|
call to action posted:Yeah I did Econ 101 too, it was definitely a great course in "how to explain why we can't help workers" It didn't happen because of loose monetary policy, no, it happened because of unions
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It didn't happen because of loose monetary policy, no, it happened because of unions Weird how wages went up in industries and during times that unions were explicitly banned, huh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It didn't happen because of loose monetary policy, no, it happened because of unions You understand that unemployment is one of the the Fed's primary targets in addition to inflation, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Productivity-gains and improved technology have not raised wages in any of the industries I've worked in. They've especially done the opposite in the last one. Is that something they teach in econ? Where/when is it supposed to be true? Is it one of those equilibrium things that's never actually true because all markets are always distorted?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Productivity-gains and improved technology have not raised wages in any of the industries I've worked in. They've especially done the opposite in the last one. Is that something they teach in econ? Where/when is it supposed to be true? It's one of those things that's true unless it isn't, kinda like how manufacturing productivity improved themselves out of a job
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Productivity-gains and improved technology have not raised wages in any of the industries I've worked in. They've especially done the opposite in the last one. Is that something they teach in econ? Where/when is it supposed to be true? Wages have stagnated for decades yet productivity has risen over the same number of years. What's filled in the gap is credit, since living costs have gone up without any significant wage increase which means people have had to take on a lot of debt. Sure one could give a more nuanced explanation, but that's a simple way to understand it. What's alarming is coupled with all the personal debt, massive income and wealth inequality and on top of that Trump's policies (what we know so far, especially that awful "healthcare" bill), we are headed for a huge economic disaster. I'm very pessimistic on our economic future, there's nothing that reassures me and if there is a deep recession under Trump, his administration isn't the one I want around to address it. We need to start making a 20 year transition plan now. What are you going to do with a displaced workforce thanks to a combination of automation and various technological advances, estimates I read unemployment might hit 30% in 20 years. Republicans don't want programs to retrain workers to learn new skills that could adapt in a fast changing economy but just give people a tax break. We should be gradually moving away from a 40 hr week too, or maybe do it abruptly now. Yes, yes the goal should be to move away from capitalism completely but in the meanwhile there's a few things we can do to prepare. It doesn't help that the current administration wants to shred every social safety net program out there. I wonder if icantfindname thinks we aren't as productive as we were before, which would strike me as a bizarre claim. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Atlanta Fed’s Q1 GDP Now Estimate Falls to Just 0.8% That doesn't look good. Even worst when federal workers become unemployed if the proposed cuts to the various federal departments go through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
curufinor posted:Wage growth is caused by better bargaining positions Probably a good idea for workers to buy guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Wage growth requires sunlight, carbon dioxide and fertile soil Fertilize the soil with the blood of the capitalist class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:
Even if the employer could make more for shareholders money hiring better workers at higher price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:16
|
|
wages settle at the lowest rate at which an employer anticipates an employee with the desired attributes will be willing to sell their labor to the employer
|
Xibanya posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Thankfully, employers can hold out for extended periods, bring in immigrants or use improved technology to lower the bar
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Even if the employer could make more for shareholders money hiring better workers at higher price. As thekingfish pointed out, that's covered by "with the desired attributes." Let's say the employer wants to hire the best ever worker. They will still attempt to pay the lowest wage the best ever worker will be willing to accept. Here when I say wage this also covers non-monetary forms of compensation, like catering to the capricious whims of a superstar actor on set. If Brad Pitt doesn't have the expectation of getting his latte or whatever he's probably not going to give his best performance or worse still, not want to sell his labor to that studio. If a company is tossing oodles of money at someone and it isn't some kind of corruption/embezzlement, it's because they think they have to in order to prevent that person from disengaging or quitting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:As thekingfish pointed out, that's covered by "with the desired attributes." Let's say the employer wants to hire the best ever worker. They will still attempt to pay the lowest wage the best ever worker will be willing to accept. Here when I say wage this also covers non-monetary forms of compensation, like catering to the capricious whims of a superstar actor on set. If Brad Pitt doesn't have the expectation of getting his latte or whatever he's probably not going to give his best performance or worse still, not want to sell his labor to that studio. If a company is tossing oodles of money at someone and it isn't some kind of corruption/embezzlement, it's because they think they have to in order to prevent that person from disengaging or quitting. I would say that in many lower level jobs they are just looking for bodies. Desired attributes in some cases is basically just "not a felon". Often the felons they fire for not disclosing are some of thier better