# Ignorance of Labor Economics **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 8, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993 "2011-08-08T21:21:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/81 "2011-08-14T01:41:09Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Obviously after three years I cannot tell you exactly how many hours he worked, but I’m pretty sure he worked more than that. Well according to the California DOL web site, if you earn more than $25 in a week, they reduce your benefits. > [@](#): > > That the two paragraphs you wrote prior to when I said that the first time do not didn’t work together. Still have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that I have contradicted myself? > [@](#): > > Since we started out with something that wasn’t even close to an extreme example, using them is approaching the use of a strawman. :shrug: You made a generalization. You said that for your husband “any work” was better than “no work.” Are you retracting your statement? > [@](#): > > Really? You know that how? I pointed out that “of course” your husband would turn down a job shoveling manure which would net him $5.50 for an entire day. You did not seem to disagree. But in case I misunderstood you, I will ask the question: For your husband, and assuming he is unemployed, would it be better to (1) take a job paying $7.75 per hour to shovel manure for two hours a day with a 3 hour bus ride every day for $5 each way, thus netting him $5.50 for the entire day; or (2) stay home and not work? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/82 "2011-08-14T01:45:24Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well according to the California DOL web site, if you earn more than $25 in a week, they reduce your benefits. In 2008? > [@](#): > > Still have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that I have contradicted myself? Probably. Since I have zero interest in what you are doing here, I haven’t bothered to go back and look. > [@](#): > > :shrug: You made a generalization. You said that for your husband “any work” was better than “no work.” Are you retracting your statement? No. But I also deal in real life, not made up extremes. > [@](#): > > I pointed out that “of course” your husband would turn down a job shoveling manure which would net him $5.50 for an entire day. You did not seem to disagree. I ignored it because there is no such job, certainly not in S California. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/83 "2011-08-14T10:12:18Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > In 2008? I looked at the web page yesterday. But if anything, the threshold would have been lower in 2008 not higher. > [@](#): > > Probably. Since I have zero interest in what you are doing here, I haven’t bothered to go back and look. But somehow you have enough interest to keep saying something like “your two paragraphs do not work together” without explaining what you mean. How exactly have I contradicted myself? > [@](#): > > No. But I also deal in real life, not made up extremes. So you are saying that in real life there exists no job which would be less preferable for your husband than staying at home? > [@](#): > > I ignored it because there is no such job, certainly not in S California. Well why limit yourself to Southern California? “Any work” includes work in Nevada, agreed? It includes work in San Francisco, agreed? It includes work in the Central Valley, agreed? There was nothing stopping your husband from commuting to Fresno for a minimum wage job, was there? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/84 "2011-08-14T19:54:02Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I looked at the web page yesterday. But if anything, the threshold would have been lower in 2008 not higher. Why? > [@](#): > > But somehow you have enough interest to keep saying something like “your two paragraphs do not work together” without explaining what you mean. Requires a heck of a lot less effort than going back and finding the original post. > [@](#): > > So you are saying that in real life there exists no job which would be less preferable for your husband than staying at home? The ones that I am aware of in real life? Yes. > [@](#): > > Well why limit yourself to Southern California? Because that’s where we live. > [@](#): > > There was nothing stopping your husband from commuting to Fresno for a minimum wage job, was there? That’s what I mean by real life. If nothing else, no one in Fresno is going to give anyone from our area a minimum wage job. You are spending an awful lot of time and effort trying to prove your strawman applies to **Crafter\_Man** ’s experiences with guys that didn’t want to work. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/85 "2011-08-14T20:56:25Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Because that’s where we live. So what? There’s nothing stopping your husband from taking a job with a 3, 4, or 5 hour commute. There’s no law which says that you cannot commute to work 4 hours each way every day. > [@](#): > > If nothing else, no one in Fresno is going to give anyone from our area a minimum wage job. Why wouldn’t they? If you can show up for work on time, what do they care where you live? > [@](#): > > You are spending an awful lot of time and effort trying to prove your strawman I’m not setting up a strawman. I’m simply showing that your claim is false. How exactly have I misrepresented anyone’s position? You claimed that for your husband “any work” is better than “no work.” > [@](#): > > Why? Because legal income thresholds tend to either stay the same or go up over time with inflation. > [@](#): > > Requires a heck of a lot less effort than going back and finding the original post. So you are saying that you don’t feel like putting in the effort to explain what you meant? