What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I was one of those teens who worked in the '70's. I did so for the usual reason -- to have money for gas, movies, etc...

I must have been impressionable...I had jobs outside the home for pay starting around age 12 because that is what people did. I didn't really "need" the money. Getting a job was merely a standard part of life. You didn't really think about it, you just did it.

I still have a copy of my first paycheck: $7.06, from delivering newspapers door to door one day a week. I worked through high school (when minimum wage was $1.60 / hour, although gasoline was $0.35 per gallon at that time as well), was an usher, a part-time janitor, among other things. In college I was part of "dorm crew" in which poor students cleaned rich students' bathrooms.

But there was another factor. There really wasn't anything else to do then. There weren't any video games. We had three stations on the tv. I suppose you could go to the local bowling alley and play pinball. You either worked, or you hung out, and probably got in trouble.

Too many other options for teenagers today, including what has essentially become year round sports participation. That's my theory for a large part of the change.

Part of the change, it seems to me, is that parents now perceive the world to be a much more dangerous place (I'm sure in reality it isn't that much more dangerous, it's just that we now have broader news coverage of crimes that previously had only been reported locally).

I had a bicycle in my middle school years and went everywhere on it. Once I was riding home from baseball practice and a hailstorm struck. A stranger in a station wagon offered me a ride home and I accepted. It was routine and matter-of-fact. Today, such things are completely unheard of. what parent today would let a middle-school kid ride their bicycle all over the place on their own without supervision??

Another element that might well be in play: I recall reading an anthropological study somewhere about the duration of adolescence and how there was a correlation between how long adolescence lasted and the overall demand for unskilled labor in the job market (you alluded to a similar concept). Lots of teenagers just a few years older than me were drafted to serve in Vietnam war, and so there were more job openings then, and "kids grew up faster" in the sense that many people went right from high school into work and it was not all that typical that "everyone" went on to college.

Then baby boomers started having kids and now those kids, having grown up, are clogging the job market opportunities for today's teens, and as a result, adolescence now lasts into early 20s for lots of young people.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I wonder if it also has something to do with the increase in 2-earner households now - according to the 2010 census, there are 33 million of them (out of 114M total) now. Not sure how many there were back in the 70s, but surely many fewer. There's a lot less urgency to earn your own petty cash if both parents are already pulling down full salaries.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

btw, here is historical federal minimum wage: http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

and table 24 at this link http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1406.pdf gives a history of CPI-U, in case anyone wants to compare historical CPI with historical minimum wage. I might do it someday out of personal curiosity.


Edit: if we take may 1974 as baseline, minimum wage has increased 362.5% while CPI-U has increased by 490.4%. If we look at an annualized rate of compounding, minimum wage is up 3.27% annualized while CPI-U is up 4.04% annualized. Given how much of a shift there has been in the labor market from unskilled labor to mechanization, that is not surprising.

I think what confuses people the most when trying to discuss minimum wage is that no one is supposed to be able to raise a family on minimum wage. Substitute "internship" for minimum-wage job and you'll get a better sense of what I mean. Of course no one would expect to be able to support a family on an intern's salary, right?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I wonder if it also has something to do with the increase in 2-earner households now - according to the 2010 census, there are 33 million of them (out of 114M total) now. Not sure how many there were back in the 70s, but surely many fewer. There's a lot less urgency to earn your own petty cash if both parents are already pulling down full salaries.
Due to the number of single-parent homes, I would look less to two-earner households and more an female participation rates in the workforce. I know that seems chauvinist on its face, but when I did landscaping during college in the late 90's, of all the single-income homes only one had the husband home while the wife worked (cardiac surgeon). Also, and completely off the rails from this thread's topic, but when I did regression analysis for my senior thesis paper on conceal-carry permits and violent crime rates, the only variable that continually showed a direct causal effect was female participation rates in the workforce. As much as we fight it in the media and in conversations, if the family can afford it, it's better to have at least one parent home and one earning. Usually, that parent is the wife.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

if the family can afford it, it's better to have at least one parent home and one earning. Usually, that parent is the wife.

even more ideally, if you have two parents who each are professionals and can arrange schedules in a complementary fashion so that each can earn based on, say 4 days worked per week, and then they also can superimpose schedules so that at least one is always engaged with child(ren) while the other is working....

My parents were the traditional "dad earns money and abdicates responsibility for anything else while mom is totally overwhelmed" type of family. Very fortunate for me and my children that we were able to work out something different for them.

even so, it has been interesting to observe how important a variable is personality.

Some people always seem to overspend what they earn, no matter how much or how little it may be. Other people always seem able so save something on a regular basis, no matter how much or how little they earn.



In retrospect, I am pleasantly surprised to see how much I had saved up before I went to college. I'm one of those people who doesn't need to spend money to be entertained.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You find me two jobs that allow you to work four days a week that don't involve flipping burgers and I will eat my hat :eek: :)
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Just curious as to how many subscribe to Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs.

