4 ms·

Tradespeople do fine in areas where the economy is good. They are still highly paid and unionized. My friend welds staircases in the Bay Area and gets paid more

by rdouble 16y ago

Tradespeople do fine in areas where the economy is good. They are still highly paid and unionized. My friend welds staircases in the Bay Area and gets paid more than most programmers. Is there really a case where an electrician or pipe fitter today makes a lower wage than they did in 1970? If anyone's salaries in the USA have remained stagnant or dropped, it's the average engineer.

nostrademons 16y ago
Engineers do fine. It's the line workers in factories and people in service jobs that have gotten screwed. It used to be that you could make a steady middle-class income as a factory worker, airline stewardess, or retail clerk. Not so much now. Tradespeople and professionals have done okay because they have marketable skills that accrue to their person, but people whose only assets are owned by their employers haven't done so well.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  It used to be that you could make a steady middle-class income as a factory worker, airline stewardess, or retail clerk. Not so much now. If you truly believe this, can you tell me what good or service the factory worker/retail clerk had back then, but lacks today?
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Health insurance.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Is health insurance which only pays for 1970's era medical care really that expensive today? Or did you mean to say that a financial product which pays for an MRI/viagra/chemotherapy today is more expensive than a financial product which paid for X-Rays/dying of cancer at home in the past? Incidentally, I can only find data going back to 1987, but it suggests little change the number of uninsured since then. http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        I made the exact same argument as you elsewhere on this thread :-) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2187130 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2187130 The problem is that health insurance isn't continuously divisible. You typically can't buy a policy that will cover only 1970s-era medical treatments. Even if you could, it brings up a host of ethical issues that many doctors wouldn't be comfortable with. Say a kid gets strep throat. Okay, give him penicillin, it's cheap and he gets better quickly. Now say that the doctors don't realize it's strep throat, or do but forget to give him penicillin, or he's got a drug resistant strain. It gets into his kidneys. Suddenly, this is expensive, requiring hospitals and diuretics and possibly dialysis. But it's 100% fixable. Should the doctors let him die because his insurance doesn't pay for modern medical treatments? This is the problem with basically all academic economics models. They make certain simplifying assumptions to make the math tractable, so that they can draw conclusions about the economy as a whole. And I have no doubt that the economy as a whole is bigger, stronger, and better than it was in the 1970s. But that glosses over all the individuals that make up the economy, some of whom are decidedly not better off than they were in the 1970s. When someone is involuntarily laid off, they're strictly worse-off than they were beforehand (otherwise, they would've voluntarily quit). The economist would say "They'll get a job in some other sector of the economy, one that's growing where their talents can be more productively employed, and be better off in the long run." And that's absolutely true, but it doesn't make things any better for that person right now when they need to put food on the table.
        _delirium 16y ago
