Where have all America’s workers gone?(economist.com)

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/01/24/where-have-all-americas-workers-gone

114 comments

Workers are right there, just not at the price point employers want them to be at.

At some point it’s better to not work than to work at a job that pays nothing. Personal anecdote: my friend’s wife was a host at an upscale restaurant. They decided to have a baby during the pandemic, the wife went back to work and within 2 weeks quit. Why? Because the childcare was more expensive than what she made. It was cheaper and more fulfilling than the money she was making. They got rid of a car because she no longer had to go to work and she now had the time to take care of everything in the house which brought their costs down. Eventually she started her own little shop on Etsy and makes a nice little side income. They are actually in a better place without that job than they were with it.

candiodarihá 3 anos

The problem is what you're complaining about is not quite what you think you're complaining about. An economy is fundamentally feedback loops. I get that they're very complex, but that doesn't actually matter as much as you'd think. Simplified.

customers spend -> tax + cafe -> cafe employs -> tax + money for your wife -> wife wants childcare -> tax + childcare -> childcare employs -> tax + money for their employees -> employees go to the cafe employing your wife ("goto 10")

What you're complaining about is that money going through this cycle decreases. What MUST happen for this cycle to exist, is that the money stays constant. Now obviously I'm not arguing for zero tax, I get that tax is a valid part of this cycle. However, you must see that tax is the big parameter we can change here (and that it must go down, on the plus side, it doesn't need to go down by much). The absolute requirement for these cycles is that money must keep circulating, ideally forever, and the government is supposed to adjust that by controlling the main lever they have: tax.

(Now this ignores that there are many "tax-like" levers, like average rent in an area, bank interest, insurance costs, ... but they would have to change by a lot more than tax would. Also there's a LOT of cycles in the economy and they must all be balanced, not just one)

xracyhá 3 anos

I think the real problem that your answer hides is that in order for money to circulate, we need to pick up the most stagnant money in the economy. That would be the wealth accumulated by billionaires, rather than the money of cafe workers.

I would argue more taxation of that money would allow better circulation of money for the rest of the economy. And would require fewer taxes for the cafe workers of the world.

candiodarihá 3 anos

Not at all, actually. Money only "counts" if it's used, only changes anything if it actually changes hands. If you took 10% of all money and buried it in a pit, nothing would change.

xracyhá 3 anos

Strongly disagree with this. Because it's exactly what's propping up our stock market.

But the point is that billionaires take money out of circulation, whereas most of the rest of people put it into circulation. I use more of my money as a percentage of my income than a billionaire does. And I would bet that lower income earners than myself use even more of their income as a percentage than I do. If you want money to change hands, you've got to give it to more people. Especially more people who have uses for it.

dmonitorhá 3 anos

the fact that local businesses have fallen by the wayside in favor of franchisees must be a major contributor. money that would stay in the community is instead shipped off to franchise owners in who-knows-where. the total money in the system gradually decreases when the top of the food chain lives in a distant land.

candiodarihá 3 anos

If you look at the feedback loop, you're right of course that profit needs to go in there too. However, profit is there in 2 locations, tax is everywhere. For every tax dollar given up to fix the situation, the private sector would need to give up 6-10 dollars in profit.

Plus, I don't think either childcare or cafes are making amounts of profit that would be transformative for employees, if divided fairly. Tax reduction however, doesn't need to be much to be transformative.

Add to that the government, the people who need to fix this, don't control profit, or spending. They only control tax.

So yes, when we have economic downturns, the conventional wisdom is there for a reason. When the government is in trouble, it needs to give up tax income, and lower taxes, while increasing spending. When the government is doing well, it needs to increase tax. The reverse of everybody else. No politician seems to have the discipline to actually do this, but that's still the intention.

rubyfanhá 3 anos

At some point this may become a significant source of stress for the primary bread winner.

Dual income families enjoy a level of insulation that single income families do not. In the single income family the primary bread winner has double the stress, 1. inherent in working and 2. knowing there is no realistic replacement of income if they fall ill, get caught in a layoff or just hate their job and need a break everyone is counting on them to provide.

This might seem better in the short term but over the long term I’m not convinced it’s better.

D13Fdhá 3 anos

The problem is childcare costs are enormous right now. It’s really hard for many people to make more than it costs for someone else to watch even just 2 kids.

bradlyshá 3 anos

The thing is - this stress isn’t any different than when you were single and alone. You were likely living at a standard of living that required you to keep your job. Now you’ve just got some people who are also dependent on you for it.

It’s not really that different in the scheme of things. You had to work before and you have to work now. That’s the reality of our capitalist system.

rubyfanhá 3 anos

I don't agree. If the single person takes ill the consequences are limited to the individual. With dependents the consequences of the bread winner not being able to provide are significantly higher.