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/86 "2011-08-14T21:06:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So what? There’s nothing stopping your husband from taking a job with a 3, 4, or 5 hour commute. There’s no law which says that you cannot commute to work 4 hours each way every day. That is part of the real world dear. Even if anyone would give a minimum wage (or less, since that was your example) job to someone who lived 3-4-5 hours away, which they most likely wouldn’t, the cost of doing that is going to be more than the income. > [@](#): > > Why wouldn’t they? If you can show up for work on time, what do they care where you live? You honestly don’t know why? If not, then why in the world are you even arguing this? > [@](#): > > I’m not setting up a strawman. I’m simply showing that your claim is false. You are doing neither. > [@](#): > > How exactly have I misrepresented anyone’s position? You claimed that for your husband “any work” is better than “no work.” :rolleyes: OK then, “any work that would be available in the real world and would end up resulting in a net profit”. That better? > [@](#): > > Because legal income thresholds tend to either stay the same or go up over time with inflation. I wouldn’t know as I have no personal experience with the CA unemployment system except getting it for exactly one month. Do you? > [@](#): > > So you are saying that you don’t feel like putting in the effort to explain what you meant? No. (That’s no, that isn’t what I am saying) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/87 "2011-08-15T00:27:12Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > That is part of the real world dear. Even if anyone would give a minimum wage (or less, since that was your example) job to someone who lived 3-4-5 hours away, which they most likely wouldn’t, the cost of doing that is going to be more than the income. And again, so what? Your claim is that for your husband “any work” is better than “no work.” > [@](#): > > You honestly don’t know why? Correct. > [@](#): > > If not, then why in the world are you even arguing this? Because as far as I know, there is no reason why. Again my question: Why are you so sure that someone with a long commute would be turned down for a minimum wage job? (Actually the girl who works the register at the convenience store on my block told me that she has a commute over 2 hours. She is paid $10 per hour which is more than minimum but not a lot.) > [@](#): > > You are doing neither. Nonsense, I have pointed to work which your husband would turn down. > [@](#): > > “any work that would be available in the real world and would end up resulting in a net profit”. That better? So your husband would take a job which resulted in net profit of $1 per day over not working? > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t know as I have no personal experience with the CA unemployment system except getting it for exactly one month. Do you? In fact I do, as well as experience with various systems in many different jurisdictions. I also have general knowledge as a citizen and I feel confident in saying that generally speaking, the monetary thresholds in laws tend to either stay the same or go up over time. Do you seriously dispute this? > [@](#): > > No. (That’s no, that isn’t what I am saying) Then what exactly are you saying? Are you willing to put in the effort to explain how you think I have contradicted myself? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/88 "2011-08-15T00:54:11Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And again, so what? Your claim is that for your husband “any work” is better than “no work.” I also said “:rolleyes: OK then, “any work that would be available in the real world and would end up resulting in a net profit”. That better?” > [@](#): > > Because as far as I know, there is no reason why. Again my question: Why are you so sure that someone with a long commute would be turned down for a minimum wage job? You appear to be ignorant of that part of labor economics. Unless there is a huge glut of jobs where _anyone_ has a wide choice, no less than minimum wage employer is going to take a chance hiring someone who would have to drive 3-4-5 hours just to get to work, as well as 3-4-5 hours home. > [@](#): > > (Actually the girl who works the register at the convenience store on my block told me that she has a commute over 2 hours. She is paid $10 per hour which is more than minimum but not a lot.) And? Or are you not aware that you give an example with less commute for more money? > [@](#): > > Nonsense, I have pointed to work which your husband would turn down. Not in real life. > [@](#): > > So your husband would take a job which resulted in net profit of $1 per day over not working? You are having trouble with that real life thing aren’t you? > [@](#): > > In fact I do, as well as experience with various systems in many different jurisdictions. I also have general knowledge as a citizen and I feel confident in saying that generally speaking, the monetary thresholds in laws tend to either stay the same or go up over time. Do you seriously dispute this? Do I dispute that you have experience with the CA unemployment system? > [@](#): > > Then what exactly are you saying? Are you willing to put in the effort to explain how you think I have contradicted myself? Probably - depends on if you are clear or not. As it is now, you have spent quite a bit of time trying to “prove” that there was nothing wrong with the guys that **Crafter\_Man** tried to employ deciding they didn’t feel like working by making up all sorts of exaggerations that have little to do with the real world. I, on the other hand, am losing interest in watching you dance around the fact that there are people out there who would rather sit on their butts collecting unemployment than work for a living. There are really very few legit reasons why someone would turn down a job and I don’t think you’ve hit any of them yet. Maybe you have but, yeah, don’t feel like looking. