6 ms·

No, wages should not be higher. The cost of living should be lower. Productivity increases year over year. It should be much cheaper to have a decent life today

No, wages should not be higher. The cost of living should be lower. Productivity increases year over year. It should be much cheaper to have a decent life today than in the 60s. Plenty of people in other countries live a lot better than many Americans on a lot less money per day. We need to ask ourselves why.

maxerickson 9y ago
Potato potahto. You are both saying that a job should provide more buying power.
- rhino369 9y ago
  It's not potato pahtahto. Many US jobs are in competition with third world wages. If you raise wages 1000 dollars and increase cost of living 1000 it isn't a wash, since some companies might choose to outsource.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    Americans shouldn't be competing with workers in third world countries. That behavior leads to a race to the bottom to see what country is willing to offer the cheapest labor, lowering the standard of living for everyone except the business owners.
    - forgotmysn 9y ago
      welcome to the free market
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        I'm sorry, but this is the kind of low-effort response that I come here to avoid. There's no substance, nothing thought-provoking, just conjecture designed to illicit an emotional response.
    - malandrew 9y ago
      It doesn't necessarily have to lower the standard of living for everyone. Goods and services can get cheaper alongside purchasing power leading to the standard of living being approximately the same. It's not a problem for labor to be cheaper if the cost of living also becomes cheaper. It only lowers the standard of living if the ratio of income to cost of living drops. Those at the bottom today have a standard of living that is in many ways better than the standard of living of a billionaire a century ago. Why? Productivity gains.
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        There have absolutely been productivity gains, but those gains haven't been going to the workers. Return on labor has dropped, with the corporations seeing the gains. In the 70's in America, a laborer in a single worker family could afford a house, car, and retirement. Can a laborer in a third world country do the same?
        malandrew 9y ago
        The gains on increases in productivity have gone to workers, just not the workers being replaced. The gains are going to the workers implementing the automation that has increased productivity. The gains are also going to the consumers in the form of cheaper goods and services. Why would those not responsible for the productivity gains be entitled to those gains?
    - self-diversity 9y ago
      Well and according to metrics, it's also raising the standard of living for the world's poorest, who have been leaving poverty at record rates. It's a shame the evidence doesn't support your narrative. It's such a popular stance that one would hope it was more than a construct of untruth.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Gresham's Law. (Which turns out to be much more widely applicable than generally realised.)
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      > lowering the standard of living for everyone except the business owners. and the workers in those countries and the people who those goods and services...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
astrodust 9y ago
Why not both? You can measure a country's success not by how much its top-earners pull down but by how much those at the bottom make. > It should be much cheaper to have a decent life today than in the 60s. It would be if not for the problem of housing and transportation being vastly more expensive than they were in the 1960s. You could get a cheap suburban home back then for less than a year's salary. Try that now and you're living 300 miles from the nearest city.
- malandrew 9y ago
  > You can measure a country's success not by how much its top-earners pull down but by how much those at the bottom make. Wealth isn't measured in how much you make. It's measured in choices. You can measure a country's success by how many choices those at the bottom have. https://mises.org/blog/wealth-isnt-just-measured-money-%E2%80%94-its-measured-choices https://mises.org/blog/wealth-isnt-just-measured-money-%E2%8... > It would be if not for the problem of housing and transportation being vastly more expensive than they were in the 1960s. You could get a cheap suburban home back then for less than a year's salary. Try that now and you're living 300 miles from the nearest city. You've now correctly identified the problem. Housing costs in the US are out of control and have been for a long time because we have policies that promote housing as an investment asset that should always grow in value. Many baby boomers have their entire net worth tied up in housing and have supported policies for decades that increase the value of that asset to support their retirement. Housing has become a vehicle for an inter-generational transfer of wealth from the young to the old.
- malandrew 9y ago
  Spending trends for Americans over the last 75 years: https://howmuch.net/articles/american-spending-past-75-years https://howmuch.net/articles/american-spending-past-75-years
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  "Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged." -- Karl Marx https://goo.gl/LJh3Kh https://goo.gl/LJh3Kh
lacampbell 9y ago
I'm from one of the countries where we live a lot worse than Americans for a lot more per day (New Zealand). What first world country is 'better' in that regard than America?