workers. At the lowest level, they see all workers as interchangeable. I don't think it's a question of getting the best for the least, they only care about the least part. They can't even be arsed to be exploitive effectively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I would say that in many lower level jobs they are just looking for bodies. Desired attributes in some cases is basically just "not a felon". Often the felons they fire for not disclosing are some of thier better workers. At the lowest level, they see all workers as interchangeable. I don't think it's a question of getting the best for the least, they only care about the least part. They can't even be arsed to be exploitive effectively. That's something that I think a lot of people forget; right now there is a severe scarcity of Brad Pitt so he can name drat near any price he wants. For the types of jobs that require three or more working limbs and a pulse with the first being negotiable there's an over supply of labor. There is more demand for no to low skill labor than there is supply. You can train pretty much any dumbass with working hands how to unload a truck and sort freight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There is more demand for no to low skill labor than there is supply. Backwards?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
It can be read either way. More demand for low or no skill jobs than there is supply, or more demand for (low to No skill) labor
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:It can be read either way. More demand for low or no skill jobs than there is supply, or more demand for (low to No skill) labor The previous sentence talking about oversupply of labor makes it hard to read the other way, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Backwards? I mean that there are more no to low skill people looking for jobs than there are jobs for them. Hence so many people working part time for minimum wage with bugger all else. Hell even educated people can't find enough work in America right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
call to action posted:Yeah I did Econ 101 too, it was definitely a great course in "how to explain why we can't help workers" If econ is dumb, what informs your belief that keeping interest rates low would increase wages more than inflation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If econ is dumb, what informs your belief that keeping interest rates low would increase wages more than inflation? Neoclassical econ is dum
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
So why did the major steel production move to China? Weren't those facilities *massive* and expensive to build in the first place? Or did they not actually move and just got upgraded and as a result didn't need 90% of those workers anymore?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
There's still nothing wrong with what I wrote. In the case of the desired attribute being "has a pulse" the wage will still settle around the lowest the employer thinks they'll be able to buy the labor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So why did the major steel production move to China? Weren't those facilities *massive* and expensive to build in the first place? Or did they not actually move and just got upgraded and as a result didn't need 90% of those workers anymore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_industry_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_China#Iron_and_steel It seems that China made it state policy to modernize and expand its steel industry in the 1980s (they had tried in the 1950s and 1970s, but failed to increase production to satisfy even local demand and were still importing 15 million tons of steel in 1985 ["more than two-thirds of it from Japan"]). Since then, the Chinese steel industry financed a huge investment in machinery and technology. Because their production was largely financed, margins were low so they relied on maximizing production even as it flooded the world market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steel_industry_(1970%E2%80%93present) Other producers (like those in America) couldn't keep up or realized a flooded market was useless to anyone and invested in China or just went bankrupt. quote:The world steel industry peaked in 2007. That year, ThyssenKrupp spent $12 billion to build the two most modern mills in the world, in Alabama and Brazil. The worldwide great recession starting in 2008, however, with its heavy cutbacks in construction, sharply lowered demand and prices fell 40%. ThyssenKrupp lost $11 billion on its two new plants, which sold steel below the cost of production. Finally in 2013, ThyssenKrupp offered the plants for sale at under $4 billion.[4] quote:Steel is no more the labour-intensive industry it used to be. Earlier, it was often associated with the image of huge work force living in a captive township. All that has changed dramatically. A modern steel plant employs very few people. quote:During the period 1974 to 1999, the steel industry had drastically reduced employment all around the world. In USA, it was down from 521,000 to 153,000. In Japan, it was down from 459,000 to 208,000. In Germany, it was down from 232,000 to 78,000. In UK, it was down from 197,000 to 31,000. In Brazil, it was down from 118,000 to 59,000. In South Africa, it was down from 100,000 to 54,000. South Korea already had a low figure. It was only 58,000 in 1999. The steel industry had reduced its employment around the world by more than 1,500,000 in 25 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_crisis quote:The steel crisis was a recession in the global steel market during the 1970s recession, following the end of the post-World War II economic boom and the 1973 oil crisis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Yeah as I was reading some Youtube comments and they were blaming the EPA. