4 ms·

Is there something wrong with toll collectors making an average of $70,000?

by altano 18y ago

byrneseyeview 18y ago
We are paying them $70,000 per year to do something that could be done for $7/hour (or automated completely).
- jimbokun 18y ago
  I think there is something going on here that our society is having a hard time coming to terms with. We continue to find ways to increase productivity and increase wealth. But, there is increasingly little correlation between that and increases in wages. Or, perhaps, an inverse correlation. We are probably misunderestimating the impact this is going to have on our society.
  - byrneseyeview 18y ago
    Increased productivity means more goods and services per unit of input. So unless inflation matches or exceeds productivity growth, we would expect wages and other prices to decline. I'm not too upset by this -- as a member of the lower middle class, I'm probably not making what I would have made if I'd been born 20 years earlier. On the other hand, to get the same amount of music as my iPod nano, I'd probably have to buy a crate or two of walkmen.
    - jimbokun 18y ago
      You're happy with the trade off of getting higher capacity in your ipod, versus skyrocketing costs for basics like food and energy against flat incomes? It's no longer as clear as it once seemed that steady increases in the standard of living for the common man can be taken as a given.
      - byrneseyeview 18y ago
        Food and energy are a pretty small proportion of my expenditures, compared to discretionary stuff like books, movies, etc. One would expect energy to increase in price over time, per Hotelling's research (the return from investing in energy assets can only beat the return from savings if these assets go up in value over time). It's no longer as clear as it once seemed that steady increases in the standard of living for the common man can be taken as a given. Well, that depends. If we have overestimated the availability of finite resources, that is true. But just saying so isn't enough -- to be taken seriously, you should rephrase your belief as something like "As my long energy, long basic materials, and short consumer discretionaries portfolio demonstrates, I believe that higher prices for energy and basic materials, coupled with lower average wages, will reduce the standard of living and thus reduce consumption of non-essential goods." And there's a catch-22, here: if you and all the other people who talk that way are also investing that way, energy and basic materials prices will rise, to the point that balance is restored.
gojomo 18y ago
It's mind-killing work from both the monotony and the monoxide. And it could be done by cheap technology. The state is wasting its money; the collectors are wasting their human potential.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  The state is wasting its money Hmmm. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/96983232_d80801a108.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/96983232_d80801a108.jpg
- bsaunder 18y ago
  I'm concerned that this is the by-product of politicians "creating jobs". We should be focused on improving our global quality of life, not providing employment. Unfortunately this would imply lots of unemployed less skilled workers (e.g. said toll booth folks).
  - corentin 18y ago
    They don't even create employment, since the salary of government workers comes from the taxpayer's pocket, and would have been used to employ other people. There is always something to do for less skilled workers, so there's nothing wrong with automation.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    Unfortunately this would imply lots of unemployed less skilled workers How would that be unfortunate? http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html The public often literally believes that labor is better to use than conserve.
jkent 18y ago
Taking in to account the unpleasant working conditions and hours they face, it does seem like union pressure could be pushing that up high. Ultimately any cost savings could be passed back to the taxpayers.
tjic 18y ago
Aside from the "robots could do it cheaper", it is a misallocation of resources, and that makes all of us poorer. The job is worth minimum wage ($12,000 / yr or so) at best. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at that price. Some of these folks have so few skills that they would still work this job. Other of these folks have higher skills, and isntead of using them in some productive role (manager at a pharmacy, etc.), they're wasting their skills sitting on a stool making change. If you think that it's a good thing for unskilled labor to be paid - because of union monopolization of labor - far far above it's productive level, then why not make the minimum wage $70k/yr for everyone? Or better yet, $120k/yr ?
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  The job is worth minimum wage ($12,000 / yr or so) at best. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at that price. A labor-market with a minimum wage is not a free market. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at one dollar per hour. But how could they afford to live? "Basic income" (unconditional trickle-capital) and deregulated construction and real-estate (e.g. $60/month apartments in major markets). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
- jimbokun 18y ago
  "far far above it's productive level, then why not make the minimum wage $70k/yr for everyone?" I'm intrigued with the idea of the government just delivering a bucket of money to every household once a year. An advantage is that you place some sort of floor under everyone's income, that would mitigate against basic poverty issues like homelessness, no money for food or health care, etc. Another advantage is that everyone still has the same incentives to work, because they can get ahead without worrying about losing their assistance from being too successful. And (bringing back to HN) having certain necessities taken care of could enable risk taking and entrepeneurship. Basically, the government paying for you ramen noodles, instead of pg :). I know there are lots of potential problems with this idea, but I've seen it proposed before, and think it makes a good starting point for a discussion of thinking of things like poverty, minimum wage, health care, etc. in a different way.

