You know from my earlier blogs that I have zero respect for classical economics and the Economist graduated by our colleges and universities. This blog is about a small point that is never disgusted.
We get all kinds of data about growth of income. Did you ever hear it explained this way? In this example we have a typical person who gets a career advancement every 10 years. He starts out in job "A" that pays $20 per hour and 10 years later he acquires skills that allows him to get job :B" that pays $30 per hour. Eventually he gains more skill that allows him to be promoted to job "C" that pays $40 per hour. When we get survey data, we find that those three jobs have paid the same amount for the past 50 years. The conclusion is that people are not being paid more and thus have a poor quality of life and this is "bad". Are you following this? On an individual basis things are actually "good", Figure that!!
School teachers are another good example. A teacher who is out of college for a couple of year and who teaches 25 kids makes far less than a teacher who have been teaching for 25 years and who is doing "exactly" the same thing as the new teacher. Exactly why should a teacher who is 25 years older make so much more than a younger teacher who is doing "exactly" the same work. Shouldn't we pay for "work" rather than how old a worker is? Why don't economist talk about this?
If we have a new company who has only been in business for a few years, all of their workers are new. As the company gets older, so do their workers and thus are paid more. If we have a situation where the company grows slower than the general economy, their labor cost go up faster because of their aging employees. GE is a good example. They have many divisions that have been making the same product for many years and growing very slowly. The result is that their labor cost go up every year. If they were growing faster, they would be adding new lower paid workers who would average out their labor cost. Why isn't this not taught in Econ 101?
In a prior blog, I pointed out that economic professors claim that trade is "good" but how never explain how it can be "bad" and how or when we should get out of a bad trading deal. My objective in my blogs is to point out how we have been short changed by our universities and the Economist that they have graduated.
When our politicians, who took Econ 101, complain about Trump adding duties to Chinese products, why don't we ask them how we got into this problem and how they expect us to get out? They will not answer. They will hide behind a wall of political bull shit.
We get all kinds of data about growth of income. Did you ever hear it explained this way? In this example we have a typical person who gets a career advancement every 10 years. He starts out in job "A" that pays $20 per hour and 10 years later he acquires skills that allows him to get job :B" that pays $30 per hour. Eventually he gains more skill that allows him to be promoted to job "C" that pays $40 per hour. When we get survey data, we find that those three jobs have paid the same amount for the past 50 years. The conclusion is that people are not being paid more and thus have a poor quality of life and this is "bad". Are you following this? On an individual basis things are actually "good", Figure that!!
School teachers are another good example. A teacher who is out of college for a couple of year and who teaches 25 kids makes far less than a teacher who have been teaching for 25 years and who is doing "exactly" the same thing as the new teacher. Exactly why should a teacher who is 25 years older make so much more than a younger teacher who is doing "exactly" the same work. Shouldn't we pay for "work" rather than how old a worker is? Why don't economist talk about this?
If we have a new company who has only been in business for a few years, all of their workers are new. As the company gets older, so do their workers and thus are paid more. If we have a situation where the company grows slower than the general economy, their labor cost go up faster because of their aging employees. GE is a good example. They have many divisions that have been making the same product for many years and growing very slowly. The result is that their labor cost go up every year. If they were growing faster, they would be adding new lower paid workers who would average out their labor cost. Why isn't this not taught in Econ 101?
In a prior blog, I pointed out that economic professors claim that trade is "good" but how never explain how it can be "bad" and how or when we should get out of a bad trading deal. My objective in my blogs is to point out how we have been short changed by our universities and the Economist that they have graduated.
When our politicians, who took Econ 101, complain about Trump adding duties to Chinese products, why don't we ask them how we got into this problem and how they expect us to get out? They will not answer. They will hide behind a wall of political bull shit.