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Other producers (like those in America) couldn't keep up or realized a flooded market was useless to anyone and invested in China or just went bankrupt. It should be noted that despite all this US production is only down ~20% over half a century. Certainly a noticeable decrease but it's not dying by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:It should be noted that despite all this US production is only down ~20% over half a century. Certainly a noticeable decrease but it's not dying by any stretch of the imagination. Which makes perfect sense because as prices decrease logistics costs make up a larger percentage of total cost meaning the tipping point for producing (semi-)locally versus shipping heavy bulk goods halfway across the globe (and in extreme cases, shipping the raw materials the other way first) shifts in the direction of (semi-)locally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So why did the major steel production move to China? Weren't those facilities *massive* and expensive to build in the first place? Or did they not actually move and just got upgraded and as a result didn't need 90% of those workers anymore? As someone else noted US steel production hasn't precipitatouly fallen off. What has happened is about the same amount is made in far fewer, but significantly larger mills, that require orders of magnitude fewer people. So mills closed all over and the labor used has shrunk to nothing, but we still make it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Which makes perfect sense because as prices decrease logistics costs make up a larger percentage of total cost meaning the tipping point for producing (semi-)locally versus shipping heavy bulk goods halfway across the globe (and in extreme cases, shipping the raw materials the other way first) shifts in the direction of (semi-)locally. The logistics costs are also imbalanced... an example it's easy to move the raw materials on the Lakes within the us. Self unloaders load pellets in Duluth and discharge in the various mills on the Lakes. That's shockingly efficient. But coils and slabs are hard to move out. Normally else where they would end up on general purpose handy sized ships. It's hard for those vessels to move on the Lakes because of a bunch of rules and the locks. So much of the coils and slabs end up on barges. That's good for anything on the Mississippi, but it's hard for export because eventually they have to get transloaded into a general cargo vessel. Meanwhile foreign mills are on the ocean, coils can directly be loaded onto general purpose ships to go anywhere. Steel products are problematic to containerize too. done improperly they shift and gently caress the containers up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So why did the major steel production move to China? Weren't those facilities *massive* and expensive to build in the first place? Or did they not actually move and just got upgraded and as a result didn't need 90% of those workers anymore? well, mostly b/c the chinese government invested a shitload of money in steel facilities. if the Free Market had chosen what economic activity to do in China it wouldn't have happened, at least not nearly as fast. developmentalist planning and free markets arent the same thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:well, mostly b/c the chinese government invested a shitload of money in steel facilities. if the Free Market had chosen what economic activity to do in China it wouldn't have happened, at least not nearly as fast. developmentalist planning and free markets arent the same thing It was a really poor move by China because those mills were a state project which didn't turn a profit for the state within 4 years - A neoliberal
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It was a really poor move by China because those mills were a state project which didn't turn a profit for the state within 4 years - A neoliberal Reminds me of South Korean ship building.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It was a really poor move by China because those mills were a state project which didn't turn a profit for the state within 4 years - A neoliberal Pretty much yeah. I didn't say neoliberalism was good
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:It should be noted that despite all this US production is only down ~20% over half a century. Certainly a noticeable decrease but it's not dying by any stretch of the imagination. If memory serves it's because Chinese steel has often been kind of "meh" in that they just wanted to make more steel, quality and type be damned, while American manufacturers would often make more specialized/better steel. "Steel" is a pretty complex set of goods. Some of it in America was also vertical integration. If your car/tool/widget company also owns the steel company that you can totally, absolutely control the steel that comes out of it. "Buy steel from China" may or may not get you what you need.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves it's because Chinese steel has often been kind of "meh" in that they just wanted to make more steel, quality and type be damned, while American manufacturers would often make more specialized/better steel. "Steel" is a pretty complex set of goods. Some of it in America was also vertical integration. If your car/tool/widget company also owns the steel company that you can totally, absolutely control the steel that comes out of it. "Buy steel from China" may or may not get you what you need. Chinese steel ships corrode and age noticeably faster, anecdotally like twice as fast. I notice it personally, you can usually tell on the bulk carriers even before you get up the gangway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Chinese steel is usually ridiculously low carbon and full of impurities, thus resulting in terrible breaking strength and also general longevity in extreme environments such as salinity. As a hobby blacksmith it's immediately obvious when I'm playing with chinese steel vs. something from a domestic mill which has been kicking around for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
G20 just dropped its commitment to free trade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:G20 just dropped its commitment to free trade. rip
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:G20 just dropped its commitment to free trade. and we inch that much closer to a trade war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Stocks had their worst day in 6 months. Looks like they may have snapped out of their Trump Dreams, but I guess we'll see what's what soon. https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/844247587653914625 https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/844278449019801600
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:05
|
|