Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

[Malacite]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

It's all good, if anything I think I came on too strong. I just get tired of people thinking they know what's best to do with my money.

Wow, I'm scared - something we agree on, sorta; I'm not trying to dictate that exactly, and I respect that point of view - lord knows since Nixon got into office the Govt. hasn't had the greatest track record on good spending. And yes, I include Clinton in that because even though the economy was booming, a lot of that came out of some of the mistakes he made (like repealing glass-stegal) but got free credit for.

[Taskmage]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

On the issue of sweat shop economies, NPR's Planet Money did a great episode today on the costs and benefits of textile manufacturing and cheap labor in Bangladesh and historically in other countries, including our own. It's "only" 16 minutes and it's good radio. I'm not going to transcript it myself, but when the official one goes up I'll quote some snippets for the tl;dl people.

Episode 458: Bangladesh's T-Shirt Economy : Planet Money : NPR

[Taskmage]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

To Armando (finally)

I'm not convinced this makes any sense. The economy isn't a zero-sum thing

As far as I can see, the examples provided for each of those fallacies do not apply to what I'm saying. While it is true that economic transactions are mutually beneficial in a personal utility sense, the total amount of value doesn't change. For example, say you have two sodas but you're hungry, and I have two sandwiches but I'm thirsty. If we trade we're both better off, but the amount of nourishment in the world hasn't changed, and neither has the market value of our stuff.

Part of the definition of money is that it's a measure of value, so if $X was paid out to workers worldwide, that means, by definition, that $X worth of stuff was created. Exchange rates and local values make this complicated and the final number is only an estimate, but as close as we can figure, the world produces about $18k worth of stuff per working person per year right now. We can imagine what it would be like if that stuff was evenly distributed without invoking a fallacy.

It's sortof like how we deal with fluids in science. Each particle in a gas may be carrying a force with completely different direction and magnitude to each other particle, but when we look at the gas as a whole there is only one force, which is considered to be uniform.

It should be possible for third world countries to get out of poverty without the rest of the world incurring an equal loss of wealth. Looking at the total amount of money in the world right now only makes sense if you're satisfied with leaving the economic status quo the same, so you're not really looking at equality.

Absolutely. Look at the massive increases in standard of living that now-first-world countries have made over the last couple centuries. We didn't get those by taking quality of life from other places; they came from productivity increases due to education, technology, and investment in infrastructure and capital equipment. Our ability to provide goods and services is growing much faster than our population. That's modern economic growth.

My point is that Malacite tends to assume that the primary reason things are shit for the little guy right now is that the people at the top are greedily hoarding all the wealth, and that things would be alright if we could make them stop. While I don't deny that there is some of that going on, and that income inequality in the US is worth looking at, the ILO data seems to demonstrate that even if his idea were taking to the absolute extreme, there is simply not enough stuff in the world right now to support our current population at the standard he deems to be the bare minimum.

As the effects of education and technology spread across the world, I have no doubt that in the future the global economy will grow to the point that we can support that standard of living and more. It's my opinion that it will be that mechanism that uplifts the impoverished, and while social justice issues are important in their own way, their impact on improving the economic well-being of people is moot.

[Firewind]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

I have one thing to note about low wage jobs not yet brought up by anyone but Mezlo in his original post, which is why I actually agreed with the post in spite of being someone who is in the Centre/Centre-Left of the political spectrum (though I do think he could have worded it a little more eloquently).

Basically it is this: a lot of "Low Wage Jobs" are also entry level jobs for people on the first steps of their career. Too many people are graduating from college and expecting to instantly be able to use their degree and get a well paid job immediately after college but the real world does not work like that. You have to start from somewhere no matter how well qualified or suited you are to the job. Entry level jobs suck because yes they are the bottom rung. They are often used to scare kids into working harder at school ("Do you want to be flipping burgers for the rest of your life"?) but what people also forget is that they are kind of necessary because people have to start from somewhere. Even if you're one of the rich kids with wealthy and influential parents who got you the job, chances are you're still going to be started off on a lower rung because frankly, you won't have the experience. Yes who you know and pure dumb luck is also part of progressing to the top, but that is why you put yourself into the right place at the right time as often as you can.