Is there something wrong with toll collectors making an average of $70,000?

by altano 18y ago

Is there something wrong with toll collectors making an average of $70,000?

byrneseyeview 18y ago

We are paying them $70,000 per year to do something that could be done for $7/hour (or automated completely).

jimbokun 18y ago
I think there is something going on here that our society is having a hard time coming to terms with. We continue to find ways to increase productivity and increase wealth. But, there is increasingly little correlation between that and increases in wages. Or, perhaps, an inverse correlation. We are probably misunderestimating the impact this is going to have on our society.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  Increased productivity means more goods and services per unit of input. So unless inflation matches or exceeds productivity growth, we would expect wages and other prices to decline. I'm not too upset by this -- as a member of the lower middle class, I'm probably not making what I would have made if I'd been born 20 years earlier. On the other hand, to get the same amount of music as my iPod nano, I'd probably have to buy a crate or two of walkmen.
  - jimbokun 18y ago
    You're happy with the trade off of getting higher capacity in your ipod, versus skyrocketing costs for basics like food and energy against flat incomes? It's no longer as clear as it once seemed that steady increases in the standard of living for the common man can be taken as a given.
    - byrneseyeview 18y ago
      Food and energy are a pretty small proportion of my expenditures, compared to discretionary stuff like books, movies, etc. One would expect energy to increase in price over time, per Hotelling's research (the return from investing in energy assets can only beat the return from savings if these assets go up in value over time). It's no longer as clear as it once seemed that steady increases in the standard of living for the common man can be taken as a given. Well, that depends. If we have overestimated the availability of finite resources, that is true. But just saying so isn't enough -- to be taken seriously, you should rephrase your belief as something like "As my long energy, long basic materials, and short consumer discretionaries portfolio demonstrates, I believe that higher prices for energy and basic materials, coupled with lower average wages, will reduce the standard of living and thus reduce consumption of non-essential goods." And there's a catch-22, here: if you and all the other people who talk that way are also investing that way, energy and basic materials prices will rise, to the point that balance is restored.

gojomo 18y ago

It's mind-killing work from both the monotony and the monoxide. And it could be done by cheap technology. The state is wasting its money; the collectors are wasting their human potential.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
The state is wasting its money Hmmm. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/96983232_d80801a108.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/96983232_d80801a108.jpg
bsaunder 18y ago
I'm concerned that this is the by-product of politicians "creating jobs". We should be focused on improving our global quality of life, not providing employment. Unfortunately this would imply lots of unemployed less skilled workers (e.g. said toll booth folks).
- corentin 18y ago
  They don't even create employment, since the salary of government workers comes from the taxpayer's pocket, and would have been used to employ other people. There is always something to do for less skilled workers, so there's nothing wrong with automation.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  Unfortunately this would imply lots of unemployed less skilled workers How would that be unfortunate? http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html The public often literally believes that labor is better to use than conserve.

jkent 18y ago

Taking in to account the unpleasant working conditions and hours they face, it does seem like union pressure could be pushing that up high. Ultimately any cost savings could be passed back to the taxpayers.

tjic 18y ago

Aside from the "robots could do it cheaper", it is a misallocation of resources, and that makes all of us poorer. The job is worth minimum wage ($12,000 / yr or so) at best. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at that price. Some of these folks have so few skills that they would still work this job. Other of these folks have higher skills, and isntead of using them in some productive role (manager at a pharmacy, etc.), they're wasting their skills sitting on a stool making change. If you think that it's a good thing for unskilled labor to be paid - because of union monopolization of labor - far far above it's productive level, then why not make the minimum wage $70k/yr for everyone? Or better yet, $120k/yr ?

DabAsteroid 18y ago
The job is worth minimum wage ($12,000 / yr or so) at best. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at that price. A labor-market with a minimum wage is not a free market. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at one dollar per hour. But how could they afford to live? "Basic income" (unconditional trickle-capital) and deregulated construction and real-estate (e.g. $60/month apartments in major markets). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
jimbokun 18y ago
"far far above it's productive level, then why not make the minimum wage $70k/yr for everyone?" I'm intrigued with the idea of the government just delivering a bucket of money to every household once a year. An advantage is that you place some sort of floor under everyone's income, that would mitigate against basic poverty issues like homelessness, no money for food or health care, etc. Another advantage is that everyone still has the same incentives to work, because they can get ahead without worrying about losing their assistance from being too successful. And (bringing back to HN) having certain necessities taken care of could enable risk taking and entrepeneurship. Basically, the government paying for you ramen noodles, instead of pg :). I know there are lots of potential problems with this idea, but I've seen it proposed before, and think it makes a good starting point for a discussion of thinking of things like poverty, minimum wage, health care, etc. in a different way.