Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice.

Up to that point it was accurate, except they don't waste it, jut decide to spend it in whatever they like in the moment.

that's waste if you ask me. That fly-by-night attitude can only be enjoyed at the expense of the future. when all of a sudden you get a flat tire or miss a day of work on your check, if you have a rich mommy and daddy to give you/borrow you money, then I can understand all that. Many do not have that option though, and they are either forced to learn the value of money and how to manage it as best they can, or they give up and prescribe themselves a victim, and that can justify a lot more bad decision making other than "living in the moment"/surrendering to every impulse.

I see, and if working and saving mean you STILL don't have the money for that major repair or illness, then what?

At some point, people just need to make more. That "point" is now. Expecting people to survive on $7.35 an hour is not a joke, its a tragedy.

How big a tragedy is working for a minimum wage that was just increased from 200 baht ($6.50)to 300 baht ($9.75) PER DAY?

PLAYER57832 wrote:At some point, people just need to make more. That "point" is now. Expecting people to survive on $7.35 an hour is not a joke, its a tragedy.

Noone expects anyone to survive on minimum wage. That is an entry level position that should be obtained while living with your parents, a college dorm, or a small apartment with a couple friends out of high school. Once in the workforce, people are expected to take the initiative to prove themselves and increase their knowledge (with today's technology, this can easily be done on our own unlike back in the day when it was more difficult though more people did it). This will increase a person's opportunities for careers in the future.

The amount an employer pays you is comparable to your replace-ability. (With the exception of unions and government workers where they pay based on seniority rather than skill-set, or the have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector). People who work in fast food, cashiering jobs, etc can easily be replaced by other entry level workers, with a day or two of training. If they can get someone to do it for $7.35/hour, they will never hire someone for $20/hour to do it. The key thing to remember is that people do not start up businesses simply to give other people jobs. If you think this is why the majority of businesses are started, I encourage you to start your own business and hire 3-5 people with low level skill-sets and pay them what they need to live on rather than the market price for that level employee.

Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

waauw wrote:Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

waauw wrote:

Crazyirishman wrote:Does the definition change for college students? I know that when I work in the summer, I earn enough that I could survive. i.e. rent, car insurance, food for more than 6 months after I've worked for duration of the summer. But then, I pay tuition.... and bam! I'm poor again. Is that paycheck to paycheck?

I dunno, but I know that according to the current system people who have a job, no matter how low they get payed or how low their hours are, they get counted as being employed(though I'm not sure whether students count too).

It counts as unemployed. students, seniors, and people who have given up looking for work (still unemployed) are not counted as "unemployed".

BigBallinStalin wrote:

waauw wrote:Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Isn't America's military spending still counted as GDP "growth" and burger flippers counted as "manufacturing" jobs?

The numbers are so fudged and the formula's so abused, it's becoming ridiculous

patrickaa317 wrote:With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

Timminz wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

There is a ton of evidence that, on average, gov't jobs pay much higher than private jobs. If you are talking about your country, perhaps that is the case, but certainly not in America.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

waauw wrote:Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Isn't America's military spending still counted as GDP "growth" and burger flippers counted as "manufacturing" jobs?

The numbers are so fudged and the formula's so abused, it's becoming ridiculous

yeah

GDP= all government expenditures + (export - import) + consumerspending + investments
==> This is why too few americans have savings(more spending) and why the government spends too much money. It makes things look better.

waauw wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

waauw wrote:Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Isn't America's military spending still counted as GDP "growth" and burger flippers counted as "manufacturing" jobs?

The numbers are so fudged and the formula's so abused, it's becoming ridiculous

yeah

GDP= all government expenditures + (export - import) + consumerspending + investments
==> This is why too few americans have savings(more spending) and why the government spends too much money. It makes things look better.

I would even assume, that in a consumption based economy, all things relative, an increase in % of people who spend all their $ every pay period would probably boost the economy and create more jobs, while a considerable decrease in the % would result in job losses and a weaker economy

Phatscotty wrote:

waauw wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

waauw wrote:Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Isn't America's military spending still counted as GDP "growth" and burger flippers counted as "manufacturing" jobs?

The numbers are so fudged and the formula's so abused, it's becoming ridiculous

yeah

GDP= all government expenditures + (export - import) + consumerspending + investments
==> This is why too few americans have savings(more spending) and why the government spends too much money. It makes things look better.

I would even assume, that in a consumption based economy, all things relative, an increase in % of people who spend all their $ every pay period would probably boost the economy and create more jobs, while a considerable decrease in the % would result in job losses and a weaker economy

You finally fucking nailed it. Its the money in the lower sectors of the economy that makes the economy, because those sectors, to some degree, must spend the money. You give a tax break to a multimillionaire, they can save every bit of it, while if you give it to the lower sectors, it works its way into the economy, almost immediately. The reason the economy was demolished at the end of the Bush years, the brink of collapse...was because the tax breaks and incentives were given all at the top. As Ive mentioned before its not all or nothing, its only a matter of percentages...you cant give too much away to rich or poor, but the right percentage is exactly whats needed. If we all saved, there would be no economy.

Its why the economy suffered so bad...its not because there was less money, that's all relative....its because the people with it, stopped spending it because of fear....but also because they didnt have to.

I myself am in a business and offer a service that is absolutely unnecessary in almost every way. Most of my services can be done by anyone...if not as well...or not done at all. Some multi-millionaires choose to have me do it, and it allows me to buy things to employ other people, who spend money to employ other people. If everyone clamped up...didnt spend anything...the economy would collapse. Its why the income at lower levels is important, and why a top heavy economy is inherently dangerous.

