McDonalds: "What, my peon, you don't work two full time jobs?"

[MadImmortalMan]

There are far more aspects that make the environment different now than the one of the pre-70s being used as a comparison. Some of the same issues in the decline of Japan discussions apply also.

For one, the shift away from children supporting their parents later in life is all but gone now. Having children used to be a retirement plan, now it's an expensive hobby. Now, parents have their own assets that perform that task as well as state assistance. That's a big pile of assets that might otherwise have been in the pockets of working people, as well as an additional pressure for investment profits to fund the savings growth of future retirees. Before, that savings might have been put in the family farm or home and be left to the heirs later on.

Information exchange and the certification economy matter too. You can't get a job just because you're good at it. You have to have papers saying so, or a membership in the proper guild, or have taken some tests or attended a school for a certain period of time. What is a job search anyway? It's people looking for a way to occupy their time. If, say, under normal circumstances, 80% of the population is capable of learning and performing any job. The other 20% maybe divided up between those who are only capable of doing 50% of the jobs and another portion not capable of work. There's no way to estimate it well. Anyway, you put up some barriers to entry for a large percentage of those jobs like requiring a degree, union or bar membership or something. Now, a smaller portion of the population has attained qualification to perform a larger number of jobs. The obvious economic impact of that will be that the supply of "qualified" people will diminish and labor glut develops in the "lower-skilled" areas. In other words, low-income people are making less because high-income people are making more--the latter due to constructed barriers to entry that have been constructed to protect them.

[Ideologue]

I don't think 80% of the population is capable of performing any job anymore; although that may once have been substantially true, perhaps in the early industrial era.

That said, it's a gross defect of modern capitalism that the most remunerative jobs are jobs that a broader section of the population could do (managing crap, being a CEO, if we're being honest most medical services) or that no one should do (most jobs in finance), and the jobs that both require high intellect and are socially valuable pay about what being a failed lawyer does.  And I think the certification economy is part of that problem, because certing locks you into a path, and if you choose poorly, too fucking bad; but it also, as you say, provides protection for those lucky/just good enough to be part of a successful guild structure.

[grumbler]

So you want to play CC now? I never said the jobs were now simple and easy, I said that computers have made many jobs easier.

Besides, I would say that if they are the only jobs that an individual can get and can never ever advance at said job or get another job (but is not an actual slave and by rules not allowed to seek other employment) then yes they might be easy positions.

Don't interfere with Meri's emo scene, guy.  If she doesn't get to restate her opponent's position into something absurd, she could never convince herself that she (secretly) won every debate.  If course no one said that" it's simple and easy to work minimum wage jobs now that computers are there to help."  That would be an absurd assertion and has only been made by Meri's straw man. 

[grumbler]

That was aimed at grumbler, not you.

And it missed my argument by a mile as well, but if it makes you feel good to set up those emo arguments, have at it.  They'll work better if you don't pretend that they were made by anyone but you, though.

[Josquius]

So I'm a business owner. I need a minimum of two guys to staff my business. So I employ 2 guys for minimum wage. That I can afford to pay them more or hire a third guy is irrelevant, I do the minimum I can get away with. If the minimum wage goes up then there's nothing  I can do, I have to pay my guys more. I can't fire the extra 3rd guy as I never employed him anyway.

You can close your shop.

That would be pretty dumb and selfish yet self-destroying.

[Caliga]

It wouldn't be dumb if you're being forced to pay your employees so much money that you're actually operating at a loss.

[Grey Fox]

It wouldn't be dumb if you're being forced to pay your employees so much money that you're actually operating at a loss.

You mean, like the Twitter board is doing?

[Caliga]

I don't know anything about Twitter.  It doesn't exist to me.... kind of like Apple.

[The Brain]

So I'm a business owner. I need a minimum of two guys to staff my business. So I employ 2 guys for minimum wage. That I can afford to pay them more or hire a third guy is irrelevant, I do the minimum I can get away with. If the minimum wage goes up then there's nothing  I can do, I have to pay my guys more. I can't fire the extra 3rd guy as I never employed him anyway.

You can close your shop.

That would be pretty dumb and selfish yet self-destroying.

[Grey Fox]

I don't know anything about Twitter.  It doesn't exist to me.... kind of like Apple.

They just giving themselves a 16 millions raise.

[Caliga]

 

Does Twitter have any way to make money?

[Josquius]

"What do you mean I have to pay £2 more an hour to my workers! That's it! I'm closing my shop and going home! No shop for anybody! Who cares if I destroy my source of income with it..."

It wouldn't be dumb if you're being forced to pay your employees so much money that you're actually operating at a loss.

Nobody is suggesting doing that. And in my example I could afford a third guy if I wanted, paying the other two a little more is affordable.

[Grey Fox]

Does Twitter have any way to make money?

Nope, 64 millions lost in the 3rd quarter.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Does Twitter have any way to make money?

Nope, 64 millions lost in the 3rd quarter.

On $169 million in revenue.  And, since they spent over half of it on R&D, they could make themselves break even by cutting that expenditure to "normal" SV levels.

[Grey Fox]

That is true.