the larger point that our nation is in decline on the world stage?

 

[Jayrod]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

 

[Terminalxylem]

And if your version of history goes back only 100 or even 200 years, you are fooling yourself thinking this is some permanent cycle of growth and wealth we are in.

The problem is that basically nobody agrees with you. I do, but nobody else does. Those people vote, and their vote counts the same as ours.

People living in the US generally operate under the theory that the US is immune from history, and we're immune from the problems that have caused other great powers to decline over time. That is very much not the case, and I would argue that the US is already in sharp and irreversible decline. The problem is that none of the metrics that I would use to defend that view are admissible in this forum, so I'll just leave that as a raw assertion. IYKYK.

More generally though, folks just don't understand history, and in particular they don't really understand US history. For example, it is 2024. The Battle of Little Big Horn, in which a US Army division was literally annihilated by a group of stone-age warriors, was less than 150 years ago. Our grandparents would have had direct access to people who were were there. Fast forward a bit to WWI. When the US entered WWI, we were an afterthought. Our military probably would have been routed by the likes of Poland. Horses were still being used in warfare back then, and we think of that as part of the "modern" era.

We've been a global superpower for about three or four generations. That's it. The UK fell from a much higher perch to also-ran status during that exact same period. It can happen to us, and it is happening to us. I recommend looking out for yourself.

Meh. What consequence of not being the world’s top superpower concerns you? How far do you think we’ll fall?

Who the next superpower is is what concerns me.

Not a fan of what a China/Russia/Iran centric world domination would be like.

Sure. Of those three, China is the most realistic to take our place. Not ideal, but I’m not concerned what that would mean for the US.

What consequence do you fear from China at the top?

 

[Max Power]

So for the 2-3 of you ever so subtly hinting that the US society and economy will devolve into a dystopian hellscape any day now, mostly thanks to these darn lazy kids, what countries will take the baton going forward? Because that’s what has happened throughout history. When we fall, someone steps into the vacuum, right? So who is up next?

China’s economy is a giant mess, even worse than they’ll ever let on, so that doesn’t seem likely. India? While we talk about pets and concerts, 60% of their population lives on $3.10 or less a day. A seceded People’s Republic of California? Borat leading the Republic of Kazakhstan to glory? Who is doing it so much better and will be in position to take advantage of our imminent implosion?

Asking for a friend looking for investment opportunities.

Globalists

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So for the 2-3 of you ever so subtly hinting that the US society and economy will devolve into a dystopian hellscape any day now, mostly thanks to these darn lazy kids, what countries will take the baton going forward? Because that’s what has happened throughout history. When we fall, someone steps into the vacuum, right? So who is up next?

China’s economy is a giant mess, even worse than they’ll ever let on, so that doesn’t seem likely. India? While we talk about pets and concerts, 60% of their population lives on $3.10 or less a day. A seceded People’s Republic of California? Borat leading the Republic of Kazakhstan to glory? Who is doing it so much better and will be in position to take advantage of our imminent implosion?

Asking for a friend looking for investment opportunities.

Nobody has to replace us at the top. The notion of a global hegemon is a relatively recent thing. The current international order is totally different than the one that we grew up with, for example. We grew up in bipolar world, and that world ceased to exist around 1990. Then we went through a period of US hegemony, which ended a decade or so ago (this was a much more gradual process, not anything dramatic like the fall of the Soviet Union). Maybe China or somebody will surpass everybody else, but that isn't going to happen tomorrow and it might never happen. Who knows.

Also, with regard to the dystopia part, you can't expect a revolution. There isn't going to be a PSA announcing "We are now in a dystopia -- kindly proceed accordingly." Sometimes countries just degrade. I could point to examples like the UK and Canada, but why look overseas when you already have a front-row view to how this sort of thing plays out?

If you would like a non-political example of what societal degradation looks like, ask yourself how it is that the US was able to put a guy on the moon before I was even born, and now we just leave astronauts stranded in space because we can't figure out how to get them back to earth. That's just one little data point. Look around and see if you can notice any others.