View Full Version : Muddling For Solutions
I'm posting this because I just discovered this guy, John Mauldin. I'm probably the last person in the world who hasn't heard of John Mauldin, so thanks to Dorsai for setting me onto him.
After spending several hours reading Mauldin's works, I think he has a pretty good idea of what is going on, at least he puts my feelings about what is going on into words. What I've posted is, in essence and introduction to the article/essay. I've posted the link at the end:
Those who experienced the 1930s as adults are mostly gone now, but they left notes. We have a pretty good record of what that period was like. It wasn’t fun to begin with—then it got worse.
This year, I’ve written several times about the 1930s parallels that Ray Dalio and others see with our situation today. The similarities are indeed striking, but there are also important differences. Employment, for one.
Back then, a huge part of the working-age population couldn’t find jobs because there were none to find. Now, the unemployment rate is at record lows. Yet the level of unhappiness is not all that different. Why? How can people have jobs and still be so dissatisfied?
Employment is not a binary condition. Jobs vary qualitatively: wages, benefits, working conditions, security, and more. Further, current conditions include assumptions from the past.
Six+ decades of steadily improving worker conditions have been eroding since the Great Recession. Humans look for easy cause and effect explanations, because we want to blame something or someone when things aren’t the way we want—but it’s not that easy. And it’s particularly difficult when the actual cause is not something we can easily change.
To put it succinctly, if mass unemployment characterized the Great Depression, mass under-employment characterizes today’s economy. Millions don’t earn the wages they need to live comfortably, or they aren’t able to work in the field for which they feel qualified, or they fear losing their jobs, or they’re otherwise discontented.
Should just being “employed” make people/workers happy? On one level, any job is better than no job. But we also derive much of our identities and self-esteem from our work. If you aren’t happy with it, you’re probably not happy generally. Unhappy people can still vote and are often easy marks for shameless politicians to manipulate. Their spending patterns change, too. So it ends up affecting everyone, even those who are happy.
Today we’ll discuss this problem and the importance (and difficulty) of finding solutions. Just for the record, I write about this repeatedly, trying to look at it from different angles because it is going to be one of the most contentious and difficult problems our society (globally) faces in the 2020s. As both citizens and investors, not to mention parents and family, we need to think about this now.
https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/muddling-for-solutions
Interesting, I have not read his work either. We have record unemployment, food and transportation availability unlike anytime in history. We have an obesity epidemic (especially among the poor) and everyone has a new car or two in the driveway. Yet people are leaving their chosen religion in epic numbers and humanism and secularism are on the rise. We have banned God from the public arena, replaced Him in schools with a multitude of humanistic and hedonistic studies and turned to government for our guidance. I think the problem is complex on the surface but below it is really the huge spiritual void in today's modern society.
I have long been of the line of thinking that you don't have to love your job, you just have to be able to tolerate it. This notion of "following your dreams" is all fine and well for La-La Land, but in reality most of us tolerate our jobs because they pay the bills and allow us a decent lifestyle.
For instance, my dream job would be owning a gun shop and doing gun-related stuff. But guess what? Sure, it's possible, but how likely is it to let me live the life I want like my medical field job does? I've been in said field for almost 30 years; however, I don't watch medical shows, read medical journals or articles (unless it's a health condition that affects me or my family), and when I leave work each day it's like turning off a light switch until I have to go back. I'm not "into" medical stuff. It can be a drag quite often, sometimes depressing and more often annoying. I'm not a "people person", but I deal with it and have for nearly three decades. It pays pretty well and allows me to live the life I want to. Club Med it ain't but I can't complain too much considering I chose it long ago, and in a little over 8 years I can say "Sayonara" and never look back.
Bottom line? For too long young people have been conditioned to think that they need to "follow your dreams" and must do for a living what they most cherish in life. WRONG!!! You need to find something that you can tolerate, something that might actually be in demand (gasp!), even if it isn't your lifelong ambition. Maybe that generic business or arts degree is why you're living in Mom's basement and bitching about how "The Man" has f****d you over.
I have long been of the line of thinking that you don't have to love your job, you just have to be able to tolerate it. This notion of "following your dreams" is all fine and well for La-La Land, but in reality most of us tolerate our jobs because they pay the bills and allow us a decent lifestyle.
For instance, my dream job would be owning a gun shop and doing gun-related stuff. But guess what? Sure, it's possible, but how likely is it to let me live the life I want like my medical field job does? I've been in said field for almost 30 years; however, I don't watch medical shows, read medical journals or articles (unless it's a health condition that affects me or my family), and when I leave work each day it's like turning off a light switch until I have to go back. I'm not "into" medical stuff. It can be a drag quite often, sometimes depressing and more often annoying. I'm not a "people person", but I deal with it and have for nearly three decades. It pays pretty well and allows me to live the life I want to. Club Med it ain't but I can't complain too much considering I chose it long ago, and in a little over 8 years I can say "Sayonara" and never look back.
Bottom line? For too long young people have been convinced that they need to "follow your dreams" and must do for a living what they most cherish in life. WRONG!!! You need to find something that you can tolerate, something that might be actually in demand (gasp!), even if it isn't your lifelong ambition. Maybe that generic business or arts degree is why you're living in Mom's basement and bitching about how "The Man" has f****d you over.
To paraphrase Drew Carey: "So you hate your job? Well, there is a support group for people like you. It is called Everybody, and they meet every Friday night at the bar".
To paraphrase Drew Carey: "So you hate your job? Well, there is a support group for people like you. It is called Everybody, and they meet every Friday night at the bar".
I like that one! Pretty much sums it up.
"Suck it up buttercup!"
While interesting, and there are valid points, I disagree.
We have two generations that demand instant gratification that lack the discipline to save and to resist marketing that they need to live a lavish lifestyle and buy everything they want...on credit.
Do we need 70,000 trucks with smart everything, backup cameras, mobile hotspots, etc?
Do we need smart homes, high speed access, five different streaming services, 72” 4K televisions, and a new smartphone every six months?
Those behaviors are why people are perpetually broke and in debt.
More reasonable living and not adopting every new technology will help people live within their means. Most Americans are are wealthier than 99% of the rest of the world.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
While interesting, and there are valid points, I disagree.
We have two generations that demand instant gratification that lack the discipline to save and to resist marketing that they need to live a lavish lifestyle and buy everything they want...on credit.
Do we need 70,000 trucks with smart everything, backup cameras, mobile hotspots, etc?
Do we need smart homes, high speed access, five different streaming services, 72” 4K televisions, and a new smartphone every six months?
Those behaviors are why people are perpetually broke and in debt.
More reasonable living and not adopting every new technology will help people live within their means. Most Americans are are wealthier than 99% of the rest of the world.
I don't have a problem with people having that stuff if they can afford it. If you're a broke-dick or unable to afford those things (maybe some of them?) then you live in the 1990's. If you make enough to buy that stuff and still pay all your bills then you get to live in 2020. Pretty simple.
Of course if someone desires all the bells and whistles and is okay with living in perpetual debt/on credit, that's their decision and it's a free country. However, that irresponsible financial behavior often leads to voting in a more Leftward (read: socialist) manner because the sense of entitlement convinces them that they're being screwed over and it's somebody else's fault, not their own.
I don't have a problem with people having that stuff if they can afford it. If you're a broke-dick or unable to afford those things (maybe some of them?) then you live in the 1990's. If you make enough to buy that stuff and still pay all your bills then you get to live in 2020. Pretty simple.
Of course if someone desires all the bells and whistles and is okay with living in perpetual debt/on credit, that's their decision and it's a free country. However, that irresponsible financial behavior often leads to voting in a more Leftward (read: socialist) manner because the sense of entitlement convinces them that they're being screwed over and it's somebody else's fault, not their own.
I don’t disagree with you one bit. But this is why people don’t live “comfortably” as stated by the OP. That notion is BS. People’s choices are their problem, not the lack of good jobs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t disagree with you one bit. But this is why people don’t live “comfortably” as stated by the OP. That notion is BS. People’s choices are their problem, not the lack of good jobs.
This is increasingly becoming a service-oriented job market, i.e. manufacturing jobs are nowhere near where they were in the 1960's for instance. Automation is seeing to that. The days of $35 an hour with full bennies to bolt a bumper on a car on an assembly line are gone for the most part. Most service-related jobs don't pay that kind of money. You need a skill, and that means perhaps taking a job in a field that you may not necessarily prefer to but is in demand (like the medical field for instance....people are always going to be sick). HVAC is another example; hot, dirty, requires good knees [LOL], and at times crawling around where you would rather not. However, it pays pretty well....I know, I have just shelled out everything but my first-born this past summer to fix and then replace mine!. So there are good paying jobs out there, just gotta be willing to do them.
I might also add that good paying jobs don't always require a bachelor's degree. Most technical schools aren't a BS or BA program. Good way to avoid racking up enormous debt right off the bat from student loans.
People’s choices are their problem, not the lack of good jobs.
I'm not going to argue that people's choice are not PART of the problem, just that it is not the total problem.
Let me bore you: I retired quite comfortably about three and a half years ago, by quite comfortably I mean I began taking more from my brokerage account than I had been taking home while working. After a couple years of waking up, going to the range and shooting, returning to town for coffee with buds, and riding my motorcycle I became kind of depressed because I had no purpose, per se. I had done volunteer work through my church while working, occasionally even taking vacation to go on bigger projects. When I tried volunteer more 'full time' after retirement, I quickly ran into a situation where it became apparent that they were having to find stuff for me to do, so we parted ways.
In short, I found myself at loose ends. I decided I needed to get a job. Not just any job, a part-time job that gave me week-ends off, and allowed me to shoot in the mornings if I wanted, plus go to coffee. I ended up slinging freight from 9:00P to 1:00A for $12.00 an hour, less than a third of the hourly rate I retired at. Strangely enough, or maybe not so strange, I like the work. And it gives me a 'purpose.'