I've two personal examples here:

First off, I have a friend working at a McDonalds despite having a degree. Why did he take the job? Because he wants to work up to a management position which in the UK starts at £25,000 per year ($40,000 per year) and only goes up from there. If saying "Do you want fries with that?" for 9 hours a day for a couple of years is what will get him there then he's fine to accept that.

Second off is myself: I've been going to interviews and if I get the job, plan to accept a low paid Tech Support job with a company called bet365 because the same company offers fantastic Graduate Training schemes that start you on Management and Supervisory roles salaries similar to what I listed above. I didn't have experience with working for the company but realised I would need to starts from somewhere so applied for the entry level job, making it clear that I plan to work my way up and from the bottom if need be if I'm offered the job. Yes it's something I've posted about never wanting to do again, but if after getting experience with the company it means I can use that as a stepping stone to something a lot better then hell yes I would take that low wage job, and work my ass off to ensure that I do get onto the Grad Scheme and use that position to go even further.

Taskmage also brought up a point relevent to my post:

What exactly is the issue with 165,000 new low wage jobs being created? That's 165,000 people who had zero income that now have at least some income. What scenario would have been preferable? 90,000 jobs that paid twice as well, making 90k people better off but still leaving 75k unemployed?

This is also a damn good point. 165,000 jobs made is basically 165,000 families that now have either gone from zero income to having an income or had a low income and now have a little more. Sure in a perfect world everyone would love to see their wages skyrocket but ask yourself this: what would you rather have? Some income while you look for or work towards something better or zero income and no job while you hold out for something that may never come along?

[Taskmage]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

Firewind's point about entry level jobs is especially apropos considering that the unemployment rate among 20-24 year olds is more than twice as high as for those over 25. (*)

[Armando]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

Part of the definition of money is that it's a measure of value, so if $X was paid out to workers worldwide, that means, by definition, that $X worth of stuff was created. Exchange rates and local values make this complicated and the final number is only an estimate, but as close as we can figure, the world produces about $18k worth of stuff per working person per year right now. We can imagine what it would be like if that stuff was evenly distributed without invoking a fallacy.

What I was trying to say is that "our standard of living is unsustainable" doesn't follow from "the average worldwide income is too low to sustain our standard of living." The global worldwide income doesn't say anything about the degree of dependency rich countries have on the poverty of other countries.

[Taskmage]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

Oh, ok. I'll give you that. "Unsustainable" was a poor word choice. It doesn't really reflect the facts or my point. But it is unfair and inconsistent with our ideals.

Not to say that the injustice is necessarily anyone's fault. It's just the way history has worked out. But I do think it's important to put our problems in a larger context. We're spoiled in developed countries. Even our poorest are living like kings to most of the world. We should start thinking about what's fair for all people, not just Americans or Westerners or whatever subset of humanity is your in-group, and we should be realistic about our expectations. In the long run, humans may be capable of anything, but in the here and now we have to deal with our limitations.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

If we're going for realistic expectations about sustainability then things get very ugly very quickly. There are simply too many people and if we want to provide a good quality of life to the world and have it be sustainable then we need to immediately kill 50% of the people on this planet as a bare minimum. There are not enough resources on the planet to go around and since we can't import more to the planet, the only other option is to forcibly reduce the demand being made on those finite resources.

Mark my words, if the global population continues to grow unchecked we will see everything hit a breaking point within our lifetime.

[Malacite]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

I was going to say, it's only "unsustainable" in our current state - you have to factor in social, political and technological advancements into the equation. I still think we can raise the standard of living for the majority with dedicated effort (and I don't just mean making the super rich pay their fair share) including reforms to Capitalism that assess the current... inadequacies, that plague us. It's like Richard Wolfe said, his reasoning for not faulting the bankers etc. is because they're just working within the rule set that's been laid out for them, and what we need isn't more legislation (because lawyers and lobbyist have danced around them for years now, though I maintain they can still work to a degree) but a new system entirely to replace the current one.

