Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Tornado August 15th, 2016 04:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I have to admit, I always thought it to be idyllic in Canada but I imagine your cities have the same amount of corruption as any other major city.

Grats on your accomplishments wriggz. I can think of no better gift than a good childhood and the potential that lies beyond.

Rich10 August 15th, 2016 05:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2105744)
Few people "decide" that they are okay living at the poverty line. Both my wife and I lucked out to have brains enough (and maybe not be cool enough to get sucked in with the Cool bad kids) to get through those rough years. When you get to the other side and see the Morons that are successful because their lives were easy, you realize there are many at the bottom because that is where they were born.

I'm not sure what leads to generations of people who live in poverty. My parents were immigrants into the US and had no money or education. As my father put it, he had "a willingness to work harder than anyone else" wherever he worked. He worked 2 jobs while my mother also worked for many years. He made sure that my brother and I went to college in a field in which we could earn a living. A friend of mine is the son of immigrants and he also remembers his father having multiple jobs. In the 1960's to 1970's, a willingness to work hard, with a push for your children's education seemed to be a path out of poverty. The market for blue collar labor seems much tighter today than it did years ago. I'm not sure what is needed today. I know of families that skate by with part time jobs and government assistance. They have enough to eat, but not enough to get ahead of living check to check.

Dysole August 15th, 2016 06:20 PM

One Thing
 
The U.S. is moving more and more to having most of its jobs be service based and more and more automation. Neither party is really addressing those concerns instead focusing on the manufacturing jobs that we will never regain to the level where we used to be.

Several things contribute to generational poverty not the least of which is that communities of minorities have several intrinsic disadvantages against them (location, lack of resources, etc.). Other things like the growing costs of education, increased access to credit, decisions by producers as a whole, decisions by investors as a whole, government gridlock, etc. all contribute without an individual necessarily being able to control them.

This is all kind of half remembered from stuff I've read over a period of time so some of it may be less accurate than I remember but the main gist is that there are things that contribute to an individual's poverty that that person has no control over (although I would say it's rare that they have zero control over everything).

~Dysole, still juggling potential solutions

vegietarian18 August 16th, 2016 02:15 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Losing jobs to manufacturing will definitely be a problem in the far future. I'm not convinced it's having a devastating effect at the moment, and that the jobs haven't just moved to cheaper labor forces.

The idea has been discussed for a long time. So long in fact, that it's known as the Luddite Fallacy, after workers in the 19th century England who feared technological innovations would hurt their future employment prospects. I think calling it a fallacy is pretty flawed, but it seems to always be always on the horizon rather than a current problem. I think if we ever reach a point where global unemployment is an issue, politicians can address it, but at the moment, I think it is only a small piece of the problem for generational poverty.

Dysole August 16th, 2016 03:11 AM

Locally Grown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2105811)
Losing jobs to manufacturing will definitely be a problem in the far future. I'm not convinced it's having a devastating effect at the moment, and that the jobs haven't just moved to cheaper labor forces.

The idea has been discussed for a long time. So long in fact, that it's known as the Luddite Fallacy, after workers in the 19th century England who feared technological innovations would hurt their future employment prospects. I think calling it a fallacy is pretty flawed, but it seems to always be always on the horizon rather than a current problem. I think if we ever reach a point where global unemployment is an issue, politicians can address it, but at the moment, I think it is only a small piece of the problem for generational poverty.

I was only referencing US jobs which have decreased and barring a minor miracle will not return. We can certainly adjust our economy to technological improvements; we just haven't as well as we could.

~Dysole, adding some clarifiers to her original statement

wriggz August 16th, 2016 08:13 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I really don't think it is the lack of jobs. Instead it is the lack of consumers that is stalling the economy. historically economy's have been fairly local. Local farmer, local barber, local kobler. Sure there was in ports and exports but much of the local wealth stayed local.

This has radically changed as more of our consumables are non physical. All the profits of candy crush and pokemon go are consolidated. Small economies are bled dry as business centers boom. Even more concerning us the massing of huge fortunes. GI've a billionaire a million dollar tax hike and he might spend it on investing in the local economy and even then expects to take more money out when he is paid back with profits. Give a ten thousand low income earners 100 dollars and that is a million dollars that is being pumped directly back into local economy's (as far as retail is local) illegal activities notwithstanding.

More jobs generally means more consumers and vise versa. however you need more consumers to drive more jobs. Taking money out of the economy in the form of multi billionaire stops that process.

Tornado August 16th, 2016 01:34 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I have had a theory that the economy was good during the Clinton era simply because people were spending money.
Those were good times, the last time we really were not at war and folks were buying and not saving. The more people bought the more jobs it created.
Again a theory, I have absolutely no statistics to back it up. :)

Nukatha August 16th, 2016 07:40 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
That is incredibly important, Tornado. Economies aren't 'good' when everyone saves money, they're good when everyone is spending. When I buy something, I hand a wad of cash over, and the recipient can immediately use that for goods and services for himself.