If all the money is in one place, where it can be held hostage...which at times it very much is...systematically or not....the economy collapses. If too much is just given away, people stop producing, and money is wasted. Its why extremists like you are the problem in this world, and moderates, who are too busy working and building the world, just shake their heads at your utter stupidity...or occasionally take a few seconds to have fun pointing it out.

Timminz wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

I see your from Canada, not sure how the pay differences work between private and public sector there, I was referring to how things work here.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Timminz wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

I see your from Canada, not sure how the pay differences work between private and public sector there, I was referring to how things work here.

Okay. How much more do government jobs pay at the entry level? How much more do top bureaucrats make, compared to top executives of corporations? I'm interested in how much discrepancy there is.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

waauw wrote:Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Except that is about boosting aggregate demand rather than just showing off shiny GDP figures.

But yes, certainly the GDP is not a perfect barometer of economic development.

Timminz wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Timminz wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

I see your from Canada, not sure how the pay differences work between private and public sector there, I was referring to how things work here.

Okay. How much more do government jobs pay at the entry level? How much more do top bureaucrats make, compared to top executives of corporations? I'm interested in how much discrepancy there is.

Here's a link with the entry level information, comb through it as you see fit. link Top executives vs top bureaucrats is like trying to compare a NFL head coach to a semi-pro baseball umpire. They have completely different job structures. Positions like accountants, IT, title clerks, data processors, are where the comparisons are relevant. There are no irrelevant bureaucrats in the private sector to compare wages to.

Despite numerous examples of how living paycheck to paycheck can be a good thing, overall I think it's a bad thing.

You should save at least something, even just 1% of your income for starters. The peace of mind that comes with knowing you can handle random blows as well as potentially help someone else in need is worth far more than the money itself.

now, for those who can only see the worst possible scenarios at every turn point, yes, if you get cancer, you are fucked, and it's going to be that way until we can force permanent remission or there is a cure. Your life is going to drastically change no matter if you have all the money in savings or insurance in the world.

Sorry, with the way you spouted off on the topic, I assumed you actually knew something about it. Thanks for the help with the research though.

Anyway. I didn't see anything there that supported your point. I did see one link that said average public sector salary is slightly higher than average private sector, but averages mean very little. The same article mentioned that, when you compare people with similar qualifications that the disparity actually reversed.

Seriously though, I was interested in more information about the topic, and all you could give was a smarmy, "lmgtfy". If there isn't actually evidence to back up the "facts" you spout (or at least, you have no idea where to find such evidence), try not to be so cock-sure of yourself. People will start to think you're just some teenager in a fly-over state.

Timminz wrote:Anyway. I didn't see anything there that supported your point. I did see one link that said average public sector salary is slightly higher than average private sector, but averages mean very little. The same article mentioned that, when you compare people with similar qualifications that the disparity actually reversed.

If you are talking to me, that's all I said, was the average.

Not sure why this is a topic. I don't live paycheck-to-paycheck these days, but I've been around a long while. If this means simply that you can runout of money before you run out of month, that's how I lived most of my life, and it seems normal to me.

Timminz wrote:Sorry, with the way you spouted off on the topic, I assumed you actually knew something about it. Thanks for the help with the research though.

Anyway. I didn't see anything there that supported your point. I did see one link that said average public sector salary is slightly higher than average private sector, but averages mean very little. The same article mentioned that, when you compare people with similar qualifications that the disparity actually reversed.

Seriously though, I was interested in more information about the topic, and all you could give was a smarmy, "lmgtfy". If there isn't actually evidence to back up the "facts" you spout (or at least, you have no idea where to find such evidence), try not to be so cock-sure of yourself. People will start to think you're just some teenager in a fly-over state.

I've read, heard, and seen plenty of information on this and I just don't have them memorized which is why I sent you a link to try to find that information on your own through various places. I could search the internet and post all kinds of articles, charts and graphs, all of which have their own pros and cons in how they are written or documented, you could pick a part these on either side. Someone once showed me a statistic that humans, on average, are born with one testicle. The point being, with birthrate of approximate 1 male (with two testicles) to 1 female (with no testicles), they average out to being born with one testicle (despite a small percentage that may actually fit this case).

If you were truly interested, I apologize for not holding your hand by posting evidence that is easily obtained through a bunch of google searches. The majority of this off topic area is spent where two or more people take one small part of another's post, rip it to shreds and try to discredit the person; rarely is anyone ever influenced enough to change their mind through this forum banter. Most people here have their mind made up on the majority of these types of things.

How can anybody hope to eat and keep a roof over their heads in retirement if they are living paycheck to paycheck?

Well, a 401K contribution would be deducted from the paycheck, so there's that.

I intend to retire in splendor - living in a well air conditioned ranch (style home) in a good neighborhood, surrounded by golf courses and walking distance from a good bookstore.

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

waauw wrote:Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Except that is about boosting aggregate demand rather than just showing off shiny GDP figures.

But yes, certainly the GDP is not a perfect barometer of economic development.

I see DK is at the bottom. You might also note that Denmark was found to be the country with the happiest overall population. Perhaps its not cooincidence at all? (in fact, it isn't..., but DK is also small and very homogeneous)

patrickaa317 wrote:

Timminz wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

I see your from Canada, not sure how the pay differences work between private and public sector there, I was referring to how things work here.

Honestly, I would argue the opposite, from my experience. As I have seen, the governmental jobs provide a job security aspect that makes up for the lower wage, which is why certain types of people tend to gravitate toward them.

When I came out of the military as a network administrator, my ability to get a six-figure job "on the outside" was tremendous, whereas within the GS-scale in the government, it simply wasn't going to happen. But the GS employee has a lot more stable job security than someone "on the outside", and so that's the difference-maker for some.