When I set out to figure for myself what a minimum livable wage was, I came up with slightly less that $13.00 and hour for a two breadwinner household. So this ought to be a pretty livable job, except it isn't.
Why? Because, in order to maximize shareholder value, stores like ours, run a skeleton crew of full time employees and rely on 'disposable' part time help to run the store. Increasingly this is the model for service industry and retail jobs. So I work with folks who always get less than 30 hours a week and, in our case, a schedule that doesn't include set days off (my job is the only area of the store with set days off). The random days off hampers your ability to get a second job somewhat.
This is the reality for a good percentage of folks. The other day I was talking with my ex-wife, she's a nurse and one of the daughters is thinking about going to nursing school. My ex told me she didn't know about long-term, because the hospitals and doctors offices are following the same trend. She told me she is sometimes the only RN on her SNU pod at night, she usually has four to six CNA/CMA's working under her.
Yep, there are good jobs if you have the skill set, but what happens when everyone goes to a vo-tech and becomes a welder - welder pay goes to shit.
You really don't want to read this one, which I also agree with. If you read it understand that one of the problems I see is that too many members of the semi-protected class only care about themselves:
https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/life-on-the-edge
BoringGuy45
11-23-19, 23:30
There is a danger, both to individuals' psychological well being, as well as the efficiency of society's workforce, if we send the message that everyone hates their job, so just pick ANYTHING and suck it up. First, people SHOULD pursue a career in something that drives them. Part of our country's philosophy is about being driven to achieve. Also, it gives a free hall pass to employers to be cold and abusive if we send the message that work is SUPPOSED to be miserable, so nothing can, or should, be done to make life more pleasant for employees. It's not just bad for the employees, it's bad for efficiency and quality of work. "If you don't like it, there's the door," is not going to make people work harder.
I find it ironic that wishing for fulfillment and opportunity to achieve in a satisfying job is considered a leftist trait, while the hallmark of conservatism is being a cog in a job that we can barely tolerate because it's our f**king duty to this miserable world before we die nameless and unceremoniously. Pretty sure it's supposed to be the other way around.
MountainRaven
11-23-19, 23:44
Interesting, I have not read his work either. We have record unemployment, food and transportation availability unlike anytime in history. We have an obesity epidemic (especially among the poor) and everyone has a new car or two in the driveway.
When I was a kid, everyone had new cars.
Now I think I know only one person who has a new car - everyone else drives cars they got used.
When I was a kid, everyone had new cars.
Now I think I know only one person who has a new car - everyone else drives cars they got used.
When you were a kid, new cars weren’t year or two’s salary.
I looked at new pickups recently. They are literally 50-70k for a well equipped 3/4 ton.
My parents bought two in the mid 2000s for what one new one is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Socialism is a gloomy forecast because its all about processes that are always ****ed up and people don't matter which in turn cheapens life. A good life is about more than some arbitrary bullshit numbers and buying more stuff you don't need. This consumer marketed/driven economy is driving people insane. We have a 85% service economy, 5% agriculture, and 10% manufacturing. Thats unsustainable and its also why you constantly have some doofus telling you you need to buy a bunch of shit to be happy. People were probably happier in 1930's even though they had less. They were at least FREE to call a schmuck a schmuck and even punch a SOB in the nose without being arrested for violating someones rights or offending hordes of FB and twitter snowflake mother ****ers.
Mike Rowe
Don't follow your passion.
https://youtu.be/CVEuPmVAb8o
I have long been of the line of thinking that you don't have to love your job, you just have to be able to tolerate it. This notion of "following your dreams" is all fine and well for La-La Land, but in reality most of us tolerate our jobs because they pay the bills and allow us a decent lifestyle.
For instance, my dream job would be owning a gun shop and doing gun-related stuff. But guess what? Sure, it's possible, but how likely is it to let me live the life I want like my medical field job does? I've been in said field for almost 30 years; however, I don't watch medical shows, read medical journals or articles (unless it's a health condition that affects me or my family), and when I leave work each day it's like turning off a light switch until I have to go back. I'm not "into" medical stuff. It can be a drag quite often, sometimes depressing and more often annoying. I'm not a "people person", but I deal with it and have for nearly three decades. It pays pretty well and allows me to live the life I want to. Club Med it ain't but I can't complain too much considering I chose it long ago, and in a little over 8 years I can say "Sayonara" and never look back.
Bottom line? For too long young people have been conditioned to think that they need to "follow your dreams" and must do for a living what they most cherish in life. WRONG!!! You need to find something that you can tolerate, something that might actually be in demand (gasp!), even if it isn't your lifelong ambition. Maybe that generic business or arts degree is why you're living in Mom's basement and bitching about how "The Man" has f****d you over.
There is a danger, both to individuals' psychological well being, as well as the efficiency of society's workforce, if we send the message that everyone hates their job, so just pick ANYTHING and suck it up. First, people SHOULD pursue a career in something that drives them. Part of our country's philosophy is about being driven to achieve. Also, it gives a free hall pass to employers to be cold and abusive if we send the message that work is SUPPOSED to be miserable, so nothing can, or should, be done to make life more pleasant for employees. It's not just bad for the employees, it's bad for efficiency and quality of work. "If you don't like it, there's the door," is not going to make people work harder.
I find it ironic that wishing for fulfillment and opportunity to achieve in a satisfying job is considered a leftist trait, while the hallmark of conservatism is being a cog in a job that we can barely tolerate because it's our f**king duty to this miserable world before we die nameless and unceremoniously. Pretty sure it's supposed to be the other way around.
And those right there are key words, supposed to be. This is where that nasty thing called reality intersects with the Ideal World. Things generally aren't how they're supposed to be in a perfect world, because the world ain't perfect!
And no, "....wishing for fulfillment and opportunity to achieve in a satisfying job...." isn't considered a Leftist trait. When you continue to pursue that false dream (see the Mike Rowe video posted above) and then blame "society" or "The Man" for your broke-dick predicament in life then yes, THAT is a Leftist trait and I surmise you will likely vote that way since it's not really your fault after all right? The Left is attractive to that aspiring singer waiting for his/her "one big break" while waiting tables to barely pay the bills. The Left offers "free stuff" (which of course we all know isn't really free) that he/she can't otherwise afford because of a life choice. *caveat: I understand there are things that occur that are unpredictable, so you may have a tougher time of it every now and then throughout life but being resilient in those circumstances is paramount*
I believe I said earlier you don't have to love your job, just be able to tolerate it; I did NOT say do it if you absolutely hate it.
There are several differences between then and now. First, they didn’t measure success and financial well being by whether they had a new car in the garage Of their McMansion. They didn’t even have a garage. They had a crappy little clapboard house that was the equivalent of today’s two bedroom apartment. They didn’t have a 65” tv with 120 channels. They had a radio and they were lucky of they received more than one channel. They didn’t have a cell phone and internet. If they had a phone at all it was a party line.
Success for them was a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, heat in the winter and warm clothes. Luxury was a swamp cooler for the unbearable summer days and new shoes for the school year.
Today what we have is an ENTIRE industry devoted to selling misery. It tells you that you’re unhappy if you don’t have a half dozen schwoopy shoes in the closet. It tells you that a $5 coffee from a luxury shoppe every morning is a necessity. It tells you that unless you have 300 channels with nothing on and a personal assistant disc on the coffee table to cater to your every whim, you’re missing out on life. Same same for the robotic vacuum your cat can ride while you schedule it’s rounds from your $1,000 cell phone while you’re on the toilet. You no longer have to save half a year to order something nice out of the Sears catalog that will arrive in 4-6 weeks. You press a few buttons and presto, your trinkets will arrive by delivery drone in a couple of hours (not available in all areas, yet).
How we measure success these days is quite frankly, indulgent. If you turn off all the noise and programming, you can get back to happy if you have a roof over your head, food in your belly and clothes on your back. People just need to reprogram what they require to acquire happiness.
Averageman
11-24-19, 09:10
There isn't a lot of delayed gratification going on anymore is there?
On the whole, not a lot of economic planning going on in the home either. Ever ask to see someone's budget?
How many middle class kids you see roofing houses in the summer to go back to school in the fall?
Not a lot of people buying new cars? I personally applaud that, why get screwed for 15 K for driving off the lot?
People don't understand that it takes sometimes decades of savings to accumulate even modest wealth. If you can understand that, then you can move forward in life being very wary of accumulating debt because debt is the polar opposite of wealth.
I have always been interested in personal finance and my parents were very helpful in teaching me as I was growing up.
Contrary to what was said about everybody NOT buying new cars, the last shift I worked, I decided to examine what they drive:
2019 Toyota Tacoma TRD Off-Road
2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited
2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited
2020 Ram 2500 Cummins Diesel 4x4
2014 Toyota Tacoma TRD Off-Road
2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited
2018 Dodge Challenger Hellcat
2018 Ford F-150 Raptor
Then there’s me with a 2012 1/2 ton Chevy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I tell the youth at church that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden and punished with what? Work!
I tell them to go to college and choose a profession that allows them to live the life they want, not to pick a career that they are passionate about. Work to live, don’t live to work. My job allows me to have many hobbies that I’m passionate about. I don’t hate my job but I wouldn’t show up for free. And what I like about it the most is the life it allows me to live.
And when I say college, trade school is included if not preferred.
I tell the youth at church that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden and punished with what? Work!
I tell them to go to college and choose a profession that allows them to live the life they want, not to pick a career that they are passionate about. Work to live, don’t live to work. My job allows me to have many hobbies that I’m passionate about. I don’t hate my job but I wouldn’t show up for free. And what I like about it the most is the life it allows me to live.
And when I say college, trade school is included if not preferred.
Spot on!
....,,,,
I hate old AND young people.
Some of youse need to just go in the ground and the others need to crawl back between your moms legs and bake a little longer.
