shokwave comments on Optimal Employment - Less Wrong

60 Post author: Louie 31 January 2011 12:50PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (267)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shokwave 31 January 2011 02:43:47PM 5 points [-]

The minimum wage point alone is probably enough maths, honestly. The hypothetical person here is far more likely than the average American citizen to be on or near minimum wage.

Comment author: katydee 31 January 2011 04:29:19PM 6 points [-]

I'm not sure if that follows. Why do you believe that?

Comment author: erratio 31 January 2011 10:19:27PM 5 points [-]

Because it's possible to live extremely comfortably on the minimum wage here as long as you don't have dependents. This creates a disincentive towards going out and getting a higher paying job that requires far more actual work. eg. Last year I was covering my costs of living in Sydney by working three days a week at minimum wage and was still able to go out to nice restaurants and so forth fairly regularly.

Comment author: katydee 01 February 2011 01:47:06AM 4 points [-]

Ah, okay. My mistake-- I thought shokwave's "here" referred to LessWrong as a whole, not Australia.

Comment author: shokwave 31 January 2011 04:55:58PM 3 points [-]

The people I know who are similar to the results in the survey linked in the top level post are disproportionately on minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs - particularly casual or part-time.

Comment author: jsalvatier 31 January 2011 04:41:45PM 2 points [-]

Not to mention that a high minimum wage suggests it might be hard to find a minimum wage job.

Comment author: shokwave 31 January 2011 04:57:52PM 13 points [-]

It does suggest that. The unemployment rate far more strongly suggests the opposite.

Comment author: David_Gerard 31 January 2011 04:58:13PM 4 points [-]

For the curious: One of the reasons why the wages in Australia seem so high is because Australia largely dodged the credit crunch, having put suitable controls on its financial sector well ahead of time. So the currency has stayed up - particularly compared to the USD, which has gone down the toilet. Conditions may equalise with time, but right now there's a huge discrepancy.

(I moved from Australia to London when the AUD was worth half what it is now, when it was about AUD$3 to GBP£1.)

Comment author: jsalvatier 31 January 2011 05:34:10PM 1 point [-]

Ah yes, I forgot that Australia largely avoided the current recession, that explains a large part of it.

Comment author: David_Gerard 31 January 2011 06:13:19PM *  1 point [-]

And to make it stranger - cash register prices (food, etc.) in AUD have approximately doubled in the last ten years, the time in which the dollar has grown to twice the size. So in USD or GBP, stuff has gone up in price by about four - but it doesn't feel like 4x in Australia.

We have a pile of first-world economies that are not in fact all that closely coupled, except when two countries both do similar stupid things, e.g. letting the financial sector run rampant.

Comment author: jsalvatier 31 January 2011 08:38:51PM 6 points [-]

FWIW, the idea that "letting the financial sector run rampant" was the cause of the current recession is not uncontroversial. I and others think poor monetary policy is much more to blame.