Escaping Poverty Requires Almost 20 Years with Nearly Nothing Going Wrong (2017)
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Anti-poverty efforts that focus mainly on education kind of miss this, IMHO. And sure, these efforts and not useless especially in the context of entire communities being impoverished, but someone will have to do those jobs regardless, and the problems are so much deeper.
It would be good to explore this disparity more. Just because there's a job called "janitor" doesn't mean it is valued the same way in every context, even if we might argue it should. Why?
Today, the janitor probably works for a contractor hired by the company who bills them out at a multiple of what they actually get paid. They probably don't have very good benefits, are lucky if they can afford the health insurance offered, and probably can't really afford to contribute to a 401k.
I would much rather be a janitor in 1975 than 2023.
---
E.g. janitors of the future maintaining advanced robots and lighting systems that keep everything operational and healthy.
Sure someone has to do those jobs sure, but should they only be reserved for poor people?
(You can of course have some subsidies on top of that for low-income folks, to help them make rent and whatnot - and there's nothing wrong with that if they're carefully designed. The U.S. EITC and the German "Minijob" arrangements are pretty decent all things considered.)
Wages would adjust. Everyone would want to be a remote-working software engineer (comfortable job) or a doctor (high-status job). That's why today's low-status, low-wage and hard jobs such as a fast-food worker or a janitor would actually become the best paying jobs.
The end result would be a much more productive and fair society.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
Including kids, retirees, anyone with a medical condition or disability, etc. in the other 80% isn't accurate, since a retired FTE or the child of two FTEs belongs in the top class still, and the permanently disabled or chronically unemployed are in a different situation.
Putting it more concretely, the US ranks 27th on the Global Social Mobility Index. That's great, if you're cool with hanging out with Latvia, Spain, Poland, and Cyprus. But, why do that, when you can be Denmark? The benefits are clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#G...) But I guess that just doesn't make enough money for the shareholders or something.
2) What's the benefit? (Note that although a rising tide floats all boats, it is unfortunately impossible to imagine the world that would result if opportunity was equitable)
I'm not arguing against it, I'm just saying it boils down to those things.
When you say "cost," it doesn't always mean dollars and cents. Honestly, who cares if shareholders have a few less dollars in their pockets if everyone else is better off as a result?
That's the real problem, not realizing that dollars and cents aren't the be all and end all of everything.
You do also realize that you're saying the US somehow affords more opportunity than the 26 other countries that rank above it on the Global Social Mobility Index? I don't think you've fully understood the concept here.
A country where everyone is in extreme poverty could have the top score for social mobility.
> Global Social Mobility Index
Look at the attributes that make up the index, they aren't objective like you're making them out to be. Also, its from the WEF, an organization that has a contentious reputation.
I'm already taxed nearly 45% of my income, pay insane property taxes on my home and car. Not to mention the goods I buy. How about the failing US government redirect its insane budget to improving things that matter, and not far away wars, foreign aid and ever-growing bureaucracy. Focus on domestic issues. Not global profiteering. People in the US, not just citizens but illegal immigrants as well, still have it pretty good compared to most places (free healthcare, EBT, housing vouchers). Thats why millions are trying to get here every year.
I'd much rather look at quality of life metrics across all citizens than just check if the outcomes of children are uncorrelated to their parents decisions.
Non-paywall link: https://archive.ph/2Dcrc
Also, article is from 2017.
Technology causes Price of Goods and Services to fall. Not rise. Yet the Fed says its inflation target is 2% which means Prices are always supposed to grow no matter what innovation happens or its speed. This makes no sense.
If living standards rise and debt levels drop due to increasing efficiencies and productivity then we should allow Prices to fall. Wont that take care of inequality and living standards?
It's really frustrating to wade through this sea of comments that includes a guy who is saying unironically that living in a tent while starting a business is a viable option for most people, and a whole bunch of other people who just don't seem to get the idea that the economy is literally people, and if it doesn't work for people, it doesn't work, period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_prof...
So all your dollars are put on fire and lose 2% of their value annually. You can watch your cash burn to spite the Fed, or you can give it to someone else and make it their problem what to do with dollars while you enjoy whatever you bought.
Sure, in deflationary environment overall GDP growth would be much slower, but it will also be more sustainable in the long run, without big boom-bust cycles.
It's a wonderful situation for people who have jobs. It's just that in a deflationary trap, the number of people who have jobs tends to dwindle until prices start to level out/rise.
Also, to be clear, the inflation target is not 2% because the Fed just like prices going up, I've always been told they target 2% because it gives them a bit more wiggle room with interest rates (higher inflation means higher interest rates) in case of a recession.
There are a number of reasons usually cited for preferring small positive inflation, but that's not one of the ones I’ve usually seen. Deflation being seen as more harmful than i inflation leading to a bias away from it, and noninal wages being sticky so small positi5 inflation making it easier for their to be gradual decline in real wages in low-demand industries, and thus better demand-based pricing signalling for labor (the alternative being wages that don't adhust as smoothly but more rapid job losses when demand falls.)
