9 ms·

If I were to be snarky I'd say that young people have everything stacked against them, economically speaking, that they realized that no amount of hard work wil

If I were to be snarky I'd say that young people have everything stacked against them, economically speaking, that they realized that no amount of hard work will ever get them out ahead, so why bother working hard? Just to make your boss or shareholders richer? If you won't be able to afford a house anyway, why bother working hard? Just do the bare minimum and at least enjoy some of your free time in a minimalist way. It's a consequence of economic inequality we have created. If you want people to work hard you have to make it worth it for them, otherwise they check out of the economy, check out of having kids, etc. and blaming them for buying lattes, avocado toast and airpods isn't the real problem no matter how much you call them lazy and entitled. Worker productivity has skyrocketed since the '70, but the workers' wage growth lagged far behind. What didn't lag behind was basic necessities like housing, education, healthcare, childcare. Good thing commodities like cars, TVs and smartphones got cheaper though, amirite? People worked hard in the past because the local company they worked for contributed back to the community and was owned by locals you could see, interact with, hold accountable or riot against them, so even though those were still ruthless capitalists, they also had their limits at which they would exploit their own living environment and contributed back to the community in some way (trainings, apprenticeships, schools, hospitals, charities, kindergartens, etc.) But now, after decades of corporate mergers and acquisitions, when most land, natural resource and means of production is owned by some giant faceless publicly traded mega-corp with HQ in some offshore tax heaven, who's only interest is extracting as much as possible from your community for the benefit of the shareholders, without giving anything back (not even taxes), and you are just a disposable commodity in an excel sheet for them, then why bother?

