RE: Help with a Minimum Wage Model

From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 10:33:19 MDT

  • Next message: Alex Ramonsky: "Re: HEALTH: Caffeinol limits stroke damage"

    Samantha Atkins :

    > matus wrote:
    > > Lee Daniel Crocker:
    > >
    > >>>(Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>):
    > >>>
    > >>>Are you going to address housing and the other implied
    > >>>necessities or just harp on your understanding of food
    > >>>abundances (but not necessarily food prices). If I have no home
    > >>>or cooking facilities the types of food I can buy are also
    > >>>severely limited and per unit of nutrition much more expensive.
    > >>> Are you going to attempt to say that the cost of living in say
    > >>>1970 dollars has not risen and risen dramatically in the last 32
    > >>>years?
    > >>
    > >>If he doesn't, I will. Life is much better and cheaper than it
    > >>was in 1970, by the only measure that matters: amount of labor
    > >>for goods comsumed.
    > >>
    > > Indeed, it is better today than it has been at *any* time in the past
    > > throughout human history.
    >
    > Uh huh. Pls explain why most Americans have no savings, why two
    > earner households are the norm and considered nearly required,
    > why a house costs me much more as a percentage of income, even
    > in areas not so expensive than when in my father's time although
    > I make 25 times more than he did. Standard of living is NOT
    > better now according to the studies I have seen.
    >

    All the available studies and evidence indicates as much. You speak only
    from personal anecdotes, can you cite any of these studies you have seen
    that indictates standard of living is higher than ever before? And then
    explain to me how that can possibly jive with the fact that EVERYTHING,
    every commodity, is cheaper now (in real dollars, or as a value of
    man-hours-worked) then it has ever been before (with, as Lee Corbin noted,
    the exception possibly of housing)

    As for your quesitons,

    1) why most Americans have no savings
    - Because they dont save money up.

    2) why two earner households are the norm and considered nearly required,
    - because everyone thinks they need to have a 3500 sf house with 2 SUV's, a
    3 car garage, a 5,000 snow blower in case it snows twice a year, a $3,000
    riding lawn mower, a waverunner or snowmobile (or both) 2 dogs, perhaps a
    cat, a nice white picket fence, a perfect green lawn, 800/month day care so
    the other parent can work to pay for that day care and that big house, a
    swimming pool, a hot tub, a house phone line or two, a cell phone or four,
    high speed internet, and 50 million other things that many people feel they
    can not do without. The main problem is people do not spend within their
    means any longer. I, personally, think the primary reason for this is the
    proliferation of Credit Cards. Where people can easily buy with money they
    do not have. I constantly encourage my friends and family to curb spending,
    or at least not increase spending at the same rate that income increases.
    No one seems to like that idea though. Imagine for a moment how much extra
    spending money you would have it if you only had a 500sf apt, heat, hot
    water, clean water, and food. Then start taking in the items above, and
    youll see why two earner households are the norm.

    3)why a house costs me much more as a percentage of income
    - that, as we have noted, is a more complicated question. There is no doubt
    that just about *everything* is cheaper, in real dollars, today than it has
    been in the past. The possibly exception, recently, being housing and I
    suspect that regulations and more specifically zoning have a significant
    influence on this problem. Houses in my area, for instance, a rural wooded
    area of CT, must be some 300 ft away from the property line of any other
    persons property to build at. The more densely populated area I used to
    live in had a similiar zoning restriction, but it was some 150 feet or. My
    friends father was actually forced to move his *shed* because it was too
    close to the neighbors propery. Similiar restriction I am reasonable sure
    exist anywhere in the US where people want to build things. These
    restrictions are all arbitrary, and only serve to further reduce the amount
    of available land and obviously raise the price of that land.

    Michael Dickey



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 10:27:03 MDT