        Some 1970s-era medical treatments simply aren't purchasable, either, either due to practical/economies-of-scale reasons or due to changes in the world. Anything that requires technology/manufacturing has a sort of cliff, where you can use the current technology (or perhaps one generation back), or you can use very primitive treatments, but not much in between. You could dig through the history of technological advances for some particular device, and make the rational decision that Generation 3 of the device is the optimal one for you on the price/benefit curve. But if we're on Generation 9 currently, you simply can't use Generation 3 machines, sorry, because nobody makes them and no hospital/doctor still uses them, and the FDA might not even allow their use anymore; you use a recent one, or none at all. Some drugs have a not-really-available effect as well. I might actually be happy with penicillin as my antibiotic of choice... if it had 1970s levels of efficacy. Unfortunately, resistance to penicillin has greatly increased, so "1970s penicillin that works like it was the 1970s" just isn't a product you can buy anymore. Somewhat of interest to me, because if it were possible to buy 1970s-era health insurance that worked like it was the 1970s, I might actually do it, with a few a-la-carte exceptions. I've read some of the literature that tries to quantify the effect of new medical technology on health outcomes, and the single biggest one for adults appears to be better vaccinations, so I'd definitely still get a modern vaccination schedule. A second worthwhile one is improved surgery techniques, especially arthroscopic surgeries that reduce the need for traditional open-wound surgeries, and thus also reduce many infection/etc. complications. But a lot of the increase in expense is stuff I would be willing to opt out of if it were an option: 1) huge increase in heroic last-6-months care; and 2) chronic-condition drugs like Viagra, SSRIs, Ritalin, statins, beta blockers, etc. Not that those have no arguable benefits, but if I had the choice to purchase a health-insurance plan that excluded those categories, that would fit my cost/benefit analysis.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- rdouble 16y ago
  I don't know if I buy that. Is there data that shows retail clerk wages declining over time? I happen to have a factory worker, airline stewardess, and retail clerk in my extended family and their wages have all increased over the past 20 years. I mean, not by amazing amounts, but definitely I wouldn't say they are doing worse than they were before.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Wages by industry: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb2.txt Historical CPI: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt From 1964-2010, weekly manufacturing wages rose from $102.59 to $765.08/week. "Private service-providing" jobs (which includes retail) went from $98.10 to $606.14. Over that same time period, the CPI rose from an index of 30.9 to to 216.687, an increase of 7x. In real terms, retail wages have fallen by about 12%, manufacturing wages have just barely kept pace with inflation.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      CPI overestimated inflation by 130 basis points until 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskin_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskin_Commission Correcting for this error, retail wages have risen 33% and manufacturing wages have increased about 50%.
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        It's really funny to have you arguing in one subthread that inflation is overestimated by the official numbers, and then have some other guy arguing in another subthread that inflation is underestimated by the official numbers: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2187047 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2187047 My position is basically that the CPI, like all statistics, is fundamentally inaccurate, but it's as likely to be biased high as it is to be biased low. I think you're both proving my point on this. :-) Anyway, the table I linked to was published last month, so presumably they've already taken the Boskin Commission findings into account and retroactively fixed the earlier numbers.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Actually that was only true in a very short span of time in the fifties and sixties because there was a bubble in manufacturing since Europe and Japan needed to be rebuild, in some cases almost from scratch. Compare today with a hundred years ago, and those people had it far worse.

