The mini recession continues

a reply to: St Udio

It was actually Republicans who did away with the COLA increases under W. Then they blocked any new ones under Obama (maybe one or two snuck through). It's part of an attempt to curb spending.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: toysforadults

it's good that you are finally realizing the horrible mess Obama put us in with ACA. Bankrupting a nation to make insurance companies super rich. He sold us out.

To be fair they all did including the neocon GOP.
ACA was meant to pass because it was drafted and paid for by the insurance lobbyist industry.

The republicans helped Obama get elected by choosing the most likely candidate to lose against him (McStain & Romney) at the time.When the Republicans had a chance under trump they did nothing.

Now that everything is back into lobbying harmony with no accountability once the dems take back the house in Jan , the neocon GOP and DNC get to play the blame game as to why things are still a mess.

a reply to: Nyiah

only idiots continue to repeat that bull#, if 35$ a month is enough to ruin your financial future we have bigger problems (we have bigger problems)

a reply to: Aazadan

But, learning on the job puts all of the risk on the employer.

and that's where the risk should be

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Aazadan

But, learning on the job puts all of the risk on the employer.

and that's where the risk should be

Why? Why should an employer have to shoulder the burden of training an employee who may or may not be capable of doing the job? That adds a lot of additional expenses to a business.

Lets take an example, if you want someone to build a good Machine Learning platform for you, they're going to need probably 8-10 years of study in the field, and another year or two studying your exact business case and problem constraints. What sort of business could afford to pay someone that long, to learn their specific use case, only for them to leave and have to do it all over again at another company? It just doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, it reduces options for the employee. When the company trains you, you learn company specific knowledge that likely doesn't transfer well (if at all). When you learn more general theory on your own and apply it to a specific companies needs, the employee has the freedom to move anywhere they want. This results in them having far more leverage in negotiations, and getting better employment terms.

a reply to: Aazadan

because the employer stands to benefit. if the employer isn't bearing the burden of risk then they need a superior compensation model.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Aazadan

because the employer stands to benefit. if the employer isn't bearing the burden of risk then they need a superior compensation model.

Increased risk on the employers side, means lower pay for the employee. It takes the employees leverage away. Sure, companies should be paying more now, but you're not going to make that happen by removing employee leverage.

a reply to: Aazadan

by me paying for my own education I take the cost of that education on regardless

the trade unions already employee this model look into it it works

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
I’m with you, I find it hard to believe Americans spend less of their disposable income on entertainment; Americans spend a good deal less of their disposable income on transportation fuel than in the ‘70s, but yet, there is an entry for “transportation” asserting that Americans spend about the same...be nice to see the underlying data and understand the assumptions and methodology employed to compute the charted numbers/figures.

The price of cars have gone up. The average price of a new car is now higher than the average income. In the 70's cars were most often offered as a 48 month loan. These days they are 96 months, because purchasing power has declined, and as such the monthly payment of the car needed to go down. The same thing happened to homes. They were 10 year loans at one point, then 15, then 30. In some states home loans are now 50 years, and in others things are so bad that home loans have become interest only loans, where there is never any intention to pay down any part of the principle.

Do you do data, bro?

Anyone here arguing the price of automobiles hasn’t gone up? How about the cradle-to-grace cost of an automobile? Reckon it’s “real” price/value has increased, decreased, or stayed the same? Hint: there’s data on that but you seem allergic to facts and addicted to assertions.

And you’ve officially taken the definition of “assertion” and ruined it for everyone else, bravo. I’ll let the others read your post where you assert — unequivocally — that at one point in the long distance past, one could buy a house, feed a family and pay for college on minimum wage. Actually, they can read it themselves:

In 1967 it was possible on minimum wage to own a home, pay for college out of pocket, have a car, and have plenty of food, and still have a small amount left over.

I’d ask for data to back up such a criminally idiotic assertion, but I’m sure you’ll remind us that the minimum wage was a tool to trick the populace into believing the CPI is a sleight-of-hand trick by economists to keep them (the populace) guessing at what really is in their ‘basket of goods’ they index for purposeful misinformation.

