Shag, I think this is a good point abeit for a different discussion entirely. With a labor surplus as we have currently, the reason is merely consumption (per capita) not keeping pace with productivity (per capita). The actual population size is not really important.
If the population was halved, doubled, decimated, or cubed (either by disease or replicators); without concommitant changes to the conventions and legal structures in place we’d have similar economic stratifications as now. History seems to make this plain.
However, it’s worth noting that dividing the total land area of Earth by its human population yields a mere 5.25 acres per person. (~36.8 billion acres land, ~7 billion people).
This doesn’t mean we all get 5 acre peaceful countryside properties; anything we consume individually needs to come from that 5 acres on average per capita (water, food, timber, petroleum, metals, fresh air and parks, transportation networks, etc…Everything but seafood).
Since a lot of land is effectively unusable mountain/desert/icefloe it’s clear that we’ll probably need to accept a lower standard of living in the 1st world as the world population increases overall and vies for similar comforts. In a sense the growing population makes us “poorer” in the sense that there’s less pie for each individual. But this doesn’t address whether its divided equally, quasi-progressively, or avariciously such that a few individuals get 50% and the rest fight for crumbs,
Or in other words, if we postulate a magic device that makes 3 other earths available (and allows effortless hyperspace jumps between them) - or perhaps simply “grows” our earth to match the same result, without new economic ideas the pacing of a minimum wage with inflation and other economic indicators (and indeed whether it should exist at all!) is still on the table for discussion.
You don’t have to have an extreme underclass. Although Norway and Sweden have a different model: there is no minimum wage, rather there’s some method I don’t fully understand where regional labor groups negotiate wage scales. I don’t have a problem with that as long as it works and we could try something like that here.
It’s not cost-free, however. Norwegians have more money than Americans before taxes, but a lot less after taxes, and Swedes are much poorer even before taxes.
In what I’m absolutely certain is a mere coincidence, Norway has the best standard of living in the world. Sweden is ranked below the US, but not by near as much as the difference between Norway and the US. And according to some interpretations, Sweden ranks higher than the US.
While many of the ‘quality of life’ indicators for the nordic countries probably are due to the services provided by their government and funded by their taxes, and honestly I would prefer those same policies over here, I have a feeling a large portion of their standard of living has more to do with cultural and geograpic issues than fiscal ones.
I agree that a worker working full time should be able to live a decent life on his or her wages.
However, a worker working full time should not be guaranteed the ability to support a family. And that’s the real issue here. Minimum wage is usually sufficient for a single person. Where it gets insufficient is when you start adding non-working spouses or kids to the mix. It’s not employers’ responsibility to subsidize people’s reproductive choices.
Standard of living covers a lot of things that are not related to the economy. One way to ensure a high average standard of living is to turn your country into a gated community. Norway and Sweden are very stingy when it comes to letting immigrants in:
the US lets in more than twice as many immigrants as a proportion of our population than Norway or Sweden, and our immigrants are far more likely to come from Third World countries. If Norway and Sweden adopted US-style immigration policies, that would impact your standard of living quite a bit. As well as economic indicators like median income.
Norway and Sweden are stingy about immigration? Dude, seriously. Stop being so completely ignorantly wrong about everything. Educate yourself before typing.
From Wikipedia;
“As of 2010 however, 1.33 million people or 14.3% of the inhabitants in Sweden were foreign-born.”
The figure is around 12% for Norway.
For comparison purposes, it is about 13% for the USA.
Which has fuck-all to do with " Minimum wage is usually sufficient for a single person". That’s a statement of profound ignorance. Minimum wage is entirely insufficient for a single person to live off of in pretty much all of the USA.
Then what use is poverty as a measure if not being in poverty is insufficient to live?
As for your immigration cite, you’re looking at different statistics. The bulk of Norway’s foreign born citizens come from the EU, not the Third World.
The reason I looked at migration rates is because it sorts out the wheat from the chaff a little. Norwegians are just as likely to leave Norway for other EU countries as other EU residents are to enter Norway. The net migration rate shows how many surplus people are imported, and that surplus is likely to come from the Third World, which gives a better picture of Norwegian immigration than just measuring how many Swedes live there.
Likewise with the US, Americans are as likely to go to Canada as Canadians are to go to the US, so in theory they should cancel each other out. The US has a very high net migration rate because we import a TON of third world residents. And we’ve been doing it a long time, which is why although our foreign born population is similar to Norway’s, we’re far more likely to have third and fourth generation Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese, Brazilians, etc.
Not to mention the third of Scandinavians who decided they’d rather be here.
Australia’s minimum wage is often cited, but the under 21 exception is a BIG loophole that retailers and fast food employers drive a giant truck through.
According to this cite, the average McDonald’s employee in Australia makes just under $10/hr.
I’d imagine that policy is doing wonders to keep teen unemployment low. It’s a big problem everywhere else in the world.
A lot of kids work for McDonalds. This is in fact a really good thing for the kids but not just money wise. Apparently is is very useful to have a decent stint there on your resume. And any 18yr old is going to be making more than the American minimum. Good lord the casual minimum wage is more than I get hourly ($20.30 per hour). Add to that inexpensive medical (if not free) income support (if needed through centrelink) I think it is a hell of a lot easier being poor here than In America.
Defintiely. It’s easier to be poor anywhere in the West than America. But that’s our culture and judging by how people vote with their feet, they want the opportunities our system provides.
high risk, high reward. There is no free lunch. Reducing the risk of adversity also reduces the rewards for success.