The democratic co-op companies that are starting to prop up with increased frequency are a very good and necessary first step. It's like my Dad said to me last night, we need companies that aren't beholden to the share holders, but the people that work for (the company) instead. Probably should address the whole ridiculously low tax rate on investments too; I mean on one hand you do have to be careful because I do believe cranking the rate up too high will really hurt investment rates, but at the same time it's ridiculous for someone like Romney to make millions a year for basically doing nothing, while others are busting their asses and barely scraping by.

[Taskmage]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

If we're going for realistic expectations about sustainability then things get very ugly very quickly. There are simply too many people and if we want to provide a good quality of life to the world and have it be sustainable then we need to immediately kill 50% of the people on this planet as a bare minimum. There are not enough resources on the planet to go around and since we can't import more to the planet, the only other option is to forcibly reduce the demand being made on those finite resources.

Mark my words, if the global population continues to grow unchecked we will see everything hit a breaking point within our lifetime.

I'm not convinced the statement about resources is true. I mean, the same ILO data indicates that there is technically enough stuff around to support everyone at roughly the standard of living of the current US minimum wage. I can't find the original data (full disclosure: didn't put that much effort into it), but this paper in the American Bar Association's Human Rights Magazine claims that we actually have 1.5x enough food to feed everyone on the planet; it's just poorly distributed. If you're talking about energy production, I don't know. The future seems very uncertain in that area.

There's reason to be optimistic about the population growth as well. For whatever reason, birth rates tend to decline in countries as quality of life increases. Since at least 2000, birth rates in India and China have reflected this. Projections based on these trends predict a slowing rate in world population growth that tops out around 2050

like so.

Moreover, technologies are constantly emerging that promise to increase the productivity of the resources we have available. The one I linked has proven effective in practice, and seems likely to produce a dramatic increase in the amount of arable land we have available.

[Mezlo]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

There are simply too many people and if we want to provide a good quality of life to the world and have it be sustainable then we need to immediately kill 50% of the people on this planet as a bare minimum.

You are a horrible person.

[Armando]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

Re: Sustainability and population, I don't think we have too many people on the planet right now, but we can't sustain the rest of the planet on an American diet.

Environmental vegetarians call for a reduction of first world consumption of meat, especially in the US. According to the United Nations Population Fund "Each U.S. citizen consumes an average of 260 lbs. of meat per year, the world's highest rate. That is about 1.5 times the industrial world average, three times the East Asian average, and 40 times the average in Bangladesh."[15] In addition, "the ecological footprint of an average person in a high-income country is about six times bigger than that of someone in a low-income country, and many more times bigger than in the least-developed countries."[16]

I think we have enough resources to feed the population, but it's going to entail less meat than people are used to.

[Taskmage]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

You are a horrible person.

Thanked for coming full circle.

According to the United Nations Population Fund "Each U.S. citizen consumes an average of 260 lbs. of meat per year, the world's highest rate. That is about 1.5 times the industrial world average, three times the East Asian average, and 40 times the average in Bangladesh."

Jeez, that's crazy. My family consumes less than two pounds of meat per day. Divided among five people that's only 146 lbs per year. Less than the industrial world average. I thought we were actually being pretty lax in our meat reduction, but apparently we aren't doing half bad.

260 lbs per person per year ... that's three quarter-pounders per day. No wonder we're fat.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

You are a horrible person.

I don't think I've ever denied that, but there are much better reasons to call me that.

I just don't see how we can offer a first world quality of life to everyone on the planet. Do you know how many people there are out there? It's nuts. I can't imagine there being sufficient resources or even space to allow every one of them to live with all the modern comforts most of us take for granted on a daily basis.
It's really basic biology class stuff. There are finite resources in a given environment and once population levels go high enough it becomes a very unpleasant struggle for all involved to acquire those resources. Not everyone can survive. I think we're rapidly approaching that breaking point, and I think trying to make sure everyone can live as comfortably as we do in first world countries puts us well past that point.

[Taskmage]

Re: Social Movements, Low Wage Jobs & More

The data doesn't seem to support that fear. 7 billion people is an incomprehensibly large number, but the combined world GDP of 70 trillion is equally mind-boggling. The trouble is the coordination problem of getting the right resources to the people who need them most. As to your last point I obviously agree, taking it from a world-as-it-is perspective, but not in the long run.