5 ms·

By outwork I mean work for more hours or be willing to. If a rich person with a degree from an elite university has a higher expected per hour productivity than

by jiggy2011 12y ago

By outwork I mean work for more hours or be willing to. If a rich person with a degree from an elite university has a higher expected per hour productivity than a poor person with no degree then the poor person can sometimes compete for the same job as the rich person by being willing to work for more hours. Or the poor person might be able to get a different job that the rich person would not consider because the hours are too long. I don't think getting married would have the same effect unless one party gives up work or reduces the number of hours that they worked after being married, this doesn't tend to happen anymore.

rahimnathwani 12y ago
> I don't think getting married would have the same effect unless one party gives up work or reduces the number of hours that they worked after being married, this doesn't tend to happen anymore. Dalke's point is that GDP is an imperfect measure. In his example, the maid's work counts towards GDP (because she is being paid a salary) but the homemaker's work does not count (even though it may be identical in nature and extent.)
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  The taxable income of the couple would go down only if the maid continues the same work that she did before the marriage but for free rather than getting a different job, but this is quite a specific case that is outside of the norm.
  - dalke 12y ago
    You wrote "this will impact GDP and thus the state's ability to ...", as if that were a bad thing, or at least something to be avoided. If so, then your logic says that this "outside of the norm" case is also a bad thing for the country, or at least something to be avoided. Most would disagree with you. For that matter, my own g'grandmother worked as a maid for a man, who she later married. I don't see why you get to call my family history "outside of the norm" simply because it disagrees with your view of economics.
dalke 12y ago
I notice that you have switched from "poor people" to "poor person with no degree", and from "richer [than poor]" to "rich". My example was of someone who did not work at all, and has $50 million in inherited money. By definition, anyone who works will be able to outwork someone who never works. How does a poor person "outwork" that multimillionaire? Classically speaking, I structured this as a worker against an owner of capital. You have responded, it seems, by arguing that capital is irrelevant, and then reclassified "work" to "access to better paying jobs". I believe you also imply that going to an elite university is an independent factor from poverty. It may be that someone poor cannot take the 4 years off for such studies, and must instead help support the family and take care of an ailing parent. Therefore, these are correlated, with the implication that being rich helps make your children rich. Your original premise was that working hard is the primary factor, and ignore other systemic biases.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  I will try to address both this comment and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8680361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8680361 in one reply. I think you have misunderstood my overall argument, my claim is not that a poor person is likely to earn a higher income than a rich person by working more hours, but that all people regardless of wealth are limited to 24 hour days which they must divide into "work" and "not work". A poor person can increase their value to an employer by being willing to forgo more "not work" hours than their competition. If the standard is a 40 hour week then they can offer to work a 50 hour week for example. The only people who they cannot compete with are those already working at full capacity (say a 100 hour work week). They can realise this extra work either as extra wages or by being willing to work more hours for the same wage. This can be used offset other disadvantages that they may have such as a lack of a degree, lack of experience or lack of connections. If a law was passed that restricted the number of hours that people are allowed to work to a maximum then you remove a negotiation lever that some poorer people might want to use. As far as the maid example goes, it is an outlier because the overwhelming majority of women (at least in the west) who are in salaried employment before they are married continue in salaried employment after marriage. Historically (as was the case perhaps in your great grandmother's time) this was not necessarily the case.

rahimnathwani 12y ago

> I don't think getting married would have the same effect unless one party gives up work or reduces the number of hours that they worked after being married, this doesn't tend to happen anymore. Dalke's point is that GDP is an imperfect measure. In his example, the maid's work counts towards GDP (because she is being paid a salary) but the homemaker's work does not count (even though it may be identical in nature and extent.)

jiggy2011 12y ago
The taxable income of the couple would go down only if the maid continues the same work that she did before the marriage but for free rather than getting a different job, but this is quite a specific case that is outside of the norm.
- dalke 12y ago
  You wrote "this will impact GDP and thus the state's ability to ...", as if that were a bad thing, or at least something to be avoided. If so, then your logic says that this "outside of the norm" case is also a bad thing for the country, or at least something to be avoided. Most would disagree with you. For that matter, my own g'grandmother worked as a maid for a man, who she later married. I don't see why you get to call my family history "outside of the norm" simply because it disagrees with your view of economics.

dalke 12y ago

I notice that you have switched from "poor people" to "poor person with no degree", and from "richer [than poor]" to "rich". My example was of someone who did not work at all, and has $50 million in inherited money. By definition, anyone who works will be able to outwork someone who never works. How does a poor person "outwork" that multimillionaire? Classically speaking, I structured this as a worker against an owner of capital. You have responded, it seems, by arguing that capital is irrelevant, and then reclassified "work" to "access to better paying jobs". I believe you also imply that going to an elite university is an independent factor from poverty. It may be that someone poor cannot take the 4 years off for such studies, and must instead help support the family and take care of an ailing parent. Therefore, these are correlated, with the implication that being rich helps make your children rich. Your original premise was that working hard is the primary factor, and ignore other systemic biases.

jiggy2011 12y ago
I will try to address both this comment and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8680361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8680361 in one reply. I think you have misunderstood my overall argument, my claim is not that a poor person is likely to earn a higher income than a rich person by working more hours, but that all people regardless of wealth are limited to 24 hour days which they must divide into "work" and "not work". A poor person can increase their value to an employer by being willing to forgo more "not work" hours than their competition. If the standard is a 40 hour week then they can offer to work a 50 hour week for example. The only people who they cannot compete with are those already working at full capacity (say a 100 hour work week). They can realise this extra work either as extra wages or by being willing to work more hours for the same wage. This can be used offset other disadvantages that they may have such as a lack of a degree, lack of experience or lack of connections. If a law was passed that restricted the number of hours that people are allowed to work to a maximum then you remove a negotiation lever that some poorer people might want to use. As far as the maid example goes, it is an outlier because the overwhelming majority of women (at least in the west) who are in salaried employment before they are married continue in salaried employment after marriage. Historically (as was the case perhaps in your great grandmother's time) this was not necessarily the case.