Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 06 2018, @09:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the positive-news dept.

Marketwatch brings good news for the USA: American workers are finally reaping the benefits of the lowest unemployment rate and best jobs market in decades: Wages and benefits are rising at the fastest pace in a decade. Firms have sought to fill openings by offering better benefits such as more vacation time or flexible hours. When push comes to shove, they are offering higher pay. While bigger paychecks are great for workers, the US Federal Reserve is watching closely to see if rising compensation is stoking inflation. The Federal Reserve could increase U.S. interest rates if it becomes a big worry, but so far inflation remains relatively mild.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday August 07 2018, @03:02AM (8 children)

    by Pav (114) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @03:02AM (#718086)

    Wealth is essentially zero sum for the majority of the US population ie. the "zero point" must sustain life, and 50% of US citizens are classed as poor or in poverty. Hell, 67% of the population could not handle a $1000 emergency without going into debt. This latest economic "Trump bump" is just businesses investing in the hope that things will get better in the longer term, but they won't (unless Trumps reserve starts printing money like Obama - and I mean why not? Those extra dollars aren't going to cause inflation... pretty quickly they'll be vaccuumed from the real economy and go into financial market bubbles where they can't hurt anyone doing real work.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:22AM (7 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:22AM (#718184) Homepage Journal

    Wrong definition.

    zero sum: adjective, (of a game or situation) in which whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other.

    This isn't the case being that value is exchanged for value and every time human effort makes someone's life better, new wealth is added to the sum total.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:58PM (6 children)

      by Pav (114) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:58PM (#718456)

      In that case you could starve an entire population and call it positive sum. I guess if you pay attention to the economic tokens and not to the results...

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:28AM (5 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:28AM (#718557) Homepage Journal

        That's just the meaning of the term. I brought it up only to make sure you're hearing what I'm actually saying. That primarily being that the tokens are of minor relevance and don't remotely begin to encompass the wealth strewn all across the US. Thinking you're living in poverty when you have the latest xbox, a computer, a smartphone, two cars, a roof over your head, multiple televisions, air conditioning, and enough calories to keep you going for the day is an odd way to view poverty mostly unique to the first world.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:27AM (4 children)

          by Pav (114) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:27AM (#718628)

          Technically I suppose you could be correct ie. Nazi work camps supplying rations insufficient to sustain life is positive sum ie. both parties "benefit". I would argue a more common sense understanding of a positive sum interaction would be pay capable of maintaining physical and mental health for the average person, with enough leasure to allow some self betterment. As for talking about xboxes etc... considering the poverty level is set at $12,140 for a single person, $16,460 for a couple etc... you're welcome to try living on $235/wk, and that's just the poverty cutoff... one in seven Americans have less.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:43PM (3 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:43PM (#718950) Homepage Journal

            You're still not understanding what I'm saying or the term "zero sum". I'm saying wealth is not just money. Buying something does not transfer wealth, it exchanges it. Where "zero sum" comes in is that new wealth is created every time worthwhile human effort is performed. The wealth your employer is exchanging currency for literally did not exist before you went to work today. Wealth isn't infinite because of the eventual death of the species or universe but it is ever-growing and its upper bounds are fairly well unfathomable.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:05PM (2 children)

              by Pav (114) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:05PM (#719095)

              *eyeroll* Double-entry accounting doesn't suddenly make the entire economy zero-sum. Unless you're already ultra-rich or else winning-the-lottery fortunate you've already lost the economic game. When wealth is allowed to accumulate too much (because of low wealth tax) your labour will eventually be worth next to nothing - a small group of ultra rich just don't require enough goods and services for trickle-down to be a thing. As money is in the real economy becomes less over time, the less investment in labour, plant etc... is needed to vacuum it up, and your labour value becomes uncomfortably close to zero.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:18PM (1 child)

                Which is an entirely separate argument unless you are still misunderstanding the definition of "zero sum".

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by Pav on Monday August 13 2018, @08:30AM

                  by Pav (114) on Monday August 13 2018, @08:30AM (#720868)

                  You're either absolutely clueless on what zero-sum means, or trying to purposely misinform others in this thread. If employment at a business was zero-sum (ie. one party wins an amount equal to what another loses eg. gambling) then most people wouldn't risk employment. Their adversary in this hypothetical zero-sum employment game would have more chance of "winning", and therefore would have a better than even chance of EXTRACTING money from them and pocketing it. That's not what employment is - cash flows to the "weaker" party in fact. Once you comprehend why you'll see employment at a business is more than a double-entry transfer of cash, and that it is in fact positive-sum and that the proceeds of wealth creation are shared between employer and employee. If you're really keen you might look into "positive-sum negotiation between entities of unequal power" and how as employers become more powerful they can negotiate an ever greater share of these proceeds. This is why unregulated capitalism tends towards monopoly, stagnant or declining wages over the long term, and recession/depression.