newsclues 4y ago
I fall into the group of people you are talking about. And yet, having a good leader for a manger or boss will still get me to work hard(er), but that is such a rare occurrence.
- number6 4y ago
  What does a good leader do? Or better phrased: what makes a good leader in your eyes?
  - sirwhinesalot 4y ago
    Not the same person, but for me it is hard to put into words, you kinda just know it almost instantly when you start working with one. By far the most important trait is that they know their team and their strengths and weaknesses, put them doing the right tasks for their skillset, and trust them to get the job done. The second most important trait is a clear vision. They know what they need to achieve, what resources they need and/or have available, and don't waste time on pointless busywork (like scrum poker) Working with someone like that makes work very rewarding. It is unfortunately almost impossible to find such a leader in most big companies as their company structure with 30 layers and PMs and what not simply does not allow it.
  - hardware2win 4y ago
    Talking about CEOs: Competent, has solid strategy, can execute it.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Good leaders are like good parents. They provide their workers the tools they need to succeed without being overly prescriptive; they hold their workers accountable without being harshly judgmental or showing undue favoritism; they care about their workers and desire their success; they are respected by their workers while at the same respecting their workers.
  - afpx 4y ago
    Has clear vision, can communicate clearly, eliminates distractions, hires talented people, aligns team with goals, goes forward undaunted, reduces team stress.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    Good leaders are people who put their subordinates and mission above themselves. I used to work at a summer camp and during meal time, it was easy to tell who the good leaders were. They weren't the people at the front of the line before their campers. The good leaders made sure their subordinates ate first and they waited to eat last and ate with their campers, rather than the staff table.
pjmlp 4y ago
Old workers also know that only the team matters, and everyone is expendable. If anything, I guess finally US is catching up with the fact that most countries don't have a workaholic culture, and people rather work to live, not live to work.
number6 4y ago
Young people work very hard when they are doing something worth their while. You see young people in NGOs working all day without close to no pay. You are right. There is nothing in for young people working in a company their dream they don't share. It doesn't even make the ends meet, so why bother?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Better thesis than the WSJ could do. “Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.” 1.8 million people over the age of 55 die every year in the US (per US CDC). This labor pool will dwindle over time.
  - saulpw 4y ago
    According to https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/ there are about 20m people in the 50-55 category. So about 4m people age into the over 55 category every year (for now anyway). This is a lot more than those 1.8m people who are dying each year. This is just the "aging population" problem, what better solution than to put them to work?
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propping-up-us-economy https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propp...
    - cableshaft 4y ago
      > So about 4m people age into the over 55 category every year (for now anyway). This is a lot more than those 1.8m people who are dying each year. Spoiler alert: those 4m people aging into over 55 were likely already working, so they're not taking a bunch of 'new jobs' , just shifting roles (and vacating their previous roles). You're still losing that 1.8m per year. You have to look at the other end of the job pool for new entrants, those turning 18, and see what their attitudes are. That's the parent comment's argument. The younger people will take up a larger and larger percentage of the 'under 55 year old workforce' and have a very different relationship with work than those that are currently over 55. Eventually they'll take enough of a chunk of the workforce that corporations will have no choice but to accommodate, because they can't just keep tapping into the dwindling 'people who will overwork themselves into an early grave' demographic to make up for it.
lordnacho 4y ago
I agree more and more with this sentiment as time passes. Nothing has been left for the kids. Everything has been financialized, and the effect of that is that everything is priced so that you can't get much out of it. Smart kid, likes math and science? You used to be able to get into a university relatively easily, with decent but not top few percent grades. When you got there you wouldn't be saddled with huge debt. When you finished there was a decent chance to stay in the academy. Try getting tenure now. When you left uni you could find a job because not everyone wanted the same few jobs. People aren't stupid, they've realised some jobs get all the pay. Now it's either the dream job, or get a job that you can't be happy with. Now try buying a house with that average job. You can't, not even with years of work. On top of it all the ideology of the previous generation is that it's all your own fault. People who had a huge leg up after the war seem to believe it was all them and everyone should should just work harder. Edit: Let me continue my rant: Not only is everything a contest, it starts at a young age, before you even know what you want to be when you grow up. If your parents are rich, they know what levers to pull. If kiddo is gonna work in banking, they will find someone to let junior sit on a desk for a week so they can say they have experience. If you have a selective school system, the parents will spend money on tutors. I was astonished to find my kid was the only one not being tutored right through the summer, several times a week. I watched a documentary about Korean schools where the kids are in school during their entire waking hours. There's got to be a different sort of childhood. Back to economics. We have instituted a system where the incumbents are bailed out when they mess up. It used to be that some old guy who had gotten out of touch with his customers would hit the rocks and have to close down. That would create an opening for some younger person, probably an employee in that industry. Every level in the food chain benefits from this, whether it's a multinational breaking up their widget division or the local restaurant. Nowadays, biding your time is wasting your time. You're in a pyramid that gets very sharp at the top, and there are no pieces falling off. Finally, voting and demographics. People who are retiring in the next few years are a huge voting block across many countries (even ones that aren't democratic, lol) and they will want their needs met by people who are working. It's not going to be viable to tell them "hey you didn't in aggregate raise enough productive kids, you made your bed now lie in it". So the terms of trade with younger generations will simply be changed so that younger people face worse and worse deals than the boomers.
stormfather 4y ago
Just to back this up with some data: "In 1989, when baby boomers were around the same age as millennials are today, they controlled 21% of the nation’s wealth. That’s almost five times as much as what millennials own today." On top of that housing and university costs have exploded in the same time. And now inflation counters even investing in a good mutual fund. I have had to move to a third world country, working remotely in tech, to even have a chance at a normal family like I grew up in. Then there's the media manipulation. Both domestic political parties, as well as foreign states, have become extremely adept at making us hate each other. There's no philia left at all. When I extrapolate all this out, my kids will be poor and my grandkids will be revolutionaries.