@OP: why aren’t you calling your broker and finishing the paperwork on that margin account? Dude, you stand to make a killing with your back-and-Firth knowledge of what the Case-Schiller index is telling us about the US housing market, and your bang-up charts can be used a data proxy to ‘time’ the inevitable bottoming out of FANG equities...short your way to getting off a conspiracy theory forum offering unsolicited ‘advice’. You can afford to pay your weekly/monthly 10% margin call, right?

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

who would ever even waste their time talking to you?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Aazadan

by me paying for my own education I take the cost of that education on regardless

the trade unions already employee this model look into it it works

But company specific training is only applicable to that company. It locks you in.

Let me tell you the story of one of the hardware engineers at the company I work for. He started there 30 years ago, and they trained him to be a product engineer. He only worked on our companies products, and he learned how to improve them and became the expert on them. However, he never learned fundamental general engineering principles. About 2 months ago this guy was fired at the age of 50. None of his work experience is transferable to any other company, and he has no education beyond his high school diploma. He is completely screwed because of corporate training. If he had a real engineering education he could get work elsewhere, but instead he can't do that, all he can do is work on a couple of very specific pieces of hardware that our company is the sole provider of.

a reply to: Aazadan

that's his fault for not getting to know the broader market and adapt new skills

I am getting a degree in network operations and security. I have to learn how to design implement and secure network infrastructure as well as other skills

I'm also teaching myself python and NSX because SDWAN and cloud/virtualization technology is advancing rapidly and without those skills I won't be market ready

if the company he works for is spending money on teaching him a valuable skill its his job to put in a little extra effort and learn how to adapt that skill to the market

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
Anyone here arguing the price of automobiles hasn’t gone up? How about the cradle-to-grace cost of an automobile? Reckon it’s “real” price/value has increased, decreased, or stayed the same? Hint: there’s data on that but you seem allergic to facts and addicted to assertions.

In 1967 a new car cost 2750 and minimum wage was $1.40. That's 1,964 hours of work to purchase a car. Today a new car costs $36,000 and minimum wage is $7.45. That's 4,832 hours of work to purchase a car. We can use median wage too if you would prefer. In 1967 it was $7300 per year, for a wage of $3.51/hour. So a car would cost 783 hours of work to purchase. Today, the average wage is 31,000 ($14.90/hour) so a car costs 2416 hours of work to purchase.

And you’ve officially taken the definition of “assertion” and ruined it for everyone else, bravo. I’ll let the others read your post where you assert — unequivocally — that at one point in the long distance past, one could buy a house, feed a family and pay for college on minimum wage. Actually, they can read it themselves:

An expensive university like UPenn cost $1770/year. If you did 10 credit hours (a 6 year rather than 4 year plan, but still considered full time) that would be $1180 per year. A cheap but still good house cost $11,000 which was an annual mortgage of $550. The car with maintenance and gas included was about $700. Food ran about $300 for a year. Add that up and you're at $2730 in expenses, while your minimum wage job paid $2912. It would be a bit tight, but you would even be able to pay your taxes on that... and the university we're using is the most expensive public university in the country.

So yes, you really could do all of that on minimum wage.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Aazadan

that's his fault for not getting to know the broader market and adapt new skills

I am getting a degree in network operations and security. I have to learn how to design implement and secure network infrastructure as well as other skills

I'm also teaching myself python and NSX because SDWAN and cloud/virtualization technology is advancing rapidly and without those skills I won't be market ready

if the company he works for is spending money on teaching him a valuable skill its his job to put in a little extra effort and learn how to adapt that skill to the market

It also creates a situation where the company is incentivized to save on training costs by only hiring people who already have sufficient experience. This is already a huge problem. Taking training out of the individuals hands and putting it back into the hands of the company exacerbates things.

