3 ms·

What exactly is a "good" job in your opinion?

gloryjulio 4y ago
What I mean is on macro perceptive, a good job should sustain a 'middle class' life style, let the ppl to afford housing, cars, children etc. And apparently by this standard, the percentage of good jobs are shrinking, and it's a global phenomena. Shrinking middle is not something I come up with. I just totally agree with it. Think about the good old days in America We have increasing number of ppl getting higher educations, coupled with shrinking good job markets, the competitions to get good jobs is only more fierce by the day. Whatever the reason, the automation, the shifting economy, the depletion of resources, the fact doesn't change. The supply of university graduates just outpase the shrinking 'good middle class' job markets.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  In the developed world there are so many industries that pay well screaming for more workers. Go on any job board and you can see this. The problem is people get some random "lifestyle" degree (like in Classics say) and then say "why can't I get a job with this?". Maybe because the modern economy has very limited demand for archaeologists? But if you learn virtually any trade, anything to do with IT, many forms of social work/healthcare, many parts of accounting/bookkeeping, then a middle class job is possible. The problem is then you start getting all these qualifications to why that isn't the "right" job they want. Maybe you need to do physical work, or work outside, or work with computers/software, or work with numbers, or work somewhere dirty, or work outside a global city, or work with sick people, or join the military etc. And then suddenly it isn't a "good job" anymore. Being a university graduate means so little these days because you can graduate in so many things that should basically be (or are) hobbies. There is no demand from customers, business, government for any of these "qualifications" so all people end up with is an inflated ego and debt.
  - gloryjulio 4y ago
    You are talking about micro. I am talking about macro as I indicated in my first sentence. I am not interested in discussing anecdote. As someone who lives comfortably for now I can't imagine the new graduates are able to get a home, raising children. It's just too expensive. Majority of the ppl would live working poor no matter how much cost they cut. Think about this simple question. Do you think the percentage of ppl are capable to become home owner are comparable to 50-60 years ago in America? Is the cost of living getting higher or lower?
    - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
      Depends where they want to buy a home and of what size/quality. As it always has. I agree the housing market is a bit fucked but that is a problem with the housing market, not the job market. Don't get the two confused. Land taxes should be implemented to help fix the morally bankrupt way housing is treated in this country.
      - gloryjulio 4y ago
        But my point is the current macro economy, which includes BOTH supply and demand and ALL things considered. For example, the job market(current situation + forecast) relative to the amount the applications(current candidate pool + yearly growth), the cost of living(current situation + forecast), etc. I am not sure what your point is. I never solely talked about the job market. My central question is: is it easier or harder to get a good job to sustain a middle class compare to 50-60 years ago(from a macro economy perspective)? Sure everyone has a chance, is the chance higher or lower? If you can't really tell what micro/macro mean, you should pick up those economy topics first. I am done trying to teach basic econ 101
        TapWaterBandit 4y ago
        You are confusing a lot of different things. The pool of available jobs open to people is very high if they are willing to train and do them. Cost of living has been lower on average than in recent memory (only recently has inflation begun to change this). Housing is the big exception but that is one aspect of the overall macro-economic picture. As for your econ 101 comment: econ 101 IS MICROECONOMICS, you clown. 102 is macroeconomics. So pretty clear you are talking out your arse so no point trying to teach you the basics. .

What I mean is on macro perceptive, a good job should sustain a 'middle class' life style, let the ppl to afford housing, cars, children etc. And apparently by this standard, the percentage of good jobs are shrinking, and it's a global phenomena. Shrinking middle is not something I come up with. I just totally agree with it. Think about the good old days in America We have increasing number of ppl getting higher educations, coupled with shrinking good job markets, the competitions to get good jobs is only more fierce by the day. Whatever the reason, the automation, the shifting economy, the depletion of resources, the fact doesn't change. The supply of university graduates just outpase the shrinking 'good middle class' job markets.

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
In the developed world there are so many industries that pay well screaming for more workers. Go on any job board and you can see this. The problem is people get some random "lifestyle" degree (like in Classics say) and then say "why can't I get a job with this?". Maybe because the modern economy has very limited demand for archaeologists? But if you learn virtually any trade, anything to do with IT, many forms of social work/healthcare, many parts of accounting/bookkeeping, then a middle class job is possible. The problem is then you start getting all these qualifications to why that isn't the "right" job they want. Maybe you need to do physical work, or work outside, or work with computers/software, or work with numbers, or work somewhere dirty, or work outside a global city, or work with sick people, or join the military etc. And then suddenly it isn't a "good job" anymore. Being a university graduate means so little these days because you can graduate in so many things that should basically be (or are) hobbies. There is no demand from customers, business, government for any of these "qualifications" so all people end up with is an inflated ego and debt.
- gloryjulio 4y ago
  You are talking about micro. I am talking about macro as I indicated in my first sentence. I am not interested in discussing anecdote. As someone who lives comfortably for now I can't imagine the new graduates are able to get a home, raising children. It's just too expensive. Majority of the ppl would live working poor no matter how much cost they cut. Think about this simple question. Do you think the percentage of ppl are capable to become home owner are comparable to 50-60 years ago in America? Is the cost of living getting higher or lower?
  - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
    Depends where they want to buy a home and of what size/quality. As it always has. I agree the housing market is a bit fucked but that is a problem with the housing market, not the job market. Don't get the two confused. Land taxes should be implemented to help fix the morally bankrupt way housing is treated in this country.
    - gloryjulio 4y ago
      But my point is the current macro economy, which includes BOTH supply and demand and ALL things considered. For example, the job market(current situation + forecast) relative to the amount the applications(current candidate pool + yearly growth), the cost of living(current situation + forecast), etc. I am not sure what your point is. I never solely talked about the job market. My central question is: is it easier or harder to get a good job to sustain a middle class compare to 50-60 years ago(from a macro economy perspective)? Sure everyone has a chance, is the chance higher or lower? If you can't really tell what micro/macro mean, you should pick up those economy topics first. I am done trying to teach basic econ 101
      - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
        You are confusing a lot of different things. The pool of available jobs open to people is very high if they are willing to train and do them. Cost of living has been lower on average than in recent memory (only recently has inflation begun to change this). Housing is the big exception but that is one aspect of the overall macro-economic picture. As for your econ 101 comment: econ 101 IS MICROECONOMICS, you clown. 102 is macroeconomics. So pretty clear you are talking out your arse so no point trying to teach you the basics. .