Dalewyn 4y ago
[flagged]
- PeterisP 4y ago
  Lattes and iPhones are insignificantly cheap compared to modern costs of housing, medicine and childcare; it's perfectly reasonable that someone can afford the former but can't afford the latter.
  - 7speter 4y ago
    And if you know how to use your iphone you can get all sorts of valuable information from it.
- criddell 4y ago
  I don’t blame you for rolling your eyes. Strawmen can’t even have babies!
  - yladiz 4y ago
    What if it’s a replicant kind of situation though?
- RajT88 4y ago
  Lattes and iPhones are an order of magnitude cheaper than having a kid... Especially since you can easily afford slightly older apple devices. Especially if you have anything less than great health insurance. (Even mine at a huge tech company has moved to 5k deductible + HSA)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- oceansea 4y ago
  Let’s say someone buys an iPhone and 4 lattes per week: each latte costs about $4, and a new iPhone is $25 per month on a payment plan. Let’s do the math now. $16(x)4=$64, and that’s your total latte spend per month. Add on the iPhone and it’s at $79, but let’s round up to $80 $80(x)12 months = $960 Wow those fools spending their $960 which if they saved they would be able to put 20% down on a $400,000 home in only… 80 YEARS OF SAVING Yeah I think the latte and iPhone is more pleasure then saving until death for nothing at all. Do the math next time.
epups 4y ago
People didn't work so hard before because they felt like they earned a fair share - has this ever been the case before? They did it out of necessity, cultural expectations and personal fulfillment. The first two factors have changed a lot, but it's the third one that keeps me going. I personally feel much better if I use all my brain and a ton of energy at work. I've had a couple of jobs where this wasn't the case, and I found myself much less happy and, ironically, exhausted. At least in my case, working hard has led to a lot of opportunities for learning and growing, and money followed too. Not enough to buy a house, that's true, but I live a more comfortable life than my parents who did have a house. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while the game might be rigged at a high level, my personal experience is that working hard still puts me where I would like to be.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  Do you have a job like in the article? A close to minimum wage job at a packing station. Which of the 3 factors would keep you there
  - epups 4y ago
    There were many kinds of jobs discussed in the article. And I think the defeatist sentiment in the parent did not come from a person working on a minimum wage job.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > People didn't work so hard before because they felt like they earned a fair share - has this ever been the case before? It's always been the case and research shows that when employees feel that they are valued, trusted, and fairly compensated their performance improves (for examples see https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/well-being https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/well-being or https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2021/1751495/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2021/1751495/ or https://www.ijlass.org/data/frontImages/gallery/Vol._3_No._1/10._92-104.pdf https://www.ijlass.org/data/frontImages/gallery/Vol._3_No._1...) > They did it out of necessity, cultural expectations and personal fulfillment. Necessity and cultural expectations might make someone seek and maintain employment, but being treated fairly makes them work harder, makes them more loyal, and leads to better outcomes. Demoralizing employees is always going to result in reduced productivity. It may be true that the work you do is is fulfilling enough to prevent you from being demoralized even if your employer treats you like shit, but I doubt most people feel that strongly about their work. If they aren't earning enough to take care of themselves, let alone their families, morale isn't going to be very high. Hard work can lead to financial security, fair compensation, and professional fulfillment, but there is no guarantee that it will. It's an employers job to convince their employees that their hard work is worthwhile and will pay off for them in the end.
7speter 4y ago
>If I were to be snarky I'd say that young people have everything stacked against them, economically speaking, that they realized that no amount of hard work will ever get them out ahead, so why bother working hard? Just to make your boss or shareholders richer? You're assuming "young people" can even find a job, considering employers now just collect resumes for a rainy day, or something. I'm aging out of being young, and when I read about that I kinda just wondered what the point of applying to jobs even is anymore.
luckylion 4y ago
> People worked hard in the past And maybe that has something to do with making more money and being able to afford more things? Slightly exaggerated, but from surveys in Germany, I gather that young people want to retire at 60, work part time, have at least 30 days of vacation per year, earn enough to afford "a good life" (large flat, vacations, parties), and do something interesting at work that "vibes" with them. Those don't mix well for most people and jobs, because few people get paid well to do their hobbies part-time. And how could they? They'll spend 20-25 years until they start working, then spend 35-40 years working (with a sabbatical or two thrown in), then they'll spend another 30 years retired (life expectancy is rising). And maybe there's also a social contagion. Individually, people might come to a different conclusion, but if a large number of their peers rejects the opportunities, there's a good chance they'll let that affect their judgement.
- candiodari 4y ago
  Not really. The people who worked the hardest got nothing. My grandfather worked ~20 years in mines. That was very hard work. He got nothing for it. The house he had to turn in (wasn't his) when the war (WW2) broke out. He had 5 kids (which was not a particularly high number). He managed to make it work by making wood furniture (mostly windows and window related stuff). He didn't make much from that either, but more than in the mine. He claims it was MUCH less intense work. After the war, he got a job as a police officer. He did essentially nothing for another ~45 years (yes, he worked from 11 to 67 I believe). He's not rich but on that wage he eventually got 13 kids total (Christmas parties no longer fit in their house once half his kids got married), put 3 through university, and all of them through higher education. We don't pay for hard work. Not back then. Not now. Plumber still makes a lot less than software engineer, and software engineer is not hard work.
rayiner 4y ago
> Worker productivity has skyrocketed since the '70, but the workers' wage growth lagged far behind. This impression is an artifact of comparing apples and oranges. Many sectors have seen almost zero real productivity growth in decades, such as the hospitality industry (waiters and waitresses). See: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/07/21/look-to-advanced-industries-to-help-drive-productivity-gains/amp/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/07/21/look-to... The median worker does not work in a sector that has seen high productivity growth, even if the economy as a whole has seen high productivity growth.

