When one is living paycheck to paycheck one can't save much. That's what it means. We've already gone over why 53 million people can't "locate a better job". The solution is to pay better wages to ensure nobody is 'working poor'.
That's according to the federal poverty guidelines. For a single person it's 12.5k, while for a family of four it's under 26k. It's the same no matter where one lives. I'm not familiar with the cost of living over there, but i'm going to go out on a limb and say the poverty guidelines are way under the cost of living in any urban area. Depending on which article one reads, there are more, or fewer people who should be categorised as being below the poverty line.
"They will be created as needed" is about as vague as it gets. 44% of Americans work in low skilled, low wage jobs. These jobs are probably most at risk of being automated, There won't be 50 million replacement jobs. That's before we even begin to think about the amount of skilled jobs that are also at risk of being automated. Slightly ironically, the IT industry is developing computers that will put their creators out of work.
It's hard to predict the future but automation will affect all trades, albeit some more than others, and some sooner than others.
I would agree that many other jobs may be automated before many trades. I referred to those two industries specifically because they were already part of the conversation. Having said that, I think it's hard to envision that automation won't result in fewer traditional trades jobs in the future.
Is GA on your mind?
We have two distinctly different groups of people that live paycheck to paycheck here in Australia. The ones already mentioned that are truly in that situation due low wages, and then there's the second group, the ones that have high paying jobs that could choose to live within their means and not live paycheck to paycheck but do so of their own choice.
Yes, both can make a choice later in life, they just seem to come from different starting points, with one being a much harder slog than the other. Perhaps this harder slog is what's better prepared many of us that don't live in McMansions (as they're commonly known as here) but now own our own homes outright because we lived within our means.
Individuals have a choice but it's not as simple as choosing it. We know there are many factors that inhibit upward mobility. We also know that better jobs cannot be offered to every low paid worker, should they all make that "choice".
Often is a vague term but I'm interested in reading about this. Have you a link?
That reads like a tagline to a terrible reality show, The Apprentice Factor. Trump and Cowell present the future.
That's not a fact but it becomes more true the less regulated the market is. We can determine what people are paid if we so wish. For example the EU subsidises industries like agriculture.
It's not something I've considered before. The lottery winner stories certainly exist but surely people from all walks of life have lived beyond their means and lost their money needlessly. There are plenty of stories of people working their way up and using their money responsibly. From memory, I think I have read about a link between getting a life changing amount of money in a short space of time and then wasting that money, but there's no reason to think that those lottery winners share characteristics with people who work their way to wealth. Without data we don't know whether any correlation exists.
Of course not. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
It's a hypothetical. There simply cannot be a situation where every low skilled worker can a get better job.
Currently there is no scenario where some people will not be low paying jobs no matter what they do. It's a consequence of an unregulated market.
Weird, I've not said anything about "where jobs come from".
You not understanding it doesn't make it nonsensical. It's a myth that every worker can get a better job today. Any worker can, but every worker can't.
You do't need me for that.
It's a real and observable consequence.
I'm shocked
Joking aside, minimum wage is a bit of a cop out. At best it only hides the problem for a period. However it is an acknowledgement that the problem exists.Now you're getting it...
...I spoke too soon. You're aware of the concept of anecdotal evidence, right?
Says the most closed-minded person on GTPlanet. Oh, the irony.
That is not a correct presumption. I presented the best observable evidence that there are invisible barriers preventing people from simply choosing to get a better job. The evidence is that people don't make that "choice".
This ignores the observable to defend the theoretical. I pointed out that it wasn't what I said. My suspicion was that it was a deliberate manipulation of my point, so I was preparing to exit the conversation. Now it looks more likely that my suspicions were incorrect.
There has to be relatively low(er) income jobs. Various factors influence why people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to work low income jobs. Those barriers prevent people from choosing to do whats needed to move up the ladder. People from lower economic backgrounds are less likely to continue in education beyond second level, one of the main barriers to getting a better job. The decision not to continue in education is often financially motivated, but conforming to social norms also plays a part. Often they don't recognise that the "choice" is available to them. As they get older choosing to enact change becomes less likely. As long as social mobility is low we can predict that children being born now into lower socio-economic families are more likely to remain part of a low socio-economic group. Effectively the "choice" is already made for many.
