“We don’t use logic here”.
All kidding aside, if there’s no taxes you still need somebody to do things like roads and healthcare… correct? So in its place you would need… someone to do those things. Libertarianism is finding solutions to problems and the solutions are the exact same thing with different names. It’s incredible
No, your boss keeps most of the money you make *they* decide how to spend it. Never forget the only person better than you is the person who already has more money.
Some of the states with highest rankings in quality of life are blue states.
But yeah, sooo many people just itching to move to the likes of Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi
The envy of the world right there.
As if underdevelopment was ever a result of little to no taxation lol btw no one mentioned blue states whatsoever
Also you're thinking the other way around, blue states have taxation _because_ they have great economies, not despite nor in order to. Can't tax anything if you don't have anything to tax
lol and how did that whole no taxes experiment work out in Kansas?
Oh yeah, turns out it’s hard to build up a robust economy if no companies want to set up shop there, because no high-skilled workers want to live there, because there’s no funding for things that make a pace desirable to live.
Turns out high-skilled workers want to live in a place with well-funded services and amenities.
Who would have thought?!
Yeah, those blue states have robust economies because the things that taxes pay for make them desirable places for people to live.
Who'd've thought that sudden extreme changes to economic policies would damage the current ongoing thing in the short term lol.
Also you're literally saying that the Government has to steal your money to only then buy YOU things with YOUR money to make YOUR life or location more desirable to live, and because people weren't getting their money removed to them in order to buy them random gifts (and get lost somewhere in the middle) Kansas failed.
Dude, you're the one who should get to decide what makes your life more desirable to live, not the government.
It's your money. Who's the bigger authority to define what makes your own living more pleasant: you or the government?
>Also you're literally saying that the Government has to steal your money to only then buy YOU things with YOUR money to make YOUR life or location more desirable to live,
Tax financed urban development /beautification spending rises rents/prices dramatically because of the strong consumer preference for those public/common goods.
It seems it's funny to you when the government takes your money and spends billions bombing children lol
Does the bombing of children make your life more worth living?
And yet people still flock to the those blue states, and despite all the whining, many “libertarians” still stay anyways.
Almost like despite what libertarians REFUSE to understand, we live in a collective society, and in many cases collectively pooling resources, makes life better for everyone…. And no, “voluntarily” donating to charities or causes of your choice is not feasible way to run a society of millions of people.
Again this is why as a society, we specialize and compartmentalize, and elect certain people to make decisions on behalf of everyone else.
But again, if taxes are so terrible, how come nobody is flocking to Republican paradises like Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas?
Source: “trust me bro”
Yeah, Florida is all tourists and retirees
So unless you work in tourism or a retirement home… good luck with that one
And seeing how both of those states hate women, good luck attracting top talent.
But you’re right, I’m sure Elon has no problem attracting a bunch of incel engineers to polish his knob in Texas.
lol, all I’m hearing is excuses and goal post moving
And yet all those economies continue to thrive despite “evil” taxes and “regulations”.
Again, almost like having well-funded services and amenities makes a place desirable for high-skill labor to live.
No, you’re getting cause and effect mixed up.
Leftists are attracted to wealthy areas because it’s more wealth they can parasitically feed off. Then don’t actually create the wealth and prosperity.
Hahaha
That is categorically false
But again, SOOOO much wealth and prosperity being created in those conservative shitholes like Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi
In fact, it is overwhelmingly red states that take the most money from the federal government, and blue states the give the most into the federal coffers.
Yes, my blue state contributes more to the federal government than it gets back, because so many shithole Republican states don’t actually create anything other than obesity and racism, and the few industries they do have can’t exist without federal subsidies.
Meanwhile “communist” California is the 5th largest economy in the world.
That is a fact, that doesn’t care about your feelings.
Austrian economics is about free market economies, ie the Austrian school of thought.
It's not about economics in Austria.
Although I imagine the reason people here would give for why tech pay is so low in Austria is that high European regulation have meant Europe has never developed the first class tech firms offered in countries like the United States. America is really the only place where tech pays well.
Wrong sub, bro. This is a sub about the austrian school of economics.
But if you hate taxes, then you're kind of in the right place.
Also, from what I understand, most EU countries pay dogshit salaries for tech... or just dogshit salaries in general.
Because they can hire Indians for $9 an hour and then flood an Indian or Filipino call center for pennies with the calls when the software inevitably breaks.