maxerickson 9y ago

Potato potahto. You are both saying that a job should provide more buying power.

rhino369 9y ago
It's not potato pahtahto. Many US jobs are in competition with third world wages. If you raise wages 1000 dollars and increase cost of living 1000 it isn't a wash, since some companies might choose to outsource.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Americans shouldn't be competing with workers in third world countries. That behavior leads to a race to the bottom to see what country is willing to offer the cheapest labor, lowering the standard of living for everyone except the business owners.
  - forgotmysn 9y ago
    welcome to the free market
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      I'm sorry, but this is the kind of low-effort response that I come here to avoid. There's no substance, nothing thought-provoking, just conjecture designed to illicit an emotional response.
  - malandrew 9y ago
    It doesn't necessarily have to lower the standard of living for everyone. Goods and services can get cheaper alongside purchasing power leading to the standard of living being approximately the same. It's not a problem for labor to be cheaper if the cost of living also becomes cheaper. It only lowers the standard of living if the ratio of income to cost of living drops. Those at the bottom today have a standard of living that is in many ways better than the standard of living of a billionaire a century ago. Why? Productivity gains.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      There have absolutely been productivity gains, but those gains haven't been going to the workers. Return on labor has dropped, with the corporations seeing the gains. In the 70's in America, a laborer in a single worker family could afford a house, car, and retirement. Can a laborer in a third world country do the same?
      - malandrew 9y ago
        The gains on increases in productivity have gone to workers, just not the workers being replaced. The gains are going to the workers implementing the automation that has increased productivity. The gains are also going to the consumers in the form of cheaper goods and services. Why would those not responsible for the productivity gains be entitled to those gains?
  - self-diversity 9y ago
    Well and according to metrics, it's also raising the standard of living for the world's poorest, who have been leaving poverty at record rates. It's a shame the evidence doesn't support your narrative. It's such a popular stance that one would hope it was more than a construct of untruth.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Gresham's Law. (Which turns out to be much more widely applicable than generally realised.)
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    > lowering the standard of living for everyone except the business owners. and the workers in those countries and the people who those goods and services...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

astrodust 9y ago

Why not both? You can measure a country's success not by how much its top-earners pull down but by how much those at the bottom make. > It should be much cheaper to have a decent life today than in the 60s. It would be if not for the problem of housing and transportation being vastly more expensive than they were in the 1960s. You could get a cheap suburban home back then for less than a year's salary. Try that now and you're living 300 miles from the nearest city.

malandrew 9y ago
> You can measure a country's success not by how much its top-earners pull down but by how much those at the bottom make. Wealth isn't measured in how much you make. It's measured in choices. You can measure a country's success by how many choices those at the bottom have. https://mises.org/blog/wealth-isnt-just-measured-money-%E2%80%94-its-measured-choices https://mises.org/blog/wealth-isnt-just-measured-money-%E2%8... > It would be if not for the problem of housing and transportation being vastly more expensive than they were in the 1960s. You could get a cheap suburban home back then for less than a year's salary. Try that now and you're living 300 miles from the nearest city. You've now correctly identified the problem. Housing costs in the US are out of control and have been for a long time because we have policies that promote housing as an investment asset that should always grow in value. Many baby boomers have their entire net worth tied up in housing and have supported policies for decades that increase the value of that asset to support their retirement. Housing has become a vehicle for an inter-generational transfer of wealth from the young to the old.
malandrew 9y ago
Spending trends for Americans over the last 75 years: https://howmuch.net/articles/american-spending-past-75-years https://howmuch.net/articles/american-spending-past-75-years
dredmorbius 9y ago
"Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged." -- Karl Marx https://goo.gl/LJh3Kh https://goo.gl/LJh3Kh

lacampbell 9y ago

I'm from one of the countries where we live a lot worse than Americans for a lot more per day (New Zealand). What first world country is 'better' in that regard than America?