6 ms·

I like many of your suggestions, but the article itself is total BS. First, Uber drivers are replacing taxi drivers, who were never employees to begin with. So

by wrk1 11y ago

I like many of your suggestions, but the article itself is total BS. First, Uber drivers are replacing taxi drivers, who were never employees to begin with. So it's not a valid example. Second, the headline should read "As long as US sticks to current policies, the number of employees in the US will probably decrease". This is happening because right now in the US, capital (large corporations, billionaires) controls the political process, and they've used it to massively jack up the size of the labor pool: * Illegal immigration -> unskilled jobs. * H1B & other visas -> skilled and semi-skilled jobs. * Free trade with Asia -> manufacturing jobs. * Outsourcing -> IT jobs. * Normalizing 60-80 hour workweeks -> increases the labor pool by 1.5x - 2x. Basically right now we have about 2-3 billion people competing for jobs in the US economy, which is sized for 320 million people. They (capital) want you to believe this is the "future", but in reality they just jacked up the labor pool by a huge amount. Any worker who comes to the US leaves their home country, so the employment dynamic in those countries is quite different. And notice that the EU, whose economy is larger than the US, has avoided this dynamic.

aswanson 11y ago
Understood and agree. Im just giving the best advice I can on how not to get hit and run over by the oncoming train. Unless you're Superman and can stand in front of and stop it.
- wrk1 11y ago
  I think your suggestions are good, especially for young people who are looking to stay afloat in their 20s. One thing that I would add is the time perspective - in the US right now, people in their 20s and early 30s are competing and slowly sorting themselves out into stable career fields. So my suggestion is definitely stay afloat, but don't assume that you will be able to stay afloat forever. Look at what other people are doing and how they are securing stable spots for themselves.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Wait a minute, how does free trade "jack up the size of the labor pool"? Did the foreigners who were previously forbidden from competing with natives not exist? Oh right, better to have folks born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line continue to live on $3k/year in order to make sure American wages continue to rise from $40k to $60k. Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. Actually "sucks" isn't even the right word, since I doubt you can name a single good or service that Americans have less of today than 20 or 30 years ago. (Expanding categories of goods, e.g. "health care", don't count.) https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/2014/Where14.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...
- mpyne 11y ago
  > Oh right, better to have folks born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line continue to live on $3k/year in order to make sure American wages continue to rise from $40k to $60k. Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. Which is why I found it so funny that Bernie Sanders complains about Vietnamese workers (he even called them out by name!). I'm used to seeing race-baiting from politicians of all stripes. I just wasn't used to seeing it from self-described "actual socialists".
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    Was this something that actually happened or something that you saw on Hannity?
    - notworthmyjob 11y ago
      I believe he's referring to this. Of course Sanders is criticizing low wage offshoring, not Vietnamese people. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-obama-on-nike-trip-just-dont-118371547706.html https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-obama-on-ni...
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. While we're being honest, if you're working for a living rather than living off investments (i.e. the labor of others) you are nowhere near to the top of the heap. If you're living off the labor of others, opening the immigration floodgates is great news. More workers to play off against one another. H1-Bs are even better news.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    tl;dr; I'm only in the top 3'rd percentile and I feel envy for the top 1'st percentile, and I'm willing to cause millions to suffer dire poverty in order to mitigate my feelings of envy.
thomasfoster96 11y ago
You don't end up with 2-3 billion people competing for the work of 320 million. That makes no sense. You just end up with an economy of 2.32 or 3.32 billion. The 2-3 billion require services and products too, so it's not like they're not consumers (even if their spending is lower if their wages are lower). Plus, the labor pool as a percentage of the population is shrinking in many western countries, and so immigration from countries where the workforce is expanding is required regardless
- wrk1 11y ago
  That is true when a German or Romanian worker makes a product that is sold in the US. It is not true when, for example, a Chinese* worker (who works 14 hours a day 6 days a week, eats in the company mess hall, and lives in a company dorm) makes a product that is sold in the US. The Chinese government doesn't protect these workers against overtime and similar abuses, so these workers receive very little for their labor. Through its economic policies, the Chinese government effectively sequesters most of these workers income. Today China has foreign exchange reserves of over $4 trillion. That's over 35% of its nominal GDP today. It's double China's nominal GDP in 2004. The net result is that these workers have tiny participation as consumers in the Chinese economy. But they participate as full (actually like 2x full) workers in the US economy. The same dynamic is present in many other countries, so you get 2-3 billion people competing for jobs in an economy of 320 million. * China is just an example here. Nothing personal against China or Chinese in general.