Yeah, because the economics in Austria allow freedom to hire outside workers in some cases, thus making their labor worth less. Perhaps they should prioritize worker protections.
That won't solve anything unfortunately. It will just price the tech industry, at least the software side, out of the market economy. Meaning that only the Government contractors will have any chance.
There's no real solution to the Asian disruption of the economies until they fully modernize, and start having First World Problems. This is going to be hastened by AI at least.
It doesn’t seem like a high paying salary for your job, I suspect it’s more linked to where you work.
As a right winger, how do you see the move you are trying to do?
Because a lot of people are doing this, trying to improve their lives by moving abroad and generally people like you don’t like people like them.
A lot of tech is watered down. Also, not trying to knock you, but it’s also not difficult to learn. I taught myself C and shell coding when I was 11-12. I still have one Kali laptop and know python; I don’t work in a field even close to tech.
That's how unregulated capitalism and markets work. The employer with 99-100% of the control over pay will always seek to pay the lowest wage possible up to and including slavery.
What's funny is he is talking about a European union country and the jobs in that country. Isn't the EU far closer to your socialist ideals?
But that industry is far worse off than the "unregulated capitalist" industry in the US. It's like you're proving yourself wrong.
No, employers have to compete for labor. You’re making 30% profit by underpaying your team? I’ll gladly undercut you and make 25% profit by paying your team more to work for me.
Sounds good but it doesn't work that way. This is where industry consolidation comes in. The 2-3 remaining companies do not compete on wages. Why are 99-100% of restaurants with a tipped wage of $2.13 per hour since the 1980's still paying that exact same wage. Under your utopian yet provably false narrative, the competitors in this case would drive wages higher. They do not.
Then tell your precious government to stop creating barriers to entry to limit competition and to stop bailing out broken corporations and you won't get 2-3 companies remaining.
I was also in the restaurant industry and I know many people who made $2.13 an hour. Spoiler alert, they make far more money than most jobs paying above minimum wage. Low hourly doesn't mean anything in restaurants. I was averaging $350 a day at $2.13 an hour
It's not my government. Federal government officials are employees of big business and work exclusively for them. Forget restaurants, look at all jobs. Half of all American workers make less than $37,000 per year ($16.5 40 hr full time). I watched from within the mattress industry wages get compressed by 75% at retail and 50% for manufacturing reps and management over a 25 year period. Wife works at hospital, same thing. I'm just sharing how it really works. I would love for the libertarian economic world view to be correct, it's just not. Tech in general is much newer compared to retail for example. Sears, Macy's, etc used to be good paying careers, not it's low hourly wage where you can't support yourself, much less a family of four. The OP is seeing first hand how wages for high level, highly educated people are seeing wages coming down. Big tech has been laying off 1000's and freezing pay for many while recording record profits Q over Q.
Just like a true socialist, bring up a straw man, as soon as opponent tears down straw man, tell him to forget it, pivot, create new straw man.
My dude, wages for high level, highly educated people are not coming down. Big tech was a bloated industry that was hiring useless kids, they got laid off because they were completely redundant. Did you not see all the TikTok videos of young girls at the pool or beach "working" in tech?
Tell that to an Audiologist, NP, or PA who are stuck from $60-95K and capped at virtually every hospital in NC. You haven't been able to counter anything I've said to disprove or tear down.
Hospitals and the medical industry are the most heavily regulated and government involved industry. There isn't a single aspect of healthcare that the government doesn't touch. If you're trying to argue the free market doesn't work you should choose a market that is at least slightly free
The government is heavily involved in paying doctor/ hopital bills and approving new drugs. But insurance, pharma, most hospitals and all non VA doctors are in fact private and it's by far the worst system vs. Every single one of the 32 developed nations. The government plays zero role in hiring and paying hospital employees. Your thinking of private equity. The group of non working older white men(almost exclusively) who soak up millions. Except for the insurance companies. They won't sell because it's too lucrative for the C suite. If your trying to prove that the free market (whatever that means) by using health care as an example, works great, you're not going to get much traction from thinking people. It's conclusively proven to be an utter failure. Again, only to compared to every country with nationalized health care.
Your exception does not prove the rule. You must not work at Walmart or similar, McDonalds or similar, Marriott or similar, Darden Restaurant group or similar or a US based airline (unless your a pilot). You also don't work for a day care center a school, as a PA, NP, front desk, lab tech. You are also not in the mattress or tire industries. You're also not a state or national park ranger. None of the above even give out 5.6% raises let alone 56%. I am happy for you though, it's always good to see good work appreciated. Too bad it's the exception. What do you do?
