3 ms·

I feel like a lot of these articles ignore the fact that conditions are better than ever for almost everyone. Inequality as an absolute metric is not that relev

I feel like a lot of these articles ignore the fact that conditions are better than ever for almost everyone. Inequality as an absolute metric is not that relevant if people have more real purchasing power. And a job being undesirable is not relevant either - people shouldn’t feel entitled to getting exactly the wage they want, doing exactly the job they want, living exactly where they want, and so on. Their purchasing power is what ultimately matters. Note for example, that GDP PPP per capita is at an all time high https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita-ppp https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita-pp... Note that per IMF data, the US is higher on GDP PPP per capita than the Netherlands, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, ... that is, the countries often put on a pedestal by people on Twitter or Reddit: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/OEMDC/WEO https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/OEMDC/WEO Also poverty rate is dropping, food insecurity is dropping, and more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trumps-policies-continue-benefit-americans-especially-disadvantaged/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trumps-policie... (Original data/reports at https://census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.html https://census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.ht...)

badrequest 7y ago
> people shouldn’t feel entitled to getting exactly the wage they want, doing exactly the job they want, living exactly where they want, and so on You're attacking a strawman, nobody has called for any of these things. > poverty rate is dropping, food insecurity is dropping there should be almost none of either of these problems in the richest country on this planet
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  I don’t think it’s a straw man. I was responding to this part of the article, which suggests that jobs should also be of a certain minimum quality: > What’s more, the jobs that our “blockbuster” economy is creating aren’t just lackluster in monetary terms, but in other measures of job quality, as well. A recent Gallup survey illuminates this point. To assemble a more fine-grained portrait of American working life than federal wage and employment data can provide, the pollster asked 6,600 U.S. workers what they saw as the defining characteristics of a “good” job, then used their answers to construct a “job-quality index.” The resulting metric reflects not only a given job’s level of wages and benefits but also whether it offers career-advancement opportunities, stable hours, a sense of purpose, the ability to change unsatisfying aspects of one’s employment, and job security, among other things. The article seems bent on making this point. Earlier on the article, it notes the following in even more vague terms: > For the median job-seeker in Trump’s America, the odds may be good, but the good jobs are an oddity. To me I feel this is textbook entitlement, expecting everything to be perfect, and expecting work to be more than a voluntary two-party exchange of goods and services that participants undertake in search of utility. Isn’t this just greed and seeking luxury in a different veil? It is possible to have jobs that provide in all these dimensions but I think because everyone would want those conditions, the competition would be fierce and would diminish some qualities (like pay) as a result. If one desires extraordinary workplace circumstances they must differentiate themselves through talent or hard work. It can’t be something everyone gets for “free”.
  - cmxch 7y ago
    There is still too much in favor of employers to expect a truly voluntary exchange. The late 90's is the most recent time when you could argue employee/candidate entitlement.
Ancalagon 7y ago
Taken at face-value, your comment reads like "a significant portion of the population should not expect to live with the same quality of life their parents had, in the same city that their parents live/grew up in"
- falcolas 7y ago
  “Doing the same, or equivalent jobs.”
- hellisothers 7y ago
  People should certainly have an expectation that their quality of life could be the same if not better than their parent’s, 100%. Why should anybody be guaranteed to live in the same area they grew up in though? Why should anybody have the right to live in any particular area, especially at a particular QOL?

badrequest 7y ago

> people shouldn’t feel entitled to getting exactly the wage they want, doing exactly the job they want, living exactly where they want, and so on You're attacking a strawman, nobody has called for any of these things. > poverty rate is dropping, food insecurity is dropping there should be almost none of either of these problems in the richest country on this planet

throwawaysea 7y ago
I don’t think it’s a straw man. I was responding to this part of the article, which suggests that jobs should also be of a certain minimum quality: > What’s more, the jobs that our “blockbuster” economy is creating aren’t just lackluster in monetary terms, but in other measures of job quality, as well. A recent Gallup survey illuminates this point. To assemble a more fine-grained portrait of American working life than federal wage and employment data can provide, the pollster asked 6,600 U.S. workers what they saw as the defining characteristics of a “good” job, then used their answers to construct a “job-quality index.” The resulting metric reflects not only a given job’s level of wages and benefits but also whether it offers career-advancement opportunities, stable hours, a sense of purpose, the ability to change unsatisfying aspects of one’s employment, and job security, among other things. The article seems bent on making this point. Earlier on the article, it notes the following in even more vague terms: > For the median job-seeker in Trump’s America, the odds may be good, but the good jobs are an oddity. To me I feel this is textbook entitlement, expecting everything to be perfect, and expecting work to be more than a voluntary two-party exchange of goods and services that participants undertake in search of utility. Isn’t this just greed and seeking luxury in a different veil? It is possible to have jobs that provide in all these dimensions but I think because everyone would want those conditions, the competition would be fierce and would diminish some qualities (like pay) as a result. If one desires extraordinary workplace circumstances they must differentiate themselves through talent or hard work. It can’t be something everyone gets for “free”.
- cmxch 7y ago
  There is still too much in favor of employers to expect a truly voluntary exchange. The late 90's is the most recent time when you could argue employee/candidate entitlement.

Ancalagon 7y ago

Taken at face-value, your comment reads like "a significant portion of the population should not expect to live with the same quality of life their parents had, in the same city that their parents live/grew up in"

falcolas 7y ago
“Doing the same, or equivalent jobs.”
hellisothers 7y ago
People should certainly have an expectation that their quality of life could be the same if not better than their parent’s, 100%. Why should anybody be guaranteed to live in the same area they grew up in though? Why should anybody have the right to live in any particular area, especially at a particular QOL?