newsclues 4y ago

I fall into the group of people you are talking about. And yet, having a good leader for a manger or boss will still get me to work hard(er), but that is such a rare occurrence.

number6 4y ago
What does a good leader do? Or better phrased: what makes a good leader in your eyes?
- sirwhinesalot 4y ago
  Not the same person, but for me it is hard to put into words, you kinda just know it almost instantly when you start working with one. By far the most important trait is that they know their team and their strengths and weaknesses, put them doing the right tasks for their skillset, and trust them to get the job done. The second most important trait is a clear vision. They know what they need to achieve, what resources they need and/or have available, and don't waste time on pointless busywork (like scrum poker) Working with someone like that makes work very rewarding. It is unfortunately almost impossible to find such a leader in most big companies as their company structure with 30 layers and PMs and what not simply does not allow it.
- hardware2win 4y ago
  Talking about CEOs: Competent, has solid strategy, can execute it.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Good leaders are like good parents. They provide their workers the tools they need to succeed without being overly prescriptive; they hold their workers accountable without being harshly judgmental or showing undue favoritism; they care about their workers and desire their success; they are respected by their workers while at the same respecting their workers.
- afpx 4y ago
  Has clear vision, can communicate clearly, eliminates distractions, hires talented people, aligns team with goals, goes forward undaunted, reduces team stress.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Good leaders are people who put their subordinates and mission above themselves. I used to work at a summer camp and during meal time, it was easy to tell who the good leaders were. They weren't the people at the front of the line before their campers. The good leaders made sure their subordinates ate first and they waited to eat last and ate with their campers, rather than the staff table.

pjmlp 4y ago

Old workers also know that only the team matters, and everyone is expendable. If anything, I guess finally US is catching up with the fact that most countries don't have a workaholic culture, and people rather work to live, not live to work.

number6 4y ago

Young people work very hard when they are doing something worth their while. You see young people in NGOs working all day without close to no pay. You are right. There is nothing in for young people working in a company their dream they don't share. It doesn't even make the ends meet, so why bother?

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Better thesis than the WSJ could do. “Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.” 1.8 million people over the age of 55 die every year in the US (per US CDC). This labor pool will dwindle over time.
- saulpw 4y ago
  According to https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/ there are about 20m people in the 50-55 category. So about 4m people age into the over 55 category every year (for now anyway). This is a lot more than those 1.8m people who are dying each year. This is just the "aging population" problem, what better solution than to put them to work?
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propping-up-us-economy https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propp...
  - cableshaft 4y ago
    > So about 4m people age into the over 55 category every year (for now anyway). This is a lot more than those 1.8m people who are dying each year. Spoiler alert: those 4m people aging into over 55 were likely already working, so they're not taking a bunch of 'new jobs' , just shifting roles (and vacating their previous roles). You're still losing that 1.8m per year. You have to look at the other end of the job pool for new entrants, those turning 18, and see what their attitudes are. That's the parent comment's argument. The younger people will take up a larger and larger percentage of the 'under 55 year old workforce' and have a very different relationship with work than those that are currently over 55. Eventually they'll take enough of a chunk of the workforce that corporations will have no choice but to accommodate, because they can't just keep tapping into the dwindling 'people who will overwork themselves into an early grave' demographic to make up for it.