I hate you all. All of you.
You old people with your Matlock
You young people with your Fortnite.
If you like trannies, Sega Genesis, Stoli, KAC, and Christian Slater movies you can stay.
If not then you gotta go. Aaaasggghhh!!!!
....,,,,
I hate old AND young people.
Some of youse need to just go in the ground and the others need to crawl back between your moms legs and bake a little longer.
I hate you all. All of you.
You old people with your Matlock
You young people with your Fortnite.
If you like trannies, Sega Genesis, Stoli, KAC, and Christian Slater movies you can stay.
If not then you gotta go. Aaaasggghhh!!!!
Replace Stoli with Bourbon and Trannies with real women we can be friends.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Replace Stoli with Bourbon and Trannies with real women we can be friends.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://media1.tenor.com/images/dcb6df171bb81f0d1b7d18c7054f4cd6/tenor.gif?itemid=8061783
HMM hit it pretty well.
I got my dream job- I was fortunate to have a drive and passion for a somewhat normal career, and was blessed with the ability to achieve it.
My advice to others is narrow options to an achievable career, and of the ones you dont hate, pick what pays the most.
Then follow your passions as hobbies.
The biggest problem I see is people are not self-aware, and often think they are more skilled than they actually are.
As for general unhappiness, i see a LOT of people that complain about not having what they want, but dont budget properly to get it, even though they have the means. Budget is referring to both time and money investment.
“I wish i was in shape”- eats fast food and watches 2 hr tv every night
“ wish I had x material things” - spends thousands a year on entertainment, food, cigarettes, booze, gambling...
“I wish i was good at x” - spends no time on x.
Ive come to the conclusion (my opinion) that talent is overrated and hard work beats it for all but the highest levels of whatever. People dont want to put in the work or discipline themselves, and sit on their computer saying “must be nice” while being bitter towards those who do.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/dcb6df171bb81f0d1b7d18c7054f4cd6/tenor.gif?itemid=8061783
Can’t get on board with the penis chicks. Sorry, dude.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There isn't a lot of delayed gratification going on anymore is there?
No, not a lot. I remember when we were first married (1973) the wife and I saved for four months to buy a $90.00 black and white T.V. I'm a long way from that now, if I want it I get it. The reality is that credit is much more available now than it was 20-30 years ago. It is our fault for falling into the trap, but there are sure a lot of folks waiting to give you money.
How many middle class kids you see roofing houses in the summer to go back to school in the fall?
Well, my Grandson is 15. He has a Hispanic friend and he did roof this summer on his friend's uncle's crew. My son told me he would drive past to check on 'E' and it was kind of funny seeing his white torso up there with all the brown ones. He made a couple grand for the summer.
In case you haven't noticed opportunities for high school/junior high jobs like that like have disappeared in today's world. Roofing jobs are done by illegals/legal immigrants; grown men and women now deliver papers; grown men and women know run landscaping companies and have pretty much sewn up the lawn mowing racket as well.
No matter how much we want to reminisce, fact is we ain't returning to the America that existed several decades ago.
MountainRaven
11-24-19, 23:32
Can’t get on board with the penis chicks. Sorry, dude.
I don't think anyone is asking you to make passionate love with them.
BoringGuy45
11-24-19, 23:57
And those right there are key words, supposed to be. This is where that nasty thing called reality intersects with the Ideal World. Things generally aren't how they're supposed to be in a perfect world, because the world ain't perfect!
And no, "....wishing for fulfillment and opportunity to achieve in a satisfying job...." isn't considered a Leftist trait. When you continue to pursue that false dream (see the Mike Rowe video posted above) and then blame "society" or "The Man" for your broke-dick predicament in life then yes, THAT is a Leftist trait and I surmise you will likely vote that way since it's not really your fault after all right? The Left is attractive to that aspiring singer waiting for his/her "one big break" while waiting tables to barely pay the bills. The Left offers "free stuff" (which of course we all know isn't really free) that he/she can't otherwise afford because of a life choice. *caveat: I understand there are things that occur that are unpredictable, so you may have a tougher time of it every now and then throughout life but being resilient in those circumstances is paramount*
I believe I said earlier you don't have to love your job, just be able to tolerate it; I did NOT say do it if you absolutely hate it.
Let me clarify my position.
First, I think that a person should try and find a job that the like, and not just tolerate. They don't have to love it, but I think a person should try and do something they get some level of fulfillment out of. It may not be their passion, but I think it's better than just taking a job doing something that you couldn't give two shits about in the long run. If all that presents itself is such a job that you can live with and pays the bills but you don't necessarily like, then yeah, I suppose that's what you've gotta do. But I wouldn't advise people to settle on that just as soon as they come upon such a job, or to think that a tolerable job is the best any normal person can ever hope for.
However, I do agree that it's stupid to simply wait out your big break to get something big and lofty while simultaneously complaining about having an entry level job. Chances are, you don't have the talent to be a professional actor, musician, or athlete, and even if you do, you stand less than a 1% chance of being in the right place at the right time to have that opportunity. I also know that even for normal jobs, if you're not cut out to do your dream job, you need to find something else. You may want to do something dangerous and exciting like the military or law enforcement, but if you can't handle stress or think on your feet, the job is not for you. Likewise, you may want to be a doctor, but you may just not be smart enough to get into, much less graduate, medical school. Hell, if you're not good and steady with your hands, many trades may be out.
So, a person needs to find something they like that they can be good at. But I would also advise people not to give up easily, or feel like they need to stick with going for low hanging fruit. Yes, maybe trades are currently the most plentiful, and least expensive job options to get. But the world does need doctors and teachers too. If a goal is obtainable, I say pursue it. Have backup plans, always, but go for what you feel you can do to offer the best service to others.
No, not a lot. I remember when we were first married (1973) the wife and I saved for four months to buy a $90.00 black and white T.V. I'm a long way from that now, if I want it I get it. The reality is that credit is much more available now than it was 20-30 years ago. It is our fault for falling into the trap, but there are sure a lot of folks waiting to give you money.
Well, my Grandson is 15. He has a Hispanic friend and he did roof this summer on his friend's uncle's crew. My son told me he would drive past to check on 'E' and it was kind of funny seeing his white torso up there with all the brown ones. He made a couple grand for the summer.
In case you haven't noticed opportunities for high school/junior high jobs like that like have disappeared in today's world. Roofing jobs are done by illegals/legal immigrants; grown men and women now deliver papers; grown men and women know run landscaping companies and have pretty much sewn up the lawn mowing racket as well.
No matter how much we want to reminisce, fact is we ain't returning to the America that existed several decades ago.
High school jobs have gone away because the government and child labor laws have destroyed that opportunity. I cannot have anyone under the age of 18 even run a freekin' cordless drill. They can't be out in the lumber yard around equipment, they can't be more than 4' off the ground on a ladder, they can't do a dang thing. My son grew up in my business and the owner's kids are exempt from the rules. This allowed him to get a leg up on his buddies by several years. If it isn't against the government rules my insurance company sticks its nose in it.
BoringGuy45
11-25-19, 23:23
I don't think anyone is asking you to make passionate love with them.
Yeah but...there's so, SO many real chicks online that one can use for whacking material.
High school jobs have gone away because the government and child labor laws have destroyed that opportunity. I cannot have anyone under the age of 18 even run a freekin' cordless drill. They can't be out in the lumber yard around equipment, they can't be more than 4' off the ground on a ladder, they can't do a dang thing. My son grew up in my business and the owner's kids are exempt from the rules. This allowed him to get a leg up on his buddies by several years. If it isn't against the government rules my insurance company sticks its nose in it.
I was not aware it was that bad. I was aware that many places don't let folks under 18 run gas powered equipment, thought that was probably company policy, didn't realize it was based on child labor laws. Sure wasn't aware of the ladder thing.
Child labor laws probably factor in more than I thought, but I'm still of the opinion it's largely due to the impact of job loss in the economy.
Someone linked to this program on another site: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/in-the-age-of-ai/ It's a program about the rise of AI and, peripherally, robotics/automation. A couple of things jumped out at me:
One expert pointed out that most of the job loss in the U.S. was not due jobs being displaced overseas, the lion's share of the jobs disappeared due to automation. To drive that point home, they visited Saginaw, MI and talked eith the President of one of the UAW locals. He pointed out that the plant he works at had 7,500 workers a decade ago, they are still making essentially the same number of vehicles, but due to robotics, with a workforce of around 750.
The show also made the point that all of the AI company founders/CEO's, save one claimed that AI would create new jobs. One guy used telephone operators as an example, he asked how many telephone operators there are today compared with 50 years ago, making the point that they apparently found other jobs. The one guy who was being honest said that so many jobs will be displaced that there won't possibly be enough new jobs created to fill the gap.
Aside from the plummeting share of wealth that the shrinking middle class holds, the future job prospects look grim for the next generation.
Watch the story, it's well worth the time.
One expert pointed out that most of the job loss in the U.S. was not due jobs being displaced overseas, the lion's share of the jobs disappeared due to automation.
It amazes me that the fast food industry hasn't adopted automation en mass. Perhaps the catalyst will be all the employee lawsuits against McDonald's. I am not a robotics expert, but I could design an eatery that would only require 2 people for cleaning and one for machine maintenance per shift.
Andy
One of the key economic problems we have is steady inflation that eroded earning power. I’ve done calculations several times over the last ten years comparing cost of goods versus wages around 1960, 1975 and today. It boils down to wages from starting to middle income have gone up about 4x since the early 70s, while cost of goods have gone up 10x-20x.
Doesn’t matter that you have a job, your car, home, gas and food all cost way more relative to your wages than it did 45 yrs ago. You have to work about 3x as much to pay for corresponding consumer items.
Part of the plan to milk the middle class into quiet acceptance of servitude, serfdom.
How does the govt get away with it? Petro Dollar allows Congress to overspend for those exact same 45 years.