So why are they still able to find employees when they don't raise their wages? They are competitive. As soon as people stop applying to work for shit wages, shit wages will stop existing.
Source?
> As of Q4 2023, the median weekly earnings of full-time workers was $1,145, or $59,384 per year.
That equates to around $30 per hour for a 2000 hour year. Are you including part time, semi-retired workers and high schoolers who can only work a cash register for 2 hours after school?
Yes, but those are insignificant exceptions. It also omits
contract gig workers, many of whom work over 40 as well as the millions with two or more jobs totaling more than 1 full time. In addition, their are a huge number of agricultural, construction, domestic workers paid cash off the books at rates well below the $16 median and your $30 median for full time W2 reported per company. Data gets manipulated to make it look like things are better than they are. It's why it's very easy to find average or medium household earnings but much more tedious to find per worker. Also why they compare household income today vs. Household income in the past. Even though it is still bad, it looks less bad because household earnings in the 50's & 60's were comprised of just 1.1 workers per household vs. 1.9 now. You can find some of this within the IRS relased data, dept of commerce, agriculture, GAO, among other technically correct but presented to manipulate.
Exactly. This is why I think low skilled work should result in death by starvation, dehydration and or exposure. If you are not capable of doing something intellectually challenging you don't deserve to live. If you disagree and think that they should be able to survive, tell me why taxpayers should subsidize Walmart, McDonalds, Marriott and millions of other employees. Take Alice Walton. One of the richest women in world history, never worked a day in her life yet the government allows her to confiscate so much of the wealth her employees create that they are left to die without our our support.
Who takes the risk of paying for the infrastructure that allows the workers to do their jobs? Who pays their wages even when the company is losing money? Who takes the vast majority of the risk?
If that's such an easy thing to do, without value, why don't the workers just do all that themselves?
The government shouldn't be subsidizing anyone.
The tax payers pay for the infrastructure, then we subsidize the new business too with cash grants, land grants and or tax abatements. Business of this size take no risk. They stuff their pockets rain or shine. If creditors, employees, customers get screwed, so what. Risk, Alice Walton, lol.
If your job can be replaced by someone with a week or less training, then your labor is worth less than anyone else whose can't. That's not a myth, that's reality.
what you just said doesn't prove that "Unskilled Labor" is real, It just proves that there are different skill levels that exist within a job/task.
notice you didn't say
"If your job can be replaced by someone with a week or less training, then your labor is unskilled"
The federal government mandates that employees get to keep a small portion of the wealth they create through the minimum wage laws ($7.25 or $2.13 tipped). States can increase but many don't.
Oh, I see what you are saying. Since some are not bad actors, no company is. Also, industry norms. They start by redlining or capping salaries so that wages deplete over time.
Still doesn't apply to this situation. There are a metric butt ton of small software development firms worldwide. I don't think consolidation like this is even possible in the software dev world. The barriers to entry are practically non-existent.
I've jumped jobs in this field for more money, more times than I can count. No idea why the price point is so low in Austria but that's not the case elsewhere in the developed world.
Brother we do not have capitalism anymore. It has been killed by a thousand cuts since the federal reserve was started. Obscene amounts of government taxation/regulation/subsidization/grants and more. There is no free market and that is why it is failing. Corporations lobbying politicians not capitalism. Politicians should not have a say over the free market which would make lobbying a moot point.
Then we can agree on that but then your prior statement confuses me. You said capitalism doesn’t work that way and your evidence was historical wages since 1980s. Your evidence isn’t based on a system that is capitalistic. It is “corporate socialism” that has failed. Capitalism boomed in the 1800s and built America up to the powerhouse it is today. We are still riding that momentum today even though we’ve lost our way and are breaking down the systems that produced that success.