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/89 "2011-08-15T01:16:08Z")
You honestly have to make a decision whether a bad job can feed your family. If you are collecting 250 bucks for unemployment ,an 8 hour part time job that gives you 30 hours of work ,will cost you money. Should you take the job? I don’t think a part time job will build up unemployment. So what is the right thing to do? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/90 "2011-08-15T01:23:14Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You honestly have to make a decision whether a bad job can feed your family. If you are collecting 250 bucks for unemployment ,an 8 hour part time job that gives you 30 hours of work ,will cost you money. Should you take the job? > I don’t think a part time job will build up unemployment. So what is the right thing to do? I can’t comment on what such a job will do to unemployment benefits, but taking a job that will make any worthwhile money is valuable beyond the actual money it makes. If nothing else, it keeps you from getting too comfortable on mom’s couch playing video games! Also, **Crafter\_Man** was going to pay cash, so if any of those guys he asked was worried about losing too much in unemployment, they didn’t have to claim it. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/91 "2011-08-15T01:32:09Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > For an example of a country with a similar economy to the U.S., look at Australia. This is from the last page but I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Australia has an economy similar to the US! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/92 "2011-08-15T01:46:42Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > This is from the last page but I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Australia has an economy similar to the US! :eek: Yeah, that does seem rather an odd thing to say, but maybe he was just saying that there was a similar standard of living. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/93 "2011-08-15T03:03:39Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You appear to be ignorant of that part of labor economics. Unless there is a huge glut of jobs where _anyone_ has a wide choice, no less than minimum wage employer is going to take a chance hiring someone who would have to drive 3-4-5 hours just to get to work, as well as 3-4-5 hours home. Where I work, there are lots of minimum wage jobs available, even in this economy. If you have papers, can speak English reasonably well, and can pass a background check, you can get a minimum wage job no problem. > [@](#): > > And? Or are you not aware that you give an example with less commute for more money? Actually you have it reversed. But anyway, are you saying that it’s no problem to get a $10 an hour job if you have a 2 hour commute but essentially impossible to get a minimum wage job with a 3 hour commute? > [@](#): > > You are having trouble with that real life thing aren’t you? Does that mean yes or no? > [@](#): > > Do I dispute that you have experience with the CA unemployment system? Are you seriously skeptical of the claim that in general, monetary thresholds in the law are generally constant or increasing over time? > [@](#): > > As it is now, you have spent quite a bit of time trying to “prove” that there was nothing wrong with the guys that Crafter\_Man tried to employ deciding they didn’t feel like working Please show me where I made such a claim. Please QUOTE me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such claim and apologize. Your choice. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/94 "2011-08-15T05:13:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Where I work, there are lots of minimum wage jobs available, even in this economy. If you have papers, can speak English reasonably well, and can pass a background check, you can get a minimum wage job no problem. That’s nice. > [@](#): > > Actually you have it reversed. Uh, no. Your original example was a 3-4-5 hour commute for a $7 something/hour job. > [@](#): > > But anyway, are you saying that it’s no problem to get a $10 an hour job if you have a 2 hour commute but essentially impossible to get a minimum wage job with a 3 hour commute? No. I’m saying that it is highly unlikely that any employer is going to take a chance on someone like that. As you say, minimum wage jobs abound - why would anyone drive 3 hours to one for any length of time? > [@](#): > > Does that mean yes or no? Dunno - you didn’t leave enough of the post for me to know. > [@](#): > > Are you seriously skeptical of the claim that in general, monetary thresholds in the law are generally constant or increasing over time? I have no opinion on it since I don’t know anything about it. > [@](#): > > Please show me where I made such a claim. Please QUOTE me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such claim and apologize. > > Your choice. Yeah, right. Requires work, don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/95 "2011-08-15T07:22:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Yeah, right. Requires work, don’t care. :shrug: I don’t engage with people who insist on strawmanning me, i.e. people who misrepresent my position. You implied that my position was that there was nothing wrong with the decision of people who turned down **Crafter** ’s job offers. That wasn’t my position at all. This is an unfair exaggeration of my actual position, which is that for many people it would be reasonable to turn down such work. I also don’t engage with people who refuse to answer reasonable questions so that I can understand your position. You have insisted repeatedly that two of my paragraphs “don’t work together” while refusing to explain what that means. You also evaded other reasonable questions. So I’m not engaging with you any more. Goodbye. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/96 "2011-08-15T12:36:55Z")