Productivity keeps rising, wages don't (to the same degree). Slice it how you want, that's the bottom line, and the reason is exploitation by people who are addicted to adding another zero to a number where the last few zeroes already made no difference, because the issue is in their head, not their bank account.
Not according to the fed...
If we look at maxima and minima, Infinite deflation would make the value of debt infinitely high. Infinate inflation would drive the value of debt to 0
I think with better goals we can get more comfortable with falling prices.
Sounds like a bunch of commie talk. The Almighty Mar-Ket demands perpetually increasing profits and growth, lest we all perish from its fearsome wrath.
If a tech company manages to succeed in brick and motor space or banking we might end up with something we haven't seen before.
But, if, somehow, I can't come up with $40k, I don't get to live even that basic life. That's cold, hard capitalism for ya. And even in California, there aren't even social programs available that can simultaneously keep someone from starving while also living indoors.
Oh, and the "cost of living" goes up all the time.
Now, I'm not saying I want to be a layabout and just not work, drink Mountain Dew, and eat Cheetos or something. People, including myself, actually love work, if it's work that has meaning to them. Being productive is something people are hardwired to love. What they don't like is being told what being productive is, and they especially don't like toiling away forever while watching other people get the vast majority of the benefit from them doing so.
The worst part about all this is that the rules of economics are just fucking made up, and we could literally change them at any time. Whether you think it was a good idea or not, we actually did that in 2020, when governments worldwide shut down things like bars, restaurants, gyms, travel, &c. We did that! For better or for worse, we did that! The fact that we all, collectively, could do a thing like that means that we can do other things that are just as big and seem just as impossible.
What we need is a reason. And that reason is (or, rather, ought to be) that we now have an economy that simply does not work for most people. Last I checked, around 2/3 of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck. Now, sure, that counts people who are just bad with money. There will always be people like that. Improving financial literacy is definitely something that needs to be done. But, for the most part, what that 2/3 statistic is saying is that we have an economy that normal people can't function in, if by "function," you mean "get through day to day life, while also being able to save back some resources for the future."
The way to fix all this is that we need to realign the economy. We have to make sure that the people who make the economy work (i.e. workers) gain most, or at least more of the benefits of doing so. I realize that's a pretty broad statement, and that a lot of this that I've written here sounds like a left wing populist stump speech, but I'm not running for office. I'm just a simple software engineer; I'm not rich enough to be able to drop everything and run a political campaign instead of working as a cog in the machine.[1]
What I'm saying is that we need to make sure people can afford to live. The median male worker now has to work 53 weeks to afford a year's worth of expenditures on housing, health insurance, transportation, and education.[2] The same source shows that the average female worker needs to work 66 weeks to afford those expenditures. As they so drolly quote the author of the study these figures come from, "This is a problem, as there are only 52 weeks in a year."
We also need to realign how work works. People, especially younger people, have gotten so alienated from the whole concept of work that there's a subreddit with hundreds of thousands of subscribers called "anti-work" that's all about this. And we definitely have to realize as a society and as a species that money is basically made up bullshit. The thing that needs to matter is people, not money.
I'm going to cut this off here, because it's already starting to look like I've written the first page of my manifesto lol.... But, I hope you get the idea. The economy doesn't work. We can change that. We should change that.
That's it for now, at least until the inevitable grilling y'all are gonna give me about exactly how I expect us to actually accomplish that.
---
[1]: That's another problem, but I'm going to leave that one alone for now.
[2]: https://www.businessinsider.com/america-middle-class-living-...
I went from poor to rich in 5 years after starting my website development service company. Lots and lots of things went wrong ranging from mistakes I made (drinking too much, hiring my girlfriend who made life a nightmare then sued me later, nepotism hiring my brother, being a bad manager at first, and many other issues).
How about this? Suppose we abolished all regulation tomorrow. How would that help people get out of poverty? Well, it wouldn't. How do I know that? Just look back to the 19th century, when we more or less didn't have regulation in the US. It was a terrible time to be a worker, but a great time to be a robber baron.
> hiring my brother
this almost never goes well. many relationships were ended by adding a working relationship element to the picture. this goes for friendships as well as pairings. extremely hard to make work, with long term damage resulting from it failing. you either have to compartmentalize the work relationship from the other relationship or... nope, that's pretty much what you have to do. I think what happens is that it's too easy to lean on forgiveness and slack due to the self-sustaining part of the relationship.
not sure if related but it also seems like adding sex to a normal friendship can also sink both. maybe it has to do with adding ulterior motives like "profit" and "orgasm", not sure. maybe compartmentalization would help there too, not sure.... you'd have the "friend" part of the relationship (intrinsically-motivated) and the compartmentalized "tit for tat" part of the relationship (extrinsically-motivated; sex, money, etc.). This might at least leave the "friend" part somewhat intact (eventually) if the other part fails.
For some reason, pure friendships are the most enduring relationships (and yes, even those can end if people grow apart, but still).
One thing you're possibly not factoring in is your possible "gifts" at doing this well, and whatever opportunities (educational, parents being supportive financially or otherwise, etc.) you might have benefited from on the ramp-up to your life.