When government regulations make it difficult to keep employees then companies turn to alternatives to maintain their profit margins. OSHA requirements, EPA requirements, FDA requirements, property taxes, $15 minimum wage in some states, mandatory maternity leave, health insurance requirements, etc... have staggering effects on businesses. In the food manufacturing business we are seeing a lot of smaller companies shutter their doors or selling out to the giant corporations who are automating because the cost to do business has increased exponentially.
One of the key economic problems we have is steady inflation that eroded earning power. I’ve done calculations several times over the last ten years comparing cost of goods versus wages around 1960, 1975 and today. It boils down to wages from starting to middle income have gone up about 4x since the early 70s, while cost of goods have gone up 10x-20x.
Doesn’t matter that you have a job, your car, home, gas and food all cost way more relative to your wages than it did 45 yrs ago. You have to work about 3x as much to pay for corresponding consumer items.
Part of the plan to milk the middle class into quiet acceptance of servitude, serfdom.
How does the govt get away with it? Petro Dollar allows Congress to overspend for those exact same 45 years.
I’m not sure your statistic is true. In fact, I’m sure it is not. Some goods may cost significantly more, but that isn’t an apples to apples comparison. For instance comparing a computer to the price of one in 1980, or cellular phone in 1990, etc. Technology changes.
Another example of the difference in costs in addition to technology, is labor. Motor vehicles is an example that does cost significantly more, inflation adjusted. But the good reflects high-priced labor in addition to all the tech added. Cars also last 300,000 miles+ compared to about 100,000 in 1970.
Simply the amount of engineering hours going into some products changes the price significantly. Meanwhile some of the “off road use only” trucks may be $14,000 compared to $50,000 and they look a lot more like a truck from 1960 than one today.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ramairthree
11-26-19, 11:59
I tell the youth at church that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden and punished with what? Work!
I tell them to go to college and choose a profession that allows them to live the life they want, not to pick a career that they are passionate about. Work to live, don’t live to work. My job allows me to have many hobbies that I’m passionate about. I don’t hate my job but I wouldn’t show up for free. And what I like about it the most is the life it allows me to live.
And when I say college, trade school is included if not preferred.
I am not saying this is bad advice.
But...
You are not going to be an astronaut, single seat fighter jet pilot, operator, tier commander, trauma surgeon, etc. with short hours, no nights, holidays, or weekends.
On under 18 labor, it has been awhile, but I think all of these were on the books in the late 1980's.
https://www.youthrules.gov/know-the-limits/hazards/index.htm
It amazes me that the fast food industry hasn't adopted automation en mass. Perhaps the catalyst will be all the employee lawsuits against McDonald's. I am not a robotics expert, but I could design an eatery that would only require 2 people for cleaning and one for machine maintenance per shift.
Andy
They had automats and servaterias in the 40's and 50's, they went bye bye. I go to a McDonalds that was recently remodeled to the order kiosk thing on the way to work most nights. Very few people use the kiosks, they stand in line at the one cashier station.
I’m not sure your statistic is true. In fact, I’m sure it is not. Some goods may cost significantly more, but that isn’t an apples to apples comparison. For instance comparing a computer to the price of one in 1980, or cellular phone in 1990, etc. Technology changes.
I think it is more appropriate to look at the cost of staple items which everyone buys.
Let's look at a shopping cart: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/pricebasket.html
Our basket is representative of the goods and services we all use and buy, obviously different people spend different amounts and buy different types from what we use to calculate the basket, but overall, we believe the products provide an example of a typical cart that allows us to measure on a yearly basis.
Our Price Basket: There has been about a 32% increase from 2008 to 2019.
Healthcare: There has been about a 43% increase from 2008 to 2019.
United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) : There has been about a 16.63% increase from 2008 to 2019.
Wages: There has been about a 13% increase from 2008 to 2018.
Both our Price Basket and Healthcare Inflation show much higher % than the published United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures and we believe that it reflects how the middle and working classes have been effected by real world prices and wage stagnation during the past few years.
You'll notice that the range they use, 2008 to 2019, is largely AFTER the big technological advancements you list in the following sentences of your post.
Another example of the difference in costs in addition to technology, is labor. Motor vehicles is an example that does cost significantly more, inflation adjusted. But the good reflects high-priced labor in addition to all the tech added. Cars also last 300,000 miles+ compared to about 100,000 in 1970.
In the context you are talking about, labor is probably not as big a driver of price as you would like us to belief - it takes significantly fewer people to make those cars because of automation. When labor forces shrink as a result of automation, generally the wages for those remaining don't increase.
Our dollars are buying less, and those Americans who aren't doctors, for instance, are not seeing their wages increasing accordingly.
The "Cash for Clunkers" initiative under Obama surely had an affect on car prices, just as the "Affordable Care Act" screwed everyone paying for Healthcare, and insisting everyone needed to attend college due to the death of manufacturing drove tuition prices up 33%.
For what it's worth, my employer's workers have seen a minimum 20% salary increase since 2008 (the ones employed during that time).
Andy
I think it is more appropriate to look at the cost of staple items which everyone buys.
Let's look at a shopping cart: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/pricebasket.html
Our basket is representative of the goods and services we all use and buy, obviously different people spend different amounts and buy different types from what we use to calculate the basket, but overall, we believe the products provide an example of a typical cart that allows us to measure on a yearly basis.
Our Price Basket: There has been about a 32% increase from 2008 to 2019.
Healthcare: There has been about a 43% increase from 2008 to 2019.
United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) : There has been about a 16.63% increase from 2008 to 2019.
Wages: There has been about a 13% increase from 2008 to 2018.
Both our Price Basket and Healthcare Inflation show much higher % than the published United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures and we believe that it reflects how the middle and working classes have been effected by real world prices and wage stagnation during the past few years.
You'll notice that the range they use, 2008 to 2019, is largely AFTER the big technological advancements you list in the following sentences of your post.
In the context you are talking about, labor is probably not as big a driver of price as you would like us to belief - it takes significantly fewer people to make those cars because of automation. When labor forces shrink as a result of automation, generally the wages for those remaining don't increase.
Our dollars are buying less, and those Americans who aren't doctors, for instance, are not seeing their wages increasing accordingly.
I may be off a person or 2, but circa 2005 the 28 highest paid Japanese auto executives(when they were dominating US car sales) had a combined salary equal to the top 8 US auto executives at a time when US car makers were getting their asses handed to them.
I’m not sure your statistic is true. In fact, I’m sure it is not. Some goods may cost significantly more, but that isn’t an apples to apples comparison. For instance comparing a computer to the price of one in 1980, or cellular phone in 1990, etc. Technology changes.
Another example of the difference in costs in addition to technology, is labor. Motor vehicles is an example that does cost significantly more, inflation adjusted. But the good reflects high-priced labor in addition to all the tech added. Cars also last 300,000 miles+ compared to about 100,000 in 1970.
Simply the amount of engineering hours going into some products changes the price significantly. Meanwhile some of the “off road use only” trucks may be $14,000 compared to $50,000 and they look a lot more like a truck from 1960 than one today.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is kind of irrelevant that a family car today is more complex and higher quality. The fact is that to buy a family car in 2975 was about $2,500 (my mother’s new Mercury Montego, huge). In 2019 to buy a family car (seating five) you will spend about $25,000.
White bread was 10-15 cents a loaf, now about a dollar or more. A standard 3 bdrm house in 1975 was about $20,000. Today you would be hard pressed to buy one for $200K. Those are all at least 10x increases.
In 1975 as a college kid I could pick up a temp job easily for $4/hr. Today that translates to maybe $12/hr. An senior govt civil engineer made about $30,000 then and now about $80k-$100k. Yes, today’s job includes better OSHA mandates safety, all kinds of labor protections, different taxes. But the fact is your income from similar skilled jobs only rose 3x-4x.
It isn’t about comparing exact products, but the cost of comparable living versus similar income earning ability. Inflation erodes earning power faster than wages increase. Pretty sure that is by design, not accidental.
Cost of college education, health care...LOL don’t make me go there!!
I am not saying this is bad advice.
But...
You are not going to be an astronaut, single seat fighter jet pilot, operator, tier commander, trauma surgeon, etc. with short hours, no nights, holidays, or weekends.
True but I might argue the surgeon job but not the rest. It’s a trade off, you trade work for time. Doing the work on the front end and delay happiness is all part of it. A surgeon makes very well but it takes a lot of work on the front end. Got to learn to delay gratification because a lot of jobs require it if you want to live very well outside of work.
I also tell them to co-op and/or find an employer that will help them with their college if possible. Most of them know my story, 60+ hours a week after I started at 20 with a 2 yr degree (power plant operator). 10 more years total to finish with a master’s and then I got off swing shift but my company paid all my college expenses. Bonus was no college debt and making great money during my 20s. If I wanted a new toy, I just picked up a shift of overtime. Hard work but it allowed me to live outside of work very well. But I kept plugging away because I had a goal for the future.
Now my hours are way less and quality of work life is way better because I have the degree and relevant work experience. I’m holding down a desk as management. A lot of millennials (and a few work for me) think they can skip the hard work and go to an easy life. Pick the path and then do it, some like trade schools take years of being an apprentice (getting all the crap jobs for years). I’ve seen so many quit half way through because they couldn’t handle the hazing from the older guys...
And sorry for keeping on rambling but most are shocked when I tell them about millionaires too. They all think they are high rollers in new cars with the flashy clothes/jewelry and not that guy in a used car without any flash. I tell them most of the time the people that look it are only in debt and not high net worth individuals. A lot of those older electricians I work with have hit that millionaire status but you’d never know it by watching them around town.
It really worries me what life is going to be like when my kiddos grow up, the lack of financial sense is crazy...
When I saw this thread’s title, I was hoping to learn something about Bourbon drinks.