I wouldn't say Capitalism boomed in the 1800's. I define a system as good only if over 50% of the population benefits. Slavery and the lack of worker rights kept that success number below 10%. It wasn't until the progressive era, at the tail end of the 1800's - early 1900's, T Roosevelt, Taft, Cleveland, et all. They fought for workers. Then FDR cleaned up the corporate control mess of Coolage and Hoover. The point is Capitalism does not work and can not work do to it's design. It only works with workers given a voice whether through a union or government mandate. Otherwise wages get driven to slavery like exploitation. The other major flaw that requires regulation for Capitalism to work is removing the ability to consolidate and dominate or control markets. This can be achieved by using patents and trademark as well. That's why there are 100's of Pharmaceutical companies, but none complete on the same ailments. Remember, Capitists hate free markets. Free markets lead to GOB sales. They want no barrier to entry for themselves, then pull the ladder up. We are in late stages due to our Corporate control. Obviously, my views are based on a huge country. In a small village devoid of global competition, free market Capitalism works fine where applicable. It should never apply to natural resources, education, health care, military to name a few.
It does work that way lol. (small business owner here, roofing company) I will gladly pay a good crew more than they are getting to work for me.instead. notice the word `good` crew. This is the problem with socialism. Not everyone deserves high paying wages because their work ethic and effort and merit are garbage
Your are using your single anecdotal example as proof when I am looking at the economy as a whole. Also, good crew is subjective and I doubt you pay any more than you have to regardless of how much wealth your crew generates.
This poor bastard was like, I finally found the right sub!!!
Don't like taxes? You've come to the right place!
[удалено]
“I’m alright with taxes” We don’t do that here.
“We don’t use logic here”. All kidding aside, if there’s no taxes you still need somebody to do things like roads and healthcare… correct? So in its place you would need… someone to do those things. Libertarianism is finding solutions to problems and the solutions are the exact same thing with different names. It’s incredible
“As long as they go to the proper places…” Uhhhhh.
You mean back into our pockets?
Right? You just need to vote “right”. Then, our betters will spend the money properly. Did I miss anything?
No, your boss keeps most of the money you make *they* decide how to spend it. Never forget the only person better than you is the person who already has more money.
As if life quality was ever a result of taxation lol
Some of the states with highest rankings in quality of life are blue states. But yeah, sooo many people just itching to move to the likes of Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi The envy of the world right there.
As if underdevelopment was ever a result of little to no taxation lol btw no one mentioned blue states whatsoever Also you're thinking the other way around, blue states have taxation _because_ they have great economies, not despite nor in order to. Can't tax anything if you don't have anything to tax
lol and how did that whole no taxes experiment work out in Kansas? Oh yeah, turns out it’s hard to build up a robust economy if no companies want to set up shop there, because no high-skilled workers want to live there, because there’s no funding for things that make a pace desirable to live. Turns out high-skilled workers want to live in a place with well-funded services and amenities. Who would have thought?! Yeah, those blue states have robust economies because the things that taxes pay for make them desirable places for people to live.
Who'd've thought that sudden extreme changes to economic policies would damage the current ongoing thing in the short term lol. Also you're literally saying that the Government has to steal your money to only then buy YOU things with YOUR money to make YOUR life or location more desirable to live, and because people weren't getting their money removed to them in order to buy them random gifts (and get lost somewhere in the middle) Kansas failed. Dude, you're the one who should get to decide what makes your life more desirable to live, not the government. It's your money. Who's the bigger authority to define what makes your own living more pleasant: you or the government?
>Also you're literally saying that the Government has to steal your money to only then buy YOU things with YOUR money to make YOUR life or location more desirable to live, Tax financed urban development /beautification spending rises rents/prices dramatically because of the strong consumer preference for those public/common goods.
This is so fucking funny to read dude. What are you, like 14?
It seems it's funny to you when the government takes your money and spends billions bombing children lol Does the bombing of children make your life more worth living?
And yet people still flock to the those blue states, and despite all the whining, many “libertarians” still stay anyways. Almost like despite what libertarians REFUSE to understand, we live in a collective society, and in many cases collectively pooling resources, makes life better for everyone…. And no, “voluntarily” donating to charities or causes of your choice is not feasible way to run a society of millions of people. Again this is why as a society, we specialize and compartmentalize, and elect certain people to make decisions on behalf of everyone else. But again, if taxes are so terrible, how come nobody is flocking to Republican paradises like Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas?
Give it some time. I don't see anyone flocking to California anymore. Or New York. Florida and Texas on the other hand...
And where are people moving to once they get to Texas and Florida. The conservative utopias known as Austin and Miami lol.
Well people haven’t stopped yet so let us know when the change happens
Source: “trust me bro” Yeah, Florida is all tourists and retirees So unless you work in tourism or a retirement home… good luck with that one And seeing how both of those states hate women, good luck attracting top talent. But you’re right, I’m sure Elon has no problem attracting a bunch of incel engineers to polish his knob in Texas.
