4 ms·

Two words. Real wages. They are at historic lows. > Turns out that when there's less incentive to do things, less gets done.

sturgill 10y ago
Real wages didn't get higher when they got kicked out of the basement. The difference is they had to do something in order to feed themselves. I think a 20 y/o who lives with their parents so they can play video games is a sloth. I fully intend to teach my kids the same. I expect them to leave and take care of themselves even if the only opportunities available to them are blue collar / manual labor that pay very little. The decrease in real wages lowers the incentive to work. But so does a society that views playing video games in your parents' basement in lieue of entering the workforce as acceptable. That probably sounds harsh, but (at least from the article) it seems like these people haven't had difficulties getting jobs when they're in their 30s with equally poor experience. They're just ten years behind the earnings curve.
- internaut 10y ago
  I don't really disagree. Some of it is attitude. That and what the book the Millionaire Next Door referred to as Economic Outpatient Care. It is just that in the past the standard of living also was raised, and the market had to bear higher costs to motivate people to work. If you examine the pay of our grandparents and parents you see they experienced very considerable wage growth in their lifetimes while the standard of living was rising, like by a factor of 10. Roofing contractors were paid a dollar a day in 1900! That impetus is missing from the labour market today. It is partly that some of the people mentioned in the study feel like they have better things to do, but a lot of it has to do with the trajectory and speed of wage growth. When you feel like your prospects are 'capped', you're bound to be less motivated. I've heard employers whining they can't find the right people in the WSJ and NYT for some time now (subtext: at subpar rates of pay) and I think this should be treated with the same reverence given to lazy bones on the coach there. None.

sturgill 10y ago

Real wages didn't get higher when they got kicked out of the basement. The difference is they had to do something in order to feed themselves. I think a 20 y/o who lives with their parents so they can play video games is a sloth. I fully intend to teach my kids the same. I expect them to leave and take care of themselves even if the only opportunities available to them are blue collar / manual labor that pay very little. The decrease in real wages lowers the incentive to work. But so does a society that views playing video games in your parents' basement in lieue of entering the workforce as acceptable. That probably sounds harsh, but (at least from the article) it seems like these people haven't had difficulties getting jobs when they're in their 30s with equally poor experience. They're just ten years behind the earnings curve.

internaut 10y ago
I don't really disagree. Some of it is attitude. That and what the book the Millionaire Next Door referred to as Economic Outpatient Care. It is just that in the past the standard of living also was raised, and the market had to bear higher costs to motivate people to work. If you examine the pay of our grandparents and parents you see they experienced very considerable wage growth in their lifetimes while the standard of living was rising, like by a factor of 10. Roofing contractors were paid a dollar a day in 1900! That impetus is missing from the labour market today. It is partly that some of the people mentioned in the study feel like they have better things to do, but a lot of it has to do with the trajectory and speed of wage growth. When you feel like your prospects are 'capped', you're bound to be less motivated. I've heard employers whining they can't find the right people in the WSJ and NYT for some time now (subtext: at subpar rates of pay) and I think this should be treated with the same reverence given to lazy bones on the coach there. None.