It is kind of irrelevant that a family car today is more complex and higher quality. The fact is that to buy a family car in 2975 was about $2,500 (my mother’s new Mercury Montego, huge). In 2019 to buy a family car (seating five) you will spend about $25,000.
White bread was 10-15 cents a loaf, now about a dollar or more. A standard 3 bdrm house in 1975 was about $20,000. Today you would be hard pressed to buy one for $200K. Those are all at least 10x increases.
In 1975 as a college kid I could pick up a temp job easily for $4/hr. Today that translates to maybe $12/hr. An senior govt civil engineer made about $30,000 then and now about $80k-$100k. Yes, today’s job includes better OSHA mandates safety, all kinds of labor protections, different taxes. But the fact is your income from similar skilled jobs only rose 3x-4x.
It isn’t about comparing exact products, but the cost of comparable living versus similar income earning ability. Inflation erodes earning power faster than wages increase. Pretty sure that is by design, not accidental.
Cost of college education, health care...LOL don’t make me go there!!
You can make silly “10x” comparisons, but it isn’t apples to apples.
You want to make “comparable living” examples but that’s impossible. We don’t have comparable goods or tech.
Inflation is a thing. Supply and demand is a thing.
Odd, I have a 4 bedroom house that’s ten years old in the nicest neighborhood in town and I paid $’165,000.
I was recently looking at user sedans and found a 2006 BMW with 120,000 miles on it that should easily last another 100k if not 200k that has much more engineering in it, more labor, and more materials in it than your 1975 sedan example and it’s only $6,000.
When I was in college the first time, graduating fall of ‘06, I made $16 an hour at my college job. The second time I was making around $20.
The truth is you must compare purchasing power relative to the CPI.
What was the price of a tailored suit in 1920? An ounce of gold?
What about today?
What about a gallon of gasoline in 1975? What about today?
Like products and commodities are a better comparison. There are too many factors influencing price to break it down as you wish to. It isn’t that simple.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it is more appropriate to look at the cost of staple items which everyone buys.
Let's look at a shopping cart: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/pricebasket.html
Our basket is representative of the goods and services we all use and buy, obviously different people spend different amounts and buy different types from what we use to calculate the basket, but overall, we believe the products provide an example of a typical cart that allows us to measure on a yearly basis.
Our Price Basket: There has been about a 32% increase from 2008 to 2019.
Healthcare: There has been about a 43% increase from 2008 to 2019.
United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) : There has been about a 16.63% increase from 2008 to 2019.
Wages: There has been about a 13% increase from 2008 to 2018.
Both our Price Basket and Healthcare Inflation show much higher % than the published United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures and we believe that it reflects how the middle and working classes have been effected by real world prices and wage stagnation during the past few years.
You'll notice that the range they use, 2008 to 2019, is largely AFTER the big technological advancements you list in the following sentences of your post.
In the context you are talking about, labor is probably not as big a driver of price as you would like us to belief - it takes significantly fewer people to make those cars because of automation. When labor forces shrink as a result of automation, generally the wages for those remaining don't increase.
Our dollars are buying less, and those Americans who aren't doctors, for instance, are not seeing their wages increasing accordingly.
It’s takes quite a bit more engineering now than a few years back, for better or worse
Additionally, technology continues to boom. It’s much faster now compare a 2006 truck to a 2020. The sensors, the self driving, self-breaking, etc. It’s amazing.
Not sure physician pay is increasing more than the average person. Cost of healthcare and cars, for that matter, has shifted and largely to government regulation.
But when you compare commodities, what is the change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s takes quite a bit more engineering now than a few years back, for better or worse
Additionally, technology continues to boom. It’s much faster now compare a 2006 truck to a 2020. The sensors, the self driving, self-breaking, etc. It’s amazing.
Not sure physician pay is increasing more than the average person. Cost of healthcare and cars, for that matter, has shifted and largely to government regulation.
But when you compare commodities, what is the change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Much of the spiraling cost of vehicles is due to regulations on safety and fuel consumption. In many ways that goes for everything else in our economy. When was the last time something was made less complex and/or regulated?
We could have quite a bit more buying power, if we eliminated half the bureaucrats who produce nothing but burden. :(
ramairthree
11-27-19, 11:42
These comparisons are usually presented for an agenda, so it is hard to compare.
The median household 40 years ago was about 8k, comparable to the 60k or so today.
But...then it was mostly a single worker. Now it is frequently 2.
A new Mustang and a 4 year college degree cost much less compared to that median income than they do now. So did medicine.
On one hand, you could argue a new Mustang has AC, hands free audio and phone, crumple zones, air bags, more power, better handling and braking. Just like you could say a new home has more rooms, central AC, etc. and is really not a comparable product.
As for college and medicine, they have each had about a 3000 percent in administration, offer better dorms, fancier rooms, etc. this has upped costs. There are costs associated with computer science labs, MRIs, etc. that were not a consideration 50 years ago.
Also, if you and your buddy are on the way home from work in your new Mustang and get in a bad wreck, he dies and you are trapped with your legs pinned, a very professional fire and EMS crew will get you to the hospital, where he will survive his head bleed, your legs will be saved, and dialysis will hold you until your kidneys recover. A far cry from being thrown in the back of a white hearse, getting to the hospital, and dying miserably if either of you had not been killed instantly.
Less expensive college and medicine could be done by trimming all the useless administration, but then those people would not have jobs.
We could also go back to no dumbasses in college except the teacher, preacher, and ag schools where no calc or hard stuff is required, and put hard requirements back in regular college requirements. But then we would not have over 1/3 of the population with degrees.
We could save billions in medicine by not doing heroic end of life stuff or narcanning the same junkies over and over, sometimes more than once in the same day.
It is hard to make easy, fair comparisons.
There are not easy, simple answers.
A kind of harsh reality is that there are a ton of people that are pretty much useless, with no value other than that accorded to them by religious or progressive values. With disproportionate representations of such depending on age, race, values, intelligence, physical capacity, etc.
ramairthree
11-27-19, 12:13
It’s takes quite a bit more engineering now than a few years back, for better or worse
Additionally, technology continues to boom. It’s much faster now compare a 2006 truck to a 2020. The sensors, the self driving, self-breaking, etc. It’s amazing.
Not sure physician pay is increasing more than the average person. Cost of healthcare and cars, for that matter, has shifted and largely to government regulation.
But when you compare commodities, what is the change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Average physician income 50 years ago was about 60k. That would be about 450k in today’s dollars.
Around 35 years ago it was 125k. That would be about 312k in today’s dollars.
Average physician salary today is 299k. With doctors like your internist or pediatrician a little above 200k to guys like your cardiologist or orthopedic surgeon more like 500k.
Compare these salaries of physicians and surgeons to that of insurance and hospital administration and executives, guys selling porn on the Internet, etc, and we are kind of getting a bargain for people with 11 or more years of hard higher education and training.
We are also the only country in the world that is going to spend a few million saving or tying to save a 23 week crack baby preemie, demented old guy that won’t eat or drink, doesn’t know who he or any one is and has to be bathed, fed, and clothed like a baby and has pneumonia and sepsis, or for open heart surgery and dialysis on a drunken coke head with no job.
There seems to be no public transportation, bus, subway, train, or even cheap base model corolla version of medicine here in America,
We give everyone a Ferrari and keep fixing it no matter what they do to it.
It’s takes quite a bit more engineering now than a few years back, for better or worse
Additionally, technology continues to boom. It’s much faster now compare a 2006 truck to a 2020. The sensors, the self driving, self-breaking, etc. It’s amazing.
Not sure physician pay is increasing more than the average person. Cost of healthcare and cars, for that matter, has shifted and largely to government regulation.
But when you compare commodities, what is the change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The point is for a person to live a low or middle income life. The cost is several times greater compared to income then it was 45 years ago.
You are trying real hard to dispute but resorting to off the wall examples. I was comparing new family sedans, so you offered a 13 yr old one to compare. I guarantee a 13 yr old sedan in 1975 could easily be had for ) $1,000. Likewise I was comparing new homes. I am sure homes in the area you chose for comparison were not selling as high as $25,000 in 1975. Back then you could find family homes 10 yrs old fir $10,000-$15,000.
I could care less if you agree to the comparisons. I was alive, working and going to college back then and seeing what my folks were doing. A comparative family today has to earn 3-4x as much as back then to have similar car, house, education, groceries. People need to understand the insidious nature of inflation that erodes our economy. We have even tamped down the ravages by shifting much manufacturing to China and allowing a flood of illegal immigrants. But those shifts are one time or have a limit and eventually the full force of inflation will be much worse.
You want commodities? I pumped gas for 28-32 cents/gal in 1973 just before the oil embargo/Petro dollar. Here and now gas is selling for $3.10-$3.30/gal. GOLD was about $50/oz and now is around $1,500. Food commodities have not risen as much only the 3-4x same as wages. But processed and delivered to store prices for food has gone up closer to 10x, probably due to transportation, facilities, energy, costs.
These comparisons are usually presented for an agenda, so it is hard to compare.
The median household 40 years ago was about 8k, comparable to the 60k or so today.
But...then it was mostly a single worker. Now it is frequently 2.
A new Mustang and a 4 year college degree cost much less compared to that median income than they do now. So did medicine.
On one hand, you could argue a new Mustang has AC, hands free audio and phone, crumple zones, air bags, more power, better handling and braking. Just like you could say a new home has more rooms, central AC, etc. and is really not a comparable product.
As for college and medicine, they have each had about a 3000 percent in administration, offer better dorms, fancier rooms, etc. this has upped costs. There are costs associated with computer science labs, MRIs, etc. that were not a consideration 50 years ago.
Also, if you and your buddy are on the way home from work in your new Mustang and get in a bad wreck, he dies and you are trapped with your legs pinned, a very professional fire and EMS crew will get you to the hospital, where he will survive his head bleed, your legs will be saved, and dialysis will hold you until your kidneys recover. A far cry from being thrown in the back of a white hearse, getting to the hospital, and dying miserably if either of you had not been killed instantly.