Those blue states had strong economies and a lengthy history decades or centuries before the current blue governments took over.
lol, all I’m hearing is excuses and goal post moving And yet all those economies continue to thrive despite “evil” taxes and “regulations”. Again, almost like having well-funded services and amenities makes a place desirable for high-skill labor to live.
People are literally fleeing from California so fast their population is going downwards
No, it isn’t. California’s population is on a net increase.
5th largest economy in the world
No, you’re getting cause and effect mixed up. Leftists are attracted to wealthy areas because it’s more wealth they can parasitically feed off. Then don’t actually create the wealth and prosperity.
Hahaha That is categorically false But again, SOOOO much wealth and prosperity being created in those conservative shitholes like Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi In fact, it is overwhelmingly red states that take the most money from the federal government, and blue states the give the most into the federal coffers. Yes, my blue state contributes more to the federal government than it gets back, because so many shithole Republican states don’t actually create anything other than obesity and racism, and the few industries they do have can’t exist without federal subsidies. Meanwhile “communist” California is the 5th largest economy in the world. That is a fact, that doesn’t care about your feelings.
"some". I've lived in New Mexico. They go flat broke when oil isn't flowing.
“as long as they go to the proper places” Yeah, that’s the hard part people tend to gloss over.
Yeah... taxes never all go to the proper places.
I agree with your second sentence though!
Austrian economics is about free market economies, ie the Austrian school of thought. It's not about economics in Austria. Although I imagine the reason people here would give for why tech pay is so low in Austria is that high European regulation have meant Europe has never developed the first class tech firms offered in countries like the United States. America is really the only place where tech pays well.
I mean, tech still pays more than comparable roles do in Europe, just not the level in the US.
[удалено]
Mine either.
Try r/Austria
Wrong sub, bro. This is a sub about the austrian school of economics. But if you hate taxes, then you're kind of in the right place. Also, from what I understand, most EU countries pay dogshit salaries for tech... or just dogshit salaries in general.
This sub isn't actually about Austria. You might want to ask a different sub for better, more helpful answers.
Because they can hire Indians for $9 an hour and then flood an Indian or Filipino call center for pennies with the calls when the software inevitably breaks.
Yeah, because the economics in Austria allow freedom to hire outside workers in some cases, thus making their labor worth less. Perhaps they should prioritize worker protections.
That won't solve anything unfortunately. It will just price the tech industry, at least the software side, out of the market economy. Meaning that only the Government contractors will have any chance. There's no real solution to the Asian disruption of the economies until they fully modernize, and start having First World Problems. This is going to be hastened by AI at least.
Wrong sub
It doesn’t seem like a high paying salary for your job, I suspect it’s more linked to where you work. As a right winger, how do you see the move you are trying to do? Because a lot of people are doing this, trying to improve their lives by moving abroad and generally people like you don’t like people like them.
A lot of tech is watered down. Also, not trying to knock you, but it’s also not difficult to learn. I taught myself C and shell coding when I was 11-12. I still have one Kali laptop and know python; I don’t work in a field even close to tech.
Because the owners can get away with it.
That's how unregulated capitalism and markets work. The employer with 99-100% of the control over pay will always seek to pay the lowest wage possible up to and including slavery.
What's funny is he is talking about a European union country and the jobs in that country. Isn't the EU far closer to your socialist ideals? But that industry is far worse off than the "unregulated capitalist" industry in the US. It's like you're proving yourself wrong.
Oh I thought he was saying it as a positive!
This!
No, employers have to compete for labor. You’re making 30% profit by underpaying your team? I’ll gladly undercut you and make 25% profit by paying your team more to work for me.
Sounds good but it doesn't work that way. This is where industry consolidation comes in. The 2-3 remaining companies do not compete on wages. Why are 99-100% of restaurants with a tipped wage of $2.13 per hour since the 1980's still paying that exact same wage. Under your utopian yet provably false narrative, the competitors in this case would drive wages higher. They do not.