It's like that $100 bill story. A hotel own has a nice room available for $100 per night. A guy from out of town shows up and gives the Hotel owner $100 for a room, at which point he walks upstairs to the room. The manager runs over the grocer to pay for last week's food purchase for the Hotel's restaurant. The Grocer immediately runs to the local farmer and pays him for last week's deli meats. The Farmer owed one of his hired hands $100 for some overtime work, so pays him. This hired hand's parents are in from out-of-town and staying at the hotel tonight, so he runs to the Hotel to pay the manager so their room will be ready when they arrive. At this time the man from out-of-town walks back downstairs, says he doesn't like the room, and asks for his money back, which the manager gives him immediately.

A economy is great when people can buy things to improve their life. More purchases from any given location should lead to higher wages for employees, or more employees, which they can then use for their own self-improvement. Higher wages mean more tax revenue, and local/state/national governments can spend the revenue on more projects to support the general welfare. But if a lot of people decide to start saving (or hoarding, think banks pulling out of the stock market or something I guess) instead of spending, the numerical amount of money and resources remains the same, but much less gets done. Which really sucks, because saving money is generally quite beneficial to an individual.

Sort of a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma. Everyone (in theory) benefits when everyone is spending, but the individual who saves wisely reduces everyone else's quality of life by some value, while increasing his own by more.
Tragedy of the commons. Self interest is often in opposition to common good.

wriggz August 16th, 2016 08:01 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2105870)
Sort of a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma. Everyone (in theory) benefits when everyone is spending, but the individual who saves wisely reduces everyone else's quality of life by some value, while increasing his own by more.
Tragedy of the commons. Self interest is often in opposition to common good.

The only issue is the "individual".

I don't know who these economists think these common people are who are saving a bunch of money. Everyone I know from the Part time minimum wage earner to the small business owner is just about living pay check to pay check. I would be very surprised to meet anyone saving the recommend 10% for a rainy day.

Take retirement savings and petitions (like people have those anymore) out of the equation and most people are living on credit. Somewhere along the line the money is being collected and not spread around, and I don't think the average Joe has any extra money to squirrel away even if they had the choice (and even then average people tend to spend to their limit).

Dysole August 16th, 2016 08:05 PM

Shrug
 
It's very basic economics. Unfortunately, those basic economics assume everyone has perfect information and responds to that information completely rationally and instantaneously. These underlying assumptions are one of my biggest problems with the neoclassical model. The underlying principle is correct that the economy does best when consumption (people spending money) is high. Of course, then we discuss producer supply vs. consumer demand and all of the other fun little things you learn in the first part of econ. The problem is that real life is messy and no matter which economic model you use it won't actually fit real life perfectly. So you need to be aware of what your assumptions are and what the shortcomings are.

~Dysole, who if she remembers right at least in the US our current setup rips giant holes in every major economic theory

Nukatha August 17th, 2016 01:27 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2105873)
The only issue is the "individual".

I don't know who these economists think these common people are who are saving a bunch of money. Everyone I know from the Part time minimum wage earner to the small business owner is just about living pay check to pay check. I would be very surprised to meet anyone saving the recommend 10% for a rainy day.

Naturally, the 'individuals' who have the most impact are actually the extra-wealthy bankers and jerks who love gaming the system and watching the little number that says 'net worth' get two or three or more digits than an average citizen have a much larger impact. I didn't mean to imply that a guy who makes sub 50k a year and manages to somehow save 5k per year makes a big impact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dysole (Post 2105874)
It's very basic economics. Unfortunately, those basic economics assume everyone has perfect information and responds to that information completely rationally and instantaneously.

Say, have you ever played Power Grid against an irrational player? It is absolutely infuriating.

Rich10 August 17th, 2016 04:05 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2105818)
I really don't think it is the lack of jobs. Instead it is the lack of consumers that is stalling the economy.

Yes, but don't the consumers have money due to jobs?


The US has lost manufacturing jobs.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/29/news...obs/index.html

Why have we lost these jobs? Robots and better machines have taken a number of jobs. Trade deals and manufacturing moving to developing countries have taken others. I'm not a protectionist as most studies of protective tariffs show that they cost consumers more than they create wealth for workers who lose their jobs.

I'm not sure what the best path forward is. Turning protectionist as recommended by Trump and Sanders seems the wrong approach. Clinton suggests an increase in the minimum wage, but this runs the risk of eliminating some jobs. Trump's also suggested that illegal immigration hurts lower pay jobs. I can see how illegal immigrants (somewhere between 11 and 35 million in the US) would compete for the same jobs as blue collar workers, but you can pick your study based on your political orientation.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.