Less expensive college and medicine could be done by trimming all the useless administration, but then those people would not have jobs.
We could also go back to no dumbasses in college except the teacher, preacher, and ag schools where no calc or hard stuff is required, and put hard requirements back in regular college requirements. But then we would not have over 1/3 of the population with degrees.
We could save billions in medicine by not doing heroic end of life stuff or narcanning the same junkies over and over, sometimes more than once in the same day.
It is hard to make easy, fair comparisons.
There are not easy, simple answers.
A kind of harsh reality is that there are a ton of people that are pretty much useless, with no value other than that accorded to them by religious or progressive values. With disproportionate representations of such depending on age, race, values, intelligence, physical capacity, etc.
About that "median income" rate. One way they skew the results is comparing median income. When you do a web search to compare historical median incomes, they always show results for median household incomes. Which is fine if you want to compare the 1950's to current, but it doesn't give an accurate picture in many ways. While there are a lot more two income households now than in the 50's, there are also a lot more single parent households with only one adult too. That means no one at home to care for the kids while the single breadwinner is at work. Divorce rates are much higher now, as are the number of single parents who never even got married. What was once socially unacceptable is much more a norm today.
There's no way around it, that skews results and not in a positive way.
ramairthree
11-27-19, 14:48
About that "median income" rate. One way they skew the results is comparing median income. When you do a web search to compare historical median incomes, they always show results for median household incomes. Which is fine if you want to compare the 1950's to current, but it doesn't give an accurate picture in many ways. While there are a lot more two income households now than in the 50's, there are also a lot more single parent households with only one adult too. That means no one at home to care for the kids while the single breadwinner is at work. Divorce rates are much higher now, as are the number of single parents who never even got married. What was once socially unacceptable is much more a norm today.
There's no way around it, that skews results and not in a positive way.
Just part of the whole comparing apples to oranges.
Out standard of living is WAY higher. People do things that were once the domain od the affluent.
Somewhere above someone was lamenting the commodity gas and how much more of a burden it is.
Fifty years ago people payed an average of .36 cents a gallon, 4 cents were federal taxes. I don’t know historical state taxes and how much a part they were. That’s about 2.30 a gallon current money. A decade or two later the average was $1.20. About $3.07 in today’s dollars.
Average US cost for a gallon today is $2.59.
18 cents of that is federal tax and another 35 cents is the average state tax. (The lowest state tax is about half that, and the highest about twice)
And our much safer, better handling, better braking, air bag, crumple zone, reinforced, hands free phone, satellite radio, back camera with auto garage opener and automatic climate controlled cars now get about 25 mpg. Go much longer between oil changes, last much longer, need less engine and transmission repairs, almost never get a flat and have more power.
The average mpg fifty years ago was 12.
And, back then 61% of Americans were middle class. 25% were poor. 14% were upper class.
Now, only about 50% of Americans are middle class. Poor has increased to 30%. Upper class, about twice the median income and above, has increased to 20%.
You can kick ass and take names and find more to kick when you are out of bubblegum in America.
And if you suck at life and live on welfare, EBT, section 8, Medicaid, etc. you are still at a pretty high standard of living.
The working poor seems to be shafted and worse on than the FSA.
when all is said and done,
What are we supposed to do with the lowest 1/3 of the population in terms of intelligence, skills, physical ability, function, mental resilience, etc?
But when you compare commodities, what is the change?
Uh, the 'price basket' consists of commodities and gasoline compared then and now, which would be clear if you had looked at the link. 32% increase from 2008 to 2019. I know you won't believe it because it doesn't jive with your narrative. I know, more engineering to make bread.
The point is for a person to live a low or middle income life. The cost is several times greater compared to income then it was 45 years ago.
You are trying real hard to dispute but resorting to off the wall examples. I was comparing new family sedans, so you offered a 13 yr old one to compare. I guarantee a 13 yr old sedan in 1975 could easily be had for ) $1,000. Likewise I was comparing new homes. I am sure homes in the area you chose for comparison were not selling as high as $25,000 in 1975. Back then you could find family homes 10 yrs old fir $10,000-$15,000.
I could care less if you agree to the comparisons. I was alive, working and going to college back then and seeing what my folks were doing. A comparative family today has to earn 3-4x as much as back then to have similar car, house, education, groceries. People need to understand the insidious nature of inflation that erodes our economy. We have even tamped down the ravages by shifting much manufacturing to China and allowing a flood of illegal immigrants. But those shifts are one time or have a limit and eventually the full force of inflation will be much worse.
You want commodities? I pumped gas for 28-32 cents/gal in 1973 just before the oil embargo/Petro dollar. Here and now gas is selling for $3.10-$3.30/gal. GOLD was about $50/oz and now is around $1,500. Food commodities have not risen as much only the 3-4x same as wages. But processed and delivered to store prices for food has gone up closer to 10x, probably due to transportation, facilities, energy, costs.
You really don’t get it.
Lower middle class life is what only the wealthiest of the wealthy was in the 70s.
Also, gold was more like $175...in 2012 dollars more like $1000.
The gasoline has already been discussed above. It turns out, many things really haven’t changed much in price. You must live in a terrible place if you’re paying $3.30+ for gasoline. It’s $2.09 here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What are we supposed to do with the lowest 1/3 of the population in terms of intelligence, skills, physical ability, function, mental resilience, etc?
Get Tier 1 operators who enjoy killing to stuff them in trains and send them to 'work' camps?
Uh, the 'price basket' consists of commodities and gasoline compared then and now, which would be clear if you had looked at the link. 32% increase from 2008 to 2019. I know you won't believe it because it doesn't jive with your narrative. I know, more engineering to make bread.
“Our very unscientific...”
By admission in your own link.
It isn’t the CPI.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What are we supposed to do with the lowest 1/3 of the population in terms of intelligence, skills, physical ability, function, mental resilience, etc?
Get Tier 1 operators who enjoy killing to stuff them in trains and send them to 'work' camps?
ramairthree
11-27-19, 19:03
Get Tier 1 operators who enjoy killing to stuff them in trains and send them to 'work' camps?
My point was they are not going to have the same kind of life style and accomplishments as the guy who graduated number one in his class at West Point, passed ranger school, SFAS and combat diver, got an MD, and is sitting in the space station now on the Army astronaut program.
No matter how much of someone else’s money you throw at them. So wringing hands over disparate lifestyles and outcomes is kind of pointless.
Are we supposed to pay the guy holding the stop/slow sign as much as the guys doing hard manual labor? Them as much as the skilled guys operating heavy equipment? Them as much as the engineer who took into account slope, grade, materials, design, etc.?
I already ran the numbers on gas. Which, if it were not for taxes seems to be even cheaper than 50 years ago. And even with is pretty on par. Especially given we get twice the mpg for equivalent vehicles.
A gallon of milk then was about $1.30. Almost nine bucks in today’s dollars. And they didn’t have organic extra vegan like 1.077% reduced semi skim or whatever options then. A loaf of bread was 25 to 30 cents. Basic bread. About 2$ in today’s dollars. The average price is $2.50. But you can get country white, old fashioned, etc. The basic Sara Lee / Wonder white averages $2.09 a loaf. Pretty equivalent.
The average home price Was $25,000 in 1970. The equivalent of 170k now. Current average is about 290k now. Some of that is the big city bubble with people paying a ton. And the size was about 1500 sq ft. Not even accounting for central air, fancier designs, taller ceilings, extra bedrooms and bathrooms, etc. the average home now is 1000 sf bigger. And we have gone from an average of 3.5 people in each home to 2.5.
The average price per sf of a home then, in today’s dollars, is well, a bit over $100 just like it is now.
What percentage of people 50 years ago did a destination princess wedding, trips to Disney, cruises, vacations in Vegas, home theatres, pools, compared to now? How many people then ate out at restaurants and at what frequency compared to now?
The standard of living is huge here.
The standard of living for people that suck at life is way better than it was 50 years ago.
The standard of living for people that kick ass at life is better than it was 50 years ago.
The issue seems to be, that while life is better for people for people that are mediocre at life, it has neither gotten as proportionality better than for those that suck, nor for those that kick ass.
My point was they are not going to have the same kind of life style and accomplishments as the guy who graduated number one in his class at West Point, passed ranger school, SFAS and combat diver, got an MD, and is sitting in the space station now on the Army astronaut program.
No matter how much of someone else’s money you throw at them. So wringing hands over disparate lifestyles and outcomes is kind of pointless.
Are we supposed to pay the guy holding the stop/slow sign as much as the guys doing hard manual labor? Them as much as the skilled guys operating heavy equipment? Them as much as the engineer who took into account slope, grade, materials, design, etc.?
I already ran the numbers on gas. Which, if it were not for taxes seems to be even cheaper than 50 years ago. And even with is pretty on par. Especially given we get twice the mpg for equivalent vehicles.
A gallon of milk then was about $1.30. Almost nine bucks in today’s dollars. And they didn’t have organic extra vegan like 1.077% reduced semi skim or whatever options then. A loaf of bread was 25 to 30 cents. Basic bread. About 2$ in today’s dollars. The average price is $2.50. But you can get country white, old fashioned, etc. The basic Sara Lee / Wonder white averages $2.09 a loaf. Pretty equivalent.
The average home price Was $25,000 in 1970. The equivalent of 170k now. Current average is about 290k now. Some of that is the big city bubble with people paying a ton. And the size was about 1500 sq ft. Not even accounting for central air, fancier designs, taller ceilings, extra bedrooms and bathrooms, etc. the average home now is 1000 sf bigger. And we have gone from an average of 3.5 people in each home to 2.5.
The average price per sf of a home then, in today’s dollars, is well, a bit over $100 just like it is now.