a reply to: Aazadan

they are following the logic that minimum wage wasn't meant to be a living wage which if you have done any research into FDR and his policies you would very quickly realize how wrong that assertion is

it's kind of funny you can show the right wingers all the evidence in the world and it won't matter, they are just like the far left

a reply to: Aazadan

I see where you're coming from but I think both individual and business need to shoulder the responsibility

right now we have a situation where the individual is shouldering full responsibility but also not reaping the rewards from it, in most but not all cases

originally posted by: toysforadults
right now we have a situation where the individual is shouldering full responsibility but also not reaping the rewards from it, in most but not all cases

I fully agree, and that needs to change. The best way to change that is through giving workers better negotiating skills and a better negotiating position. The exact way to do that changes from industry to industry so there's not a one size fits all solution, but there are some things that we really shouldn't do, like give companies the ability to restrict a persons education.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: St Udio

It was actually Republicans who did away with the COLA increases under W. Then they blocked any new ones under Obama (maybe one or two snuck through). It's part of an attempt to curb spending.

then you have an issue with AARP (the source of the info, as cited)

sure GW did stuff that squared with the neocon gang that ran the administration--- including denying funds to the retired/disabled so that wars could be Bought by the Cheney+Romney cabal of bad actors...

but the point was that 8 years went by without any substantial 'cola' but Congress & the Govt workers got their increases that were greater than the +1.7% cap that the Progressive leader imposed (at the behest of the 'planning committee' which told BHO how-high-to-jump-&-when)

a reply to: toysforadults

Dude, you’re a troll and a tile setter — good luck with that upward mobility.

And to the poster about the car: I’ll accept as fact, your numbers (although a source is nice), but we’re talking disposable income and while min wage wasn’t taxed regressivy, taxes still erode at ‘take home pay’; you can convince me with sourced data, but it’s dubious, at best, to suggest $2912 would be $2730 after ALL taxes are paid. And maybe food cost we’re only $25 a month, but I can’t that as fact, when it — on its face — seems beyond fathomable it cost less than a dollar a day to feed a person (lord help us if you’re asserting you could feed a family for $300 a year), and do you honestly believe, you could/would work a min wage job full-time only to moonlight as a full-time student (whatever your 6-year full-time qualification attempts to fudge)? Surely, not U of Penn.

But, hey, let’s disregard all the logical inconsistencies and accept as fact — without any sourced data — in 1967 you could do all that on minimum wage. Forget telling the audience you’re numbers are based on the cost of only certain items (not nearly the entire portfolio of items one would spend disposable income on — no movies, no clothes, no partying, just housing yourself, driving a car, and going to college...*sigh*) and let’s assume you’ve really nailed this down, why does the OP’s own source state 2018 wages have the same purchasing power as 1978 wages’ purchasing power? What happened between 1967 and 1978? Or is this some straw man about min wage?

You complained about purchasing power but failed to realize 2018 wages have the same purchasing power as 1978 wages.

Again, it’s a flawed argument and you — for whatever reason — pulled minimum wage into it as a red herring or straw man. Maybe min wage hasn’t been indexed well enough or maybe it’s outdated, but your specious argument about purchasing power (I quoted it) is beautifully wrong on its face, as even the OP points out. Should purchasing power be higher than in 2018 than in 1978, I guess it depends, but it is the same and you blabbed on about it declining over years — it may have ebbed and flowed but it hasn’t declined since 1978 contrary to your specious assertions.

Full-time UofPenn student, working full-time min wage and keeping the mortgage paid, car gassed, food stored, taxes paid, and disclipined enough to never spend a dime on entertainment, healthcare, clothing or their weekly tithes. What a shining example of the American dream...

a reply to: lakenheath24

Education is a government financed bubble.

When the government will pay for everyone to go, then there is no reason for colleges to hold down tuition. Have you been to a state school campus lately? Places are like club med over what they were when I was there.

Jack tuition because the government will guarantee loans at any rate for the students because every kid will need a degree. There is no way to discharge your debt in bankruptcy. It's a win/win. Of course, the schools are public institutions, so they're organs of the very same state that pays for kids to go there.

There is no private entity involved in most cases.

Jack your rate, pay for the kid to go. Kid is shackled with debt he will never pay off, but since you guaranteed the loan he cannot shed, you get his loan payments AND his taxes for ever. You're basically double-dipping off his back.