lordnacho 4y ago

I agree more and more with this sentiment as time passes. Nothing has been left for the kids. Everything has been financialized, and the effect of that is that everything is priced so that you can't get much out of it. Smart kid, likes math and science? You used to be able to get into a university relatively easily, with decent but not top few percent grades. When you got there you wouldn't be saddled with huge debt. When you finished there was a decent chance to stay in the academy. Try getting tenure now. When you left uni you could find a job because not everyone wanted the same few jobs. People aren't stupid, they've realised some jobs get all the pay. Now it's either the dream job, or get a job that you can't be happy with. Now try buying a house with that average job. You can't, not even with years of work. On top of it all the ideology of the previous generation is that it's all your own fault. People who had a huge leg up after the war seem to believe it was all them and everyone should should just work harder. Edit: Let me continue my rant: Not only is everything a contest, it starts at a young age, before you even know what you want to be when you grow up. If your parents are rich, they know what levers to pull. If kiddo is gonna work in banking, they will find someone to let junior sit on a desk for a week so they can say they have experience. If you have a selective school system, the parents will spend money on tutors. I was astonished to find my kid was the only one not being tutored right through the summer, several times a week. I watched a documentary about Korean schools where the kids are in school during their entire waking hours. There's got to be a different sort of childhood. Back to economics. We have instituted a system where the incumbents are bailed out when they mess up. It used to be that some old guy who had gotten out of touch with his customers would hit the rocks and have to close down. That would create an opening for some younger person, probably an employee in that industry. Every level in the food chain benefits from this, whether it's a multinational breaking up their widget division or the local restaurant. Nowadays, biding your time is wasting your time. You're in a pyramid that gets very sharp at the top, and there are no pieces falling off. Finally, voting and demographics. People who are retiring in the next few years are a huge voting block across many countries (even ones that aren't democratic, lol) and they will want their needs met by people who are working. It's not going to be viable to tell them "hey you didn't in aggregate raise enough productive kids, you made your bed now lie in it". So the terms of trade with younger generations will simply be changed so that younger people face worse and worse deals than the boomers.

stormfather 4y ago

Just to back this up with some data: "In 1989, when baby boomers were around the same age as millennials are today, they controlled 21% of the nation’s wealth. That’s almost five times as much as what millennials own today." On top of that housing and university costs have exploded in the same time. And now inflation counters even investing in a good mutual fund. I have had to move to a third world country, working remotely in tech, to even have a chance at a normal family like I grew up in. Then there's the media manipulation. Both domestic political parties, as well as foreign states, have become extremely adept at making us hate each other. There's no philia left at all. When I extrapolate all this out, my kids will be poor and my grandkids will be revolutionaries.

Dalewyn 4y ago

[flagged]

PeterisP 4y ago
Lattes and iPhones are insignificantly cheap compared to modern costs of housing, medicine and childcare; it's perfectly reasonable that someone can afford the former but can't afford the latter.
- 7speter 4y ago
  And if you know how to use your iphone you can get all sorts of valuable information from it.
criddell 4y ago
I don’t blame you for rolling your eyes. Strawmen can’t even have babies!
- yladiz 4y ago
  What if it’s a replicant kind of situation though?
RajT88 4y ago
Lattes and iPhones are an order of magnitude cheaper than having a kid... Especially since you can easily afford slightly older apple devices. Especially if you have anything less than great health insurance. (Even mine at a huge tech company has moved to 5k deductible + HSA)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
oceansea 4y ago
Let’s say someone buys an iPhone and 4 lattes per week: each latte costs about $4, and a new iPhone is $25 per month on a payment plan. Let’s do the math now. $16(x)4=$64, and that’s your total latte spend per month. Add on the iPhone and it’s at $79, but let’s round up to $80 $80(x)12 months = $960 Wow those fools spending their $960 which if they saved they would be able to put 20% down on a $400,000 home in only… 80 YEARS OF SAVING Yeah I think the latte and iPhone is more pleasure then saving until death for nothing at all. Do the math next time.