My first criticism, immediately upon reading his list for the first time, was "what about sex?" but then I noticed that in subsequent formulations, they recast it so that sex was included after all.

When I learned about it there were six levels not five. I like the way the wikipedia article has recast it compared to what I first learned about it.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You find me two jobs that allow you to work four days a week that don't involve flipping burgers and I will eat my hat :eek: :)
My sister and brother-in-law did it - two kids 30 months apart and they've never paid a dime for child care. She's an engineer for an automotive components company and he's a financial planner - no burger flipping involved. They each worked ~32 hours per week, but the part they gave up was seeing each other - she was out of the house at 5 am, then they would meet a little after noon in a parking lot halfway between their offices, he'd hand off the kids, then he would work from 1 to 7 pm. He'd arrive just in time to help put the kids to bed, and then my sister would be off to bed herself so she'd be ready to rise again at 4 am. It's much easier now that the state babysits them 35 hours per week! (6th and 3rd grade)
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I couldn't agree more - definitely not the choices I would make! For them, they felt that the tradeoffs were worth it so they could raise their own kids rather than "hiring strangers to do it for them."
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I don't think it's bad having someone else "raise your kids". That line of thinking is a bunch of bollocks. We went to daycare until we were older since we were open enrolled and both our parents worked. One of us is a chemical engineer and project manager and the other is in med school.

Different strokes I guess.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You find me two jobs that allow you to work four days a week that don't involve flipping burgers and I will eat my hat :eek: :)
One of my buddies did it. His wife is a nurse, works weekends and one night a week. She's a ".9" shift, so it's three twelve-hour shifts, which is common for nurses at hospitals. One of the grandparents would help out the remaining day when help was needed. Now that the kids are older, and they came to the realization that they didn't ever see each other and don't like that at all, she took a reduced schedule so they could see each other. Thankfully for them, my buddy had a really nice job where they could afford taking a hit to her wages and not have it affect them overly much.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Due to the number of single-parent homes, I would look less to two-earner households and more an female participation rates in the workforce. I know that seems chauvinist on its face, but when I did landscaping during college in the late 90's, of all the single-income homes only one had the husband home while the wife worked (cardiac surgeon). Also, and completely off the rails from this thread's topic, but when I did regression analysis for my senior thesis paper on conceal-carry permits and violent crime rates, the only variable that continually showed a direct causal effect was female participation rates in the workforce. As much as we fight it in the media and in conversations, if the family can afford it, it's better to have at least one parent home and one earning. Usually, that parent is the wife.

I have heard that The Two Income Trap is all about this. (I could never get through it -- way too anecdotal for me.)
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I have heard that The Two Income Trap is all about this. (I could never get through it -- way too anecdotal for me.)

Love that book. Might be the best economics book written in the last 25 years. Not sure what you mean by anecdotal cause everything in that book has turned out to be either true or prophetic.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You find me two jobs that allow you to work four days a week that don't involve flipping burgers and I will eat my hat :eek: :)



two self-employed professionals in any of a variety of occupations; or (if you don't consider someone in sales to be a "professional"), a self-employed professional and someone in sales. Basically any "job" in which your income / hour is fairly high and you have discretion over how / when to set your hours.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Love that book. Might be the best economics book written in the last 25 years. Not sure what you mean by anecdotal cause everything in that book has turned out to be either true or prophetic.

I mean anecdotal by... its meaning. AFAIK (which is from my wife telling me about it), the book's narrative is driven by anecdotes. "Peggy Priddy sits at the breakfast table slowly stirring her Cheerios and wondering how she'll meet this month's mortgage." I HATE that style. Just give me tables and facts and lay out your arguments as testable hypotheses. I don't want to hear your anecdotes about how Peggy's daughter can't afford dance lessons since Mr. Priddy split; I don't care.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I mean anecdotal by... its meaning. AFAIK (which is from my wife telling me about it), the book's narrative is driven by anecdotes. "Peggy Priddy sits at the breakfast table slowly stirring her Cheerios and wondering how she'll meet this month's mortgage." I HATE that style. Just give me tables and facts and lay out your arguments as testable hypotheses. I don't want to hear your anecdotes about how Peggy's daughter can't afford dance lessons since Mr. Priddy split; I don't care.

Yeah, but did you hear WHY Mr. Priddy split?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I mean anecdotal by... its meaning. AFAIK (which is from my wife telling me about it), the book's narrative is driven by anecdotes. "Peggy Priddy sits at the breakfast table slowly stirring her Cheerios and wondering how she'll meet this month's mortgage." I HATE that style. Just give me tables and facts and lay out your arguments as testable hypotheses. I don't want to hear your anecdotes about how Peggy's daughter can't afford dance lessons since Mr. Priddy split; I don't care.
Aaah, to each his own. I like that style. Adds context. No book has nailed the current economic condition and the reasons the Government has gotten wrong better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top