by rdouble 16y ago

nostrademons 16y ago

Engineers do fine. It's the line workers in factories and people in service jobs that have gotten screwed. It used to be that you could make a steady middle-class income as a factory worker, airline stewardess, or retail clerk. Not so much now. Tradespeople and professionals have done okay because they have marketable skills that accrue to their person, but people whose only assets are owned by their employers haven't done so well.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
It used to be that you could make a steady middle-class income as a factory worker, airline stewardess, or retail clerk. Not so much now. If you truly believe this, can you tell me what good or service the factory worker/retail clerk had back then, but lacks today?
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Health insurance.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Is health insurance which only pays for 1970's era medical care really that expensive today? Or did you mean to say that a financial product which pays for an MRI/viagra/chemotherapy today is more expensive than a financial product which paid for X-Rays/dying of cancer at home in the past? Incidentally, I can only find data going back to 1987, but it suggests little change the number of uninsured since then. http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      I made the exact same argument as you elsewhere on this thread :-) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2187130 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2187130 The problem is that health insurance isn't continuously divisible. You typically can't buy a policy that will cover only 1970s-era medical treatments. Even if you could, it brings up a host of ethical issues that many doctors wouldn't be comfortable with. Say a kid gets strep throat. Okay, give him penicillin, it's cheap and he gets better quickly. Now say that the doctors don't realize it's strep throat, or do but forget to give him penicillin, or he's got a drug resistant strain. It gets into his kidneys. Suddenly, this is expensive, requiring hospitals and diuretics and possibly dialysis. But it's 100% fixable. Should the doctors let him die because his insurance doesn't pay for modern medical treatments? This is the problem with basically all academic economics models. They make certain simplifying assumptions to make the math tractable, so that they can draw conclusions about the economy as a whole. And I have no doubt that the economy as a whole is bigger, stronger, and better than it was in the 1970s. But that glosses over all the individuals that make up the economy, some of whom are decidedly not better off than they were in the 1970s. When someone is involuntarily laid off, they're strictly worse-off than they were beforehand (otherwise, they would've voluntarily quit). The economist would say "They'll get a job in some other sector of the economy, one that's growing where their talents can be more productively employed, and be better off in the long run." And that's absolutely true, but it doesn't make things any better for that person right now when they need to put food on the table.
      - _delirium 16y ago
        Some 1970s-era medical treatments simply aren't purchasable, either, either due to practical/economies-of-scale reasons or due to changes in the world. Anything that requires technology/manufacturing has a sort of cliff, where you can use the current technology (or perhaps one generation back), or you can use very primitive treatments, but not much in between. You could dig through the history of technological advances for some particular device, and make the rational decision that Generation 3 of the device is the optimal one for you on the price/benefit curve. But if we're on Generation 9 currently, you simply can't use Generation 3 machines, sorry, because nobody makes them and no hospital/doctor still uses them, and the FDA might not even allow their use anymore; you use a recent one, or none at all. Some drugs have a not-really-available effect as well. I might actually be happy with penicillin as my antibiotic of choice... if it had 1970s levels of efficacy. Unfortunately, resistance to penicillin has greatly increased, so "1970s penicillin that works like it was the 1970s" just isn't a product you can buy anymore. Somewhat of interest to me, because if it were possible to buy 1970s-era health insurance that worked like it was the 1970s, I might actually do it, with a few a-la-carte exceptions. I've read some of the literature that tries to quantify the effect of new medical technology on health outcomes, and the single biggest one for adults appears to be better vaccinations, so I'd definitely still get a modern vaccination schedule. A second worthwhile one is improved surgery techniques, especially arthroscopic surgeries that reduce the need for traditional open-wound surgeries, and thus also reduce many infection/etc. complications. But a lot of the increase in expense is stuff I would be willing to opt out of if it were an option: 1) huge increase in heroic last-6-months care; and 2) chronic-condition drugs like Viagra, SSRIs, Ritalin, statins, beta blockers, etc. Not that those have no arguable benefits, but if I had the choice to purchase a health-insurance plan that excluded those categories, that would fit my cost/benefit analysis.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
rdouble 16y ago
I don't know if I buy that. Is there data that shows retail clerk wages declining over time? I happen to have a factory worker, airline stewardess, and retail clerk in my extended family and their wages have all increased over the past 20 years. I mean, not by amazing amounts, but definitely I wouldn't say they are doing worse than they were before.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Wages by industry: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb2.txt Historical CPI: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt From 1964-2010, weekly manufacturing wages rose from $102.59 to $765.08/week. "Private service-providing" jobs (which includes retail) went from $98.10 to $606.14. Over that same time period, the CPI rose from an index of 30.9 to to 216.687, an increase of 7x. In real terms, retail wages have fallen by about 12%, manufacturing wages have just barely kept pace with inflation.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    CPI overestimated inflation by 130 basis points until 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskin_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskin_Commission Correcting for this error, retail wages have risen 33% and manufacturing wages have increased about 50%.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      It's really funny to have you arguing in one subthread that inflation is overestimated by the official numbers, and then have some other guy arguing in another subthread that inflation is underestimated by the official numbers: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2187047 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2187047 My position is basically that the CPI, like all statistics, is fundamentally inaccurate, but it's as likely to be biased high as it is to be biased low. I think you're both proving my point on this. :-) Anyway, the table I linked to was published last month, so presumably they've already taken the Boskin Commission findings into account and retroactively fixed the earlier numbers.
tomjen3 16y ago
Actually that was only true in a very short span of time in the fifties and sixties because there was a bubble in manufacturing since Europe and Japan needed to be rebuild, in some cases almost from scratch. Compare today with a hundred years ago, and those people had it far worse.