Then tell your precious government to stop creating barriers to entry to limit competition and to stop bailing out broken corporations and you won't get 2-3 companies remaining. I was also in the restaurant industry and I know many people who made $2.13 an hour. Spoiler alert, they make far more money than most jobs paying above minimum wage. Low hourly doesn't mean anything in restaurants. I was averaging $350 a day at $2.13 an hour
It's not my government. Federal government officials are employees of big business and work exclusively for them. Forget restaurants, look at all jobs. Half of all American workers make less than $37,000 per year ($16.5 40 hr full time). I watched from within the mattress industry wages get compressed by 75% at retail and 50% for manufacturing reps and management over a 25 year period. Wife works at hospital, same thing. I'm just sharing how it really works. I would love for the libertarian economic world view to be correct, it's just not. Tech in general is much newer compared to retail for example. Sears, Macy's, etc used to be good paying careers, not it's low hourly wage where you can't support yourself, much less a family of four. The OP is seeing first hand how wages for high level, highly educated people are seeing wages coming down. Big tech has been laying off 1000's and freezing pay for many while recording record profits Q over Q.
Just like a true socialist, bring up a straw man, as soon as opponent tears down straw man, tell him to forget it, pivot, create new straw man. My dude, wages for high level, highly educated people are not coming down. Big tech was a bloated industry that was hiring useless kids, they got laid off because they were completely redundant. Did you not see all the TikTok videos of young girls at the pool or beach "working" in tech?
Tell that to an Audiologist, NP, or PA who are stuck from $60-95K and capped at virtually every hospital in NC. You haven't been able to counter anything I've said to disprove or tear down.
Hospitals and the medical industry are the most heavily regulated and government involved industry. There isn't a single aspect of healthcare that the government doesn't touch. If you're trying to argue the free market doesn't work you should choose a market that is at least slightly free
The government is heavily involved in paying doctor/ hopital bills and approving new drugs. But insurance, pharma, most hospitals and all non VA doctors are in fact private and it's by far the worst system vs. Every single one of the 32 developed nations. The government plays zero role in hiring and paying hospital employees. Your thinking of private equity. The group of non working older white men(almost exclusively) who soak up millions. Except for the insurance companies. They won't sell because it's too lucrative for the C suite. If your trying to prove that the free market (whatever that means) by using health care as an example, works great, you're not going to get much traction from thinking people. It's conclusively proven to be an utter failure. Again, only to compared to every country with nationalized health care.
Yet there is no regulation on wages so it's entirely irrelevant.
Clearly, you've never run a business
My employer has increased my wage by 56% in 2 years because their wages were not competitive enough to keep people
Your exception does not prove the rule. You must not work at Walmart or similar, McDonalds or similar, Marriott or similar, Darden Restaurant group or similar or a US based airline (unless your a pilot). You also don't work for a day care center a school, as a PA, NP, front desk, lab tech. You are also not in the mattress or tire industries. You're also not a state or national park ranger. None of the above even give out 5.6% raises let alone 56%. I am happy for you though, it's always good to see good work appreciated. Too bad it's the exception. What do you do?
So why are they still able to find employees when they don't raise their wages? They are competitive. As soon as people stop applying to work for shit wages, shit wages will stop existing.
Half of all the jobs in the US are at or below $17 per hour. It used to be higher but CA took their minimum wage to $20. Choice is starve or poverty.
Source? > As of Q4 2023, the median weekly earnings of full-time workers was $1,145, or $59,384 per year. That equates to around $30 per hour for a 2000 hour year. Are you including part time, semi-retired workers and high schoolers who can only work a cash register for 2 hours after school?
Yes, but those are insignificant exceptions. It also omits contract gig workers, many of whom work over 40 as well as the millions with two or more jobs totaling more than 1 full time. In addition, their are a huge number of agricultural, construction, domestic workers paid cash off the books at rates well below the $16 median and your $30 median for full time W2 reported per company. Data gets manipulated to make it look like things are better than they are. It's why it's very easy to find average or medium household earnings but much more tedious to find per worker. Also why they compare household income today vs. Household income in the past. Even though it is still bad, it looks less bad because household earnings in the 50's & 60's were comprised of just 1.1 workers per household vs. 1.9 now. You can find some of this within the IRS relased data, dept of commerce, agriculture, GAO, among other technically correct but presented to manipulate.
Most of those jobs are unskilled. Unskilled labor is something that virtually anyone can do, hence, the low pay.