by wrk1 11y ago

aswanson 11y ago

Understood and agree. Im just giving the best advice I can on how not to get hit and run over by the oncoming train. Unless you're Superman and can stand in front of and stop it.

wrk1 11y ago
I think your suggestions are good, especially for young people who are looking to stay afloat in their 20s. One thing that I would add is the time perspective - in the US right now, people in their 20s and early 30s are competing and slowly sorting themselves out into stable career fields. So my suggestion is definitely stay afloat, but don't assume that you will be able to stay afloat forever. Look at what other people are doing and how they are securing stable spots for themselves.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Wait a minute, how does free trade "jack up the size of the labor pool"? Did the foreigners who were previously forbidden from competing with natives not exist? Oh right, better to have folks born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line continue to live on $3k/year in order to make sure American wages continue to rise from $40k to $60k. Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. Actually "sucks" isn't even the right word, since I doubt you can name a single good or service that Americans have less of today than 20 or 30 years ago. (Expanding categories of goods, e.g. "health care", don't count.) https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/2014/Where14.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...

mpyne 11y ago
> Oh right, better to have folks born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line continue to live on $3k/year in order to make sure American wages continue to rise from $40k to $60k. Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. Which is why I found it so funny that Bernie Sanders complains about Vietnamese workers (he even called them out by name!). I'm used to seeing race-baiting from politicians of all stripes. I just wasn't used to seeing it from self-described "actual socialists".
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  Was this something that actually happened or something that you saw on Hannity?
  - notworthmyjob 11y ago
    I believe he's referring to this. Of course Sanders is criticizing low wage offshoring, not Vietnamese people. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-obama-on-nike-trip-just-dont-118371547706.html https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-obama-on-ni...
crdoconnor 11y ago
>Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. While we're being honest, if you're working for a living rather than living off investments (i.e. the labor of others) you are nowhere near to the top of the heap. If you're living off the labor of others, opening the immigration floodgates is great news. More workers to play off against one another. H1-Bs are even better news.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  tl;dr; I'm only in the top 3'rd percentile and I feel envy for the top 1'st percentile, and I'm willing to cause millions to suffer dire poverty in order to mitigate my feelings of envy.

thomasfoster96 11y ago

You don't end up with 2-3 billion people competing for the work of 320 million. That makes no sense. You just end up with an economy of 2.32 or 3.32 billion. The 2-3 billion require services and products too, so it's not like they're not consumers (even if their spending is lower if their wages are lower). Plus, the labor pool as a percentage of the population is shrinking in many western countries, and so immigration from countries where the workforce is expanding is required regardless

wrk1 11y ago
That is true when a German or Romanian worker makes a product that is sold in the US. It is not true when, for example, a Chinese* worker (who works 14 hours a day 6 days a week, eats in the company mess hall, and lives in a company dorm) makes a product that is sold in the US. The Chinese government doesn't protect these workers against overtime and similar abuses, so these workers receive very little for their labor. Through its economic policies, the Chinese government effectively sequesters most of these workers income. Today China has foreign exchange reserves of over $4 trillion. That's over 35% of its nominal GDP today. It's double China's nominal GDP in 2004. The net result is that these workers have tiny participation as consumers in the Chinese economy. But they participate as full (actually like 2x full) workers in the US economy. The same dynamic is present in many other countries, so you get 2-3 billion people competing for jobs in an economy of 320 million. * China is just an example here. Nothing personal against China or Chinese in general.