What percentage of people 50 years ago did a destination princess wedding, trips to Disney, cruises, vacations in Vegas, home theatres, pools, compared to now? How many people then ate out at restaurants and at what frequency compared to now?
The standard of living is huge here.
The standard of living for people that suck at life is way better than it was 50 years ago.
The standard of living for people that kick ass at life is better than it was 50 years ago.
The issue seems to be, that while life is better for people for people that are mediocre at life, it has neither gotten as proportionality better than for those that suck, nor for those that kick ass.
You’re not going to convince them. It just doesn’t work. They want to complain the system is rigged and not offer solutions for improving on what is an excellent economy which the biggest losers live better than 99% of the rest of the world and better than the wealthiest Americans 50 years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“Our very unscientific...”
By admission in your own link.
It isn’t the CPI.
Let me ask you, are you are hanging your hat on the CPI, because it fits your narrative? Or do you routinely believe the info that government agencies put out? Now be truthful.
People under 30 simply have no idea how great the middle class standard of living is now.
We have caused the increases in utilities, rent, home prices, and car prices. If the average American was struggling, would they have multiple 55"+ TVs, new cell phones for everyone in the home, 3000 Sq ft or larger homes?
You’re not going to convince them. It just doesn’t work. They want to complain the system is rigged and not offer solutions for improving on what is an excellent economy which the biggest losers live better than 99% of the rest of the world and better than the wealthiest Americans 50 years ago.
I don't think the system is rigged per se, nor do I think that the wealthiest American's want to put their boots on the necks of the lower-income Americans and hold them down. The reality is, though, that to many that is the way it seems.
The reality is that at some point it is going to bust wide-open. I believe America needs a robust middle-class. The robustness of the middle-class is rapidly receding.
According to Pew Research, more American households make up the middle class than 40 years ago, yet they comprise a smaller share of overall wealth. In 1971 the percentage of wealth controlled by the middle-class was 62%; by 2015 that percentage had fallen to 43%. It is important to remember that the 43% of wealth controlled by the middle-class is split by more households than it was in 1971.
The graph linked below shows the transfer of aggregate income. Notice that around 2008, the percentage aggregate income controlled shifted back to the middle-income. That is because the upper-income's stocks took a momentary shit - I know how that felt, on paper I lost about $400,000. But, as the economy has recovered the aggregate controlled by the upper-income families continued to rise.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/ST_2015-12-09_middle-class-28.png?resize=600,443
So, if the trend continues, at some point in the near future we are going to see a Nation of 90% have not's and 10% have's. At that point spending by the majority of folks will be for basic essentials and sale of luxury items will be substantially diminished. Things will have to reset rapidly - car makers, for example, will have to reset back to mass production of basic economy cars, it will be likely that those who don't read the market correctly will fail.
Worst case scenario, we become a Nation where the few Uber Rich drive in the center lanes while the rest fawn over them from the outer lanes.
Why do I think this has occurred? The market/industry became obsessed with increasing shareholder value to the exclusion of all else. Don't get me wrong, the year I retired I was a millionaire due to regular investment over my 40 year work career.
The problem is that in order to continually increase shareholder value expenses need to be controlled or cut. Labor, obviously, is a major expense. As a result you have seen wages not keep up with the cost of living for many workers.
You can say otherwise, but that is the reality for many American's today.
A good recent example of the system being rigged were the bailouts.
I don't think the system is rigged per se, nor do I think that the wealthiest American's want to put their boots on the necks of the lower-income Americans and hold them down. The reality is, though, that to many that is the way it seems.
The reality is that at some point it is going to bust wide-open. I believe America needs a robust middle-class. The robustness of the middle-class is rapidly receding.
According to Pew Research, more American households make up the middle class than 40 years ago, yet they comprise a smaller share of overall wealth. In 1971 the percentage of wealth controlled by the middle-class was 62%; by 2015 that percentage had fallen to 43%. It is important to remember that the 43% of wealth controlled by the middle-class is split by more households than it was in 1971.
The graph linked below shows the transfer of aggregate income. Notice that around 2008, the percentage aggregate income controlled shifted back to the middle-income. That is because the upper-income's stocks took a momentary shit - I know how that felt, on paper I lost about $400,000. But, as the economy has recovered the aggregate controlled by the upper-income families continued to rise.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/ST_2015-12-09_middle-class-28.png?resize=600,443
So, if the trend continues, at some point in the near future we are going to see a Nation of 90% have not's and 10% have's. At that point spending by the majority of folks will be for basic essentials and sale of luxury items will be substantially diminished. Things will have to reset rapidly - car makers, for example, will have to reset back to mass production of basic economy cars, it will be likely that those who don't read the market correctly will fail.
Worst case scenario, we become a Nation where the few Uber Rich drive in the center lanes while the rest fawn over them from the outer lanes.
Why do I think this has occurred? The market/industry became obsessed with increasing shareholder value to the exclusion of all else. Don't get me wrong, the year I retired I was a millionaire due to regular investment over my 40 year work career.
The problem is that in order to continually increase shareholder value expenses need to be controlled or cut. Labor, obviously, is a major expense. As a result you have seen wages not keep up with the cost of living for many workers.
You can say otherwise, but that is the reality for many American's today.
Cool. You’re a mercantilist.
Pew Research....hmmm. Agenda much?
Let me ask you a question.
You have a windfall. You get a Colt 6920 for 500 bucks. You take it to the local gunshop because you don’t want to deal with shipping it, listing it online etc.
The gunshop gives you $600 cash and you’re on your way. You made $100.
The gunshop has $600 in this Colt. But they sell it the next day for $720. They made $120.
Are you and the gunshop both better off?
Does it hurt you that the gunshop made more than you?
Is it wrong that the gunshop made more off the Colt than you did?
Talk about it “classes” all you want, but holding to these ridiculous “we need this many here and this many there” nothing is asinine.
Why does somebody else doing better off hurt you?
Is it jealousy?
Just the simple math of it. If everybody makes 10% more every decade and you decide it’s a good idea to put people in these boxes, ultimately, 10% of a larger number is going to grow faster. It’s freakin’ math, man.
What do you propose? A cap on earnings? On wealth? Who is going to invest if they get told they aren’t allowed to earn market rates?
Do you put all your stock in some dumbass website?
Do you put all your stock in the “pew research” and bullshit about classes? It’s being used for a political agenda. Do you not see that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Weird in one post somebody bitches the middle class is shrinking to nothing now somebody saying it’s more households.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you and the gunshop both better off?
Does it hurt you that the gunshop made more than you?
Is it wrong that the gunshop made more off the Colt than you did?
No, no, and no. We each made a reasonable amount, in fact we each made the same percentage of profit for the money invested.
Talk about it “classes” all you want, but holding to these ridiculous “we need this many here and this many there” nothing is asinine.
Why does somebody else doing better off hurt you?
Is it jealousy?
A robust middle class provides the purchasing power for goods. If the current trend continues the market for premium/high end goods will shrink. As the wealth transfers into fewer and fewer hands at some point those that can afford it will have already bought their private jests and yachts. Then what?
We are not talking about numbers of people per se, rather talking about the distribution of a finite resource (as we view it), wealth, across a population.
You need to look at the historical perspective illustrated by the graph I linked (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-c...resize=600,443) to understand my concerns. When I began my 'work' career in 1972, the wealth was more evenly distributed across the population. Throughout my work career the distribution of wealth became more unevenly distributed, until we end up in today's circumstances.
Someone being more successful shouldn't concern anyone. The concern comes when that success is used to leverage more success for those who have had initial success against the likelihood of success for those who haven't been as successful.
As far as jealousy, you don't really know me anymore than I know you. I am, if not completely happy with my life, pretty close to being so. I made a conscious decision one day to chase what I wanted to do instead of chasing wealth. Decisions I made such as deciding not to move so that my sons would grow up having lifelong friends, could have hurt me, but they didn't. Until the day I retired I loved what I was doing and had always felt I was adequately compensated for doing it.
So, I'm content, my concern is more for others than myself.
Just the simple math of it. If everybody makes 10% more every decade and you decide it’s a good idea to put people in these boxes, ultimately, 10% of a larger number is going to grow faster. It’s freakin’ math, man.
What do you propose? A cap on earnings? On wealth? Who is going to invest if they get told they aren’t allowed to earn market rates?
Believe it or not, I can do math. Unlike you, I'm looking at the consequences of that math as it gets carried out for the next decade or so.
Where I think we differ is that you figure on being on the winning end of that equation, so you could give a **** less.
In terms of what to do, there's the rub. While I'm at heart a Keynesian, a cap on earnings, or wealth certainly isn't a light hand on the controls of the economy.
The problem that I see is the inordinate power that funds have in the market. As an example, McDonald's has raised its dividend for 43 consecutive years since paying its first dividend in 1976. https://www.streetinsider.com/Dividend+Hike/McDonalds+%28MCD%29+Raises+Quarterly+Dividend+7.8%25+to+%241.25%3B+2.4%25+Yield/15933397.html
Most of the McDonald's shares are probably voted by proxy. If each McDonald's shareholder was asked to take, let's say 10% less on dividends each quarter so that McDonald's could raise wages for workers at it's corporate owned stores and it's franchisee owned stores, what do you think the majority of individual shareholders would do?
Because of the funds managing those stocks, the shareholders really don't have a say. The funds voting those blocks have all the power.
So, would I, as an investor, have been willing to take slightly less growth during the last 30 years to increase wages across the board? For me the answer would be yes.
Do you put all your stock in some dumbass website?
Do you put all your stock in the “pew research” and bullshit about classes? It’s being used for a political agenda. Do you not see that?
I put more stock in that dumbass website than I do some random person on a website.
No I don't really see Pew as being politically biased: Pew Research Center media bias rating is Center. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pew-research
Weird in one post somebody bitches the middle class is shrinking to nothing now somebody saying it’s more households.