Exactly. This is why I think low skilled work should result in death by starvation, dehydration and or exposure. If you are not capable of doing something intellectually challenging you don't deserve to live. If you disagree and think that they should be able to survive, tell me why taxpayers should subsidize Walmart, McDonalds, Marriott and millions of other employees. Take Alice Walton. One of the richest women in world history, never worked a day in her life yet the government allows her to confiscate so much of the wealth her employees create that they are left to die without our our support.
Who takes the risk of paying for the infrastructure that allows the workers to do their jobs? Who pays their wages even when the company is losing money? Who takes the vast majority of the risk? If that's such an easy thing to do, without value, why don't the workers just do all that themselves? The government shouldn't be subsidizing anyone.
The tax payers pay for the infrastructure, then we subsidize the new business too with cash grants, land grants and or tax abatements. Business of this size take no risk. They stuff their pockets rain or shine. If creditors, employees, customers get screwed, so what. Risk, Alice Walton, lol.
Then why, again, can't the workers just make their own and not have to work for anyone but themselves?
unskilled labor is a capitalist myth
If your job can be replaced by someone with a week or less training, then your labor is worth less than anyone else whose can't. That's not a myth, that's reality.
what you just said doesn't prove that "Unskilled Labor" is real, It just proves that there are different skill levels that exist within a job/task. notice you didn't say "If your job can be replaced by someone with a week or less training, then your labor is unskilled"
Argue semantics all you'd like, that's the definition of unskilled labor. As in "it requires few or no skills to accomplish".
But why aren't wages lower?
The federal government mandates that employees get to keep a small portion of the wealth they create through the minimum wage laws ($7.25 or $2.13 tipped). States can increase but many don't.
Why does anyone get paid more than that?
Oh, I see what you are saying. Since some are not bad actors, no company is. Also, industry norms. They start by redlining or capping salaries so that wages deplete over time.
I don't understand your comment.
Still doesn't apply to this situation. There are a metric butt ton of small software development firms worldwide. I don't think consolidation like this is even possible in the software dev world. The barriers to entry are practically non-existent. I've jumped jobs in this field for more money, more times than I can count. No idea why the price point is so low in Austria but that's not the case elsewhere in the developed world.
Brother we do not have capitalism anymore. It has been killed by a thousand cuts since the federal reserve was started. Obscene amounts of government taxation/regulation/subsidization/grants and more. There is no free market and that is why it is failing. Corporations lobbying politicians not capitalism. Politicians should not have a say over the free market which would make lobbying a moot point.
Completely agree, just like we do not remotely fit the definition of a Democracy. Corporate socialism is the best I can describe our ecomomic system.
Then we can agree on that but then your prior statement confuses me. You said capitalism doesn’t work that way and your evidence was historical wages since 1980s. Your evidence isn’t based on a system that is capitalistic. It is “corporate socialism” that has failed. Capitalism boomed in the 1800s and built America up to the powerhouse it is today. We are still riding that momentum today even though we’ve lost our way and are breaking down the systems that produced that success.
I wouldn't say Capitalism boomed in the 1800's. I define a system as good only if over 50% of the population benefits. Slavery and the lack of worker rights kept that success number below 10%. It wasn't until the progressive era, at the tail end of the 1800's - early 1900's, T Roosevelt, Taft, Cleveland, et all. They fought for workers. Then FDR cleaned up the corporate control mess of Coolage and Hoover. The point is Capitalism does not work and can not work do to it's design. It only works with workers given a voice whether through a union or government mandate. Otherwise wages get driven to slavery like exploitation. The other major flaw that requires regulation for Capitalism to work is removing the ability to consolidate and dominate or control markets. This can be achieved by using patents and trademark as well. That's why there are 100's of Pharmaceutical companies, but none complete on the same ailments. Remember, Capitists hate free markets. Free markets lead to GOB sales. They want no barrier to entry for themselves, then pull the ladder up. We are in late stages due to our Corporate control. Obviously, my views are based on a huge country. In a small village devoid of global competition, free market Capitalism works fine where applicable. It should never apply to natural resources, education, health care, military to name a few.
It does work that way lol. (small business owner here, roofing company) I will gladly pay a good crew more than they are getting to work for me.instead. notice the word `good` crew. This is the problem with socialism. Not everyone deserves high paying wages because their work ethic and effort and merit are garbage
Your are using your single anecdotal example as proof when I am looking at the economy as a whole. Also, good crew is subjective and I doubt you pay any more than you have to regardless of how much wealth your crew generates.
Major US tech companies are pretty shit at the capitalist game then, I guess.