A hundred or so years ago, almost 90% of workers in the US were in farming. Now that number is under 5%. OMG, 85% of US jobs were lost! :rolleyes: Economics is the steady of incentives, and in the market place, the measuring stick is prices, be it the price of a product or the price of labor needed to build the product. If a product can only be sold at X, then the company can and should only pay wage Y that allows that product to be profitably sold. The company will hire more and/or hire better people as long as demand and revenue are growing. If demand and prices fall, the company will higher fewer and fewer people at increasingly lower wages. At some point the company won’t be able to make money even at minimum wage (or illegal immigrant wage), at which point the company goes out of business, and that capital is re-used elsewhere. Americans don’t normally become farmers anymore. We are, however, more likely to make iPhones, fly airplanes, or perform heart transplants. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/97 "2011-08-15T14:47:55Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > There are lots of farms in Michigan that sell you strawberries that you go out and pick yourself. There are lots of people who do it to save money. Americans will work hard to save money or even not make a lot. Yeah, I hear you. You can make picking apples (or strawberries) into a family event but we are in fact unable to find people to pick strawbaerries at prevailing rates. So either the rates need to go up to attract more workers (which will make them less competitive comapred to South American streawberries) or we need to find a labor pool that will work for the prevailing rates. Of course the other solution is to increase the prevailing rate of pay and to erect some protectionist barriers to South American produce, sure prices would rise but the money would stay in the economy and there would be more economicactor with disposable income and that would be good for the economy. however, considering taht we export so much food, do you think it would be a good idea to start erecting trade barriers to agricultural products? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/98 "2011-08-15T14:51:07Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > [Currently.](http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20025402-1.html) > > Every fruit growing industry group is investing in robotic research. In five to ten years time, most fruit harvested in the United States will be picked robotically. Yields will be dramatically improved, quality of every individual peck of fruit will be better, the price will stay the same or rise only slightly and “productivity” (i.e. fruit harvested per person employed) will rise. And everyone currently employed picking strawberries will be out of a job. > > Oh, and since this is the Pit, if you think that the tens of thousands of people employed will all get jobs fixing the robotics strawberry harvesters - fuck you right in the ear with an automatic threshing machine. The thing about technology is that it creates temporary dislocation but it improves worker productivity. Trust me, you want these robots in the US not in China or Brazil. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/99 "2011-08-15T14:53:00Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Then they don’t appear to be all that concerned about earning a living, do they? When my husband (a pilot production engineer) was unemployed in 2008, he worked for awhile at the local fair, for $8 per hour. Hours were posted weekly so while he knew how long the job would run, he didn’t know how many actual hours he would get. But for him, any work is better than no work, even tho he was still getting unemployment. > > Two months later he got a job back in his field for over six figures. I’d say most of the guys that **Crafter\_Man** are not the sort to qualify for that kind of salary so why they would turn down any job? Has to be that it’s just better to sit around and collect unemployment. I don’t think you’re supposed to be collecting unemployment when youa re collecting a paycheck. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993/100 "2011-08-15T15:04:09Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > I see your point, but what I was arguing against was the idea that if nobody will do a job for $8 an hour, then somehow the work won’t get done. The strawberries will still come to the grocery store, just not from American farms. > > If we reach a state where nobody needs to do a crap job for crummy wages, won’t that be a good thing? Back in the 1940s, the United Mine Workers made a deal with the coal companies, in which the existing miners got raises, job security, etc., and in exchange the UMW promised not to fight automation, knowing it would reduce the number of jobs. I don’t have the quote, but it was something to the effect that miners didn’t want their sons to do the same jobs they were doing. The posts I linked in the OP seem to want to head in the opposite direction, I agree, the price of strawberries is not likely to jump because we moved the strawberry industry to El Salvador. But we are likely to lose a few decent paying jobs in teh American supply chain that will not be replaced by American jobs in Strawberry importing. Maybe this will free up land that can more profitably be used to grow something else like organic freerange Emu or soemthing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-of-labor-economics/591993.md?page=6)