epups 4y ago

People didn't work so hard before because they felt like they earned a fair share - has this ever been the case before? They did it out of necessity, cultural expectations and personal fulfillment. The first two factors have changed a lot, but it's the third one that keeps me going. I personally feel much better if I use all my brain and a ton of energy at work. I've had a couple of jobs where this wasn't the case, and I found myself much less happy and, ironically, exhausted. At least in my case, working hard has led to a lot of opportunities for learning and growing, and money followed too. Not enough to buy a house, that's true, but I live a more comfortable life than my parents who did have a house. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while the game might be rigged at a high level, my personal experience is that working hard still puts me where I would like to be.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jimnotgym 4y ago
Do you have a job like in the article? A close to minimum wage job at a packing station. Which of the 3 factors would keep you there
- epups 4y ago
  There were many kinds of jobs discussed in the article. And I think the defeatist sentiment in the parent did not come from a person working on a minimum wage job.
autoexec 4y ago
> People didn't work so hard before because they felt like they earned a fair share - has this ever been the case before? It's always been the case and research shows that when employees feel that they are valued, trusted, and fairly compensated their performance improves (for examples see https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/well-being https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/well-being or https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2021/1751495/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2021/1751495/ or https://www.ijlass.org/data/frontImages/gallery/Vol._3_No._1/10._92-104.pdf https://www.ijlass.org/data/frontImages/gallery/Vol._3_No._1...) > They did it out of necessity, cultural expectations and personal fulfillment. Necessity and cultural expectations might make someone seek and maintain employment, but being treated fairly makes them work harder, makes them more loyal, and leads to better outcomes. Demoralizing employees is always going to result in reduced productivity. It may be true that the work you do is is fulfilling enough to prevent you from being demoralized even if your employer treats you like shit, but I doubt most people feel that strongly about their work. If they aren't earning enough to take care of themselves, let alone their families, morale isn't going to be very high. Hard work can lead to financial security, fair compensation, and professional fulfillment, but there is no guarantee that it will. It's an employers job to convince their employees that their hard work is worthwhile and will pay off for them in the end.

7speter 4y ago

>If I were to be snarky I'd say that young people have everything stacked against them, economically speaking, that they realized that no amount of hard work will ever get them out ahead, so why bother working hard? Just to make your boss or shareholders richer? You're assuming "young people" can even find a job, considering employers now just collect resumes for a rainy day, or something. I'm aging out of being young, and when I read about that I kinda just wondered what the point of applying to jobs even is anymore.

luckylion 4y ago

> People worked hard in the past And maybe that has something to do with making more money and being able to afford more things? Slightly exaggerated, but from surveys in Germany, I gather that young people want to retire at 60, work part time, have at least 30 days of vacation per year, earn enough to afford "a good life" (large flat, vacations, parties), and do something interesting at work that "vibes" with them. Those don't mix well for most people and jobs, because few people get paid well to do their hobbies part-time. And how could they? They'll spend 20-25 years until they start working, then spend 35-40 years working (with a sabbatical or two thrown in), then they'll spend another 30 years retired (life expectancy is rising). And maybe there's also a social contagion. Individually, people might come to a different conclusion, but if a large number of their peers rejects the opportunities, there's a good chance they'll let that affect their judgement.

candiodari 4y ago
Not really. The people who worked the hardest got nothing. My grandfather worked ~20 years in mines. That was very hard work. He got nothing for it. The house he had to turn in (wasn't his) when the war (WW2) broke out. He had 5 kids (which was not a particularly high number). He managed to make it work by making wood furniture (mostly windows and window related stuff). He didn't make much from that either, but more than in the mine. He claims it was MUCH less intense work. After the war, he got a job as a police officer. He did essentially nothing for another ~45 years (yes, he worked from 11 to 67 I believe). He's not rich but on that wage he eventually got 13 kids total (Christmas parties no longer fit in their house once half his kids got married), put 3 through university, and all of them through higher education. We don't pay for hard work. Not back then. Not now. Plumber still makes a lot less than software engineer, and software engineer is not hard work.

rayiner 4y ago

> Worker productivity has skyrocketed since the '70, but the workers' wage growth lagged far behind. This impression is an artifact of comparing apples and oranges. Many sectors have seen almost zero real productivity growth in decades, such as the hospitality industry (waiters and waitresses). See: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/07/21/look-to-advanced-industries-to-help-drive-productivity-gains/amp/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/07/21/look-to... The median worker does not work in a sector that has seen high productivity growth, even if the economy as a whole has seen high productivity growth.