That is because of how 'middle-class' is defined:
“middle-income” Americans are defined as adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national median, about $42,000 to $126,000 annually in 2014 dollars for a household of three.
So there are more American families in that zone, but their slice of overall wealth has diminished.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/
No, no, and no. We each made a reasonable amount, in fact we each made the same percentage of profit for the money invested.
A robust middle class provides the purchasing power for goods. If the current trend continues the market for premium/high end goods will shrink. As the wealth transfers into fewer and fewer hands at some point those that can afford it will have already bought their private jests and yachts. Then what?
We are not talking about numbers of people per se, rather talking about the distribution of a finite resource (as we view it), wealth, across a population.
You need to look at the historical perspective illustrated by the graph I linked (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-c...resize=600,443) to understand my concerns. When I began my 'work' career in 1972, the wealth was more evenly distributed across the population. Throughout my work career the distribution of wealth became more unevenly distributed, until we end up in today's circumstances.
Someone being more successful shouldn't concern anyone. The concern comes when that success is used to leverage more success for those who have had initial success against the likelihood of success for those who haven't been as successful.
As far as jealousy, you don't really know me anymore than I know you. I am, if not completely happy with my life, pretty close to being so. I made a conscious decision one day to chase what I wanted to do instead of chasing wealth. Decisions I made such as deciding not to move so that my sons would grow up having lifelong friends, could have hurt me, but they didn't. Until the day I retired I loved what I was doing and had always felt I was adequately compensated for doing it.
So, I'm content, my concern is more for others than myself.
Believe it or not, I can do math. Unlike you, I'm looking at the consequences of that math as it gets carried out for the next decade or so.
Where I think we differ is that you figure on being on the winning end of that equation, so you could give a **** less.
In terms of what to do, there's the rub. While I'm at heart a Keynesian, a cap on earnings, or wealth certainly isn't a light hand on the controls of the economy.
The problem that I see is the inordinate power that funds have in the market. As an example, McDonald's has raised its dividend for 43 consecutive years since paying its first dividend in 1976. https://www.streetinsider.com/Dividend+Hike/McDonalds+%28MCD%29+Raises+Quarterly+Dividend+7.8%25+to+%241.25%3B+2.4%25+Yield/15933397.html
Most of the McDonald's shares are probably voted by proxy. If each McDonald's shareholder was asked to take, let's say 10% less on dividends each quarter so that McDonald's could raise wages for workers at it's corporate owned stores and it's franchisee owned stores, what do you think the majority of individual shareholders would do?
Because of the funds managing those stocks, the shareholders really don't have a say. The funds voting those blocks have all the power.
So, would I, as an investor, have been willing to take slightly less growth during the last 30 years to increase wages across the board? For me the answer would be yes.
I put more stock in that dumbass website than I do some random person on a website.
No I don't really see Pew as being politically biased: Pew Research Center media bias rating is Center. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pew-research
I didn’t say pew was politically biased, I stated that class, specifically size of classes, is being used for political agenda.
But know that you admit to being Keynesian, and then your “solution”. I see where you are coming from. You are coming from la la land.
I’ll make this simple for you:
So what happens when people make more? They demand more. When there is more demand, price goes up. It’s simple. Purchasing power parity. It’s a thing. Essentially, we get more of the inflation you guys are bitching about.
Who gets hurt by inflation? Those that are living on fixed incomes. Those living off investments. The retired, the disabled...so on.
So now I suppose how we are all going to hold hands and agree to take less in profit, so that prices won’t go up, and so on.
You simply cannot accept the truth of the economy and that our standard of living is the greatest it’s ever been and much better than anywhere else....because those managing capita seek profit. Once they cease to, we stagnate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ll make this simple for you:
So what happens when people make more? They demand more. When there is more demand, price goes up. It’s simple. Purchasing power parity. It’s a thing.
Don't do me any favors, I'll try to keep up. People, in general, are not making more. Primarily, we are talking about hourly paid employees. Wages have moved a little recently, but....
Since the late 1970s, wages for the bottom 70 percent of earners have been essentially stagnant, and between 2009 and 2013, real wages fell for the entire bottom 90 percent of the wage distribution. https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/
Despite the strong labor market, wage growth has lagged economists’ expectations. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Ask someone how much of any increase in their wages has been swallowed up by increases in health insurance, as an example.
You simply cannot accept the truth of the economy and that our standard of living is the greatest it’s ever been and much better than anywhere else....because those managing capita seek profit. Once they cease to, we stagnate.
I am not saying that America does not have a high standard of living. I think you are looking at this from a short term perspective, rather than consider the long term.
One of the problems we are facing is too much profit taking. How to contain that is a problem beyond my pay grade.
Don't do me any favors, I'll try to keep up. People, in general, are not making more. Primarily, we are talking about hourly paid employees. Wages have moved a little recently, but....
Since the late 1970s, wages for the bottom 70 percent of earners have been essentially stagnant, and between 2009 and 2013, real wages fell for the entire bottom 90 percent of the wage distribution. https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/
Despite the strong labor market, wage growth has lagged economists’ expectations. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Ask someone how much of any increase in their wages has been swallowed up by increases in health insurance, as an example.
I am not saying that America does not have a high standard of living. I think you are looking at this from a short term perspective, rather than consider the long term.
One of the problems we are facing is too much profit taking. How to contain that is a problem beyond my pay grade.
From your article:
After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978...
Why? Exactly what I stated would happen again...PPP. It will always be that way. An equilibrium will be reached. There may be short term fluctuations.
Wages reflect value added by the individual. This will always be the case in the long term outside of things like government intervention, union activity, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
. This will always be the case in the long term outside of things like government intervention, union activity, etc.
Such as the bailouts as a recent example.
From your article:
After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978...
Why? Exactly what I stated would happen again...PPP. It will always be that way. An equilibrium will be reached. There may be short term fluctuations.
Wages reflect value added by the individual. This will always be the case in the long term outside of things like government intervention, union activity, etc.
How old are you? Because I was working 45 years ago:
In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.
Comparatively, things aren't as rosy now. About 'average hourly earnings:'
The chart, shown above, shows that 19% of workers make less than $12.50 per hour, 32% of workers make between $12.50 and $20 per hour, 30% make between $20 and $30 an hour, 14% make between $30 and $45 per hour, and 5% make over $45 an hour.
(It’s important to note that this includes all workers covered by the establishment survey, not just hourly workers; to convert annual pay to hourly pay, divide by 2080, for a standard 40-hour week.)
If you add it up over half the workers are making substantially less than that inflation adjusted $23.68.
I wasn't talking about this however, I was talking about the shrinking of the middle-class portion of the economy and increasing monetary power that fewer and fewer are exercising over the economy. Long-term, that is a recipe for disaster.
Tie a bow around it:
Wages reflect value added by the individual. This will always be the case in the long term outside of things like government intervention, union activity, etc.
In a world where fewer and fewer folks are actually determining the value added by the individual, I'm not so sure this is actual the case as it was seen by economic theorists.
The idea that the minimum wage is the price that a man will 'willingly' perform a task assumes some choice in the matter. It assumes labor market that needs to compete for his skills. In today's world that simply isn't true.
Nice arguing with you, but this has become pointless in my view.
What’s the CPI?
Consumer price index
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How old are you? Because I was working 45 years ago:
In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.
Comparatively, things aren't as rosy now. About 'average hourly earnings:'
The chart, shown above, shows that 19% of workers make less than $12.50 per hour, 32% of workers make between $12.50 and $20 per hour, 30% make between $20 and $30 an hour, 14% make between $30 and $45 per hour, and 5% make over $45 an hour.
(It’s important to note that this includes all workers covered by the establishment survey, not just hourly workers; to convert annual pay to hourly pay, divide by 2080, for a standard 40-hour week.)
If you add it up over half the workers are making substantially less than that inflation adjusted $23.68.
I wasn't talking about this however, I was talking about the shrinking of the middle-class portion of the economy and increasing monetary power that fewer and fewer are exercising over the economy. Long-term, that is a recipe for disaster.
Tie a bow around it:
Wages reflect value added by the individual. This will always be the case in the long term outside of things like government intervention, union activity, etc.
In a world where fewer and fewer folks are actually determining the value added by the individual, I'm not so sure this is actual the case as it was seen by economic theorists.
The idea that the minimum wage is the price that a man will 'willingly' perform a task assumes some choice in the matter. It assumes labor market that needs to compete for his skills. In today's world that simply isn't true.
Nice arguing with you, but this has become pointless in my view.
And just because you were working in 1973 means you understood what all people made then?
What were the same numbers, then?
You’re making assumptions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And just because you were working in 1973 means you understood what all people made then?
What were the same numbers, then?
You’re making assumptions.
Nope, at the worst I'm making informed SUBJECTIVE observations.
Then you’ve observed that per capita, and total number of people that have escaped the middle class to the upper class has increased. You’ll recognize you really don’t know the numbers game from 1975.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ramairthree
12-03-19, 00:48
I don’t get the minimum wage babble above.
When federal minimum wage came out, it was the equivalent of $4 and hour, not counting the farm hand/waitress/etc. lower rate.
Post war it climbed for a few decades getting better and better, peaking at about the equivalent of 11 bucks and hour 50 years ago.
For the first twenty years ago it was lower than the current equivalent. Then it spent a decade equivalent to now. Then it spent two decades better than now. Then a couple od decades the equivalent or wore.
This is where a lot of the OK Boomer resentment comes in.
That beautiful post what 2 1/2 decades or so or Amercia literally on top of the world.
Great jobs and benefits with a HS diploma, competing with only about 10% of the population with a college degree that could be obtained in expensively, etc.
Then, Europe and Asia were back on the wagon, other issues came up, and their generation started importing H1Bs, moving manufacturing overseas, cutting benefits, etc. There was a cultural shift from individual responsibility and public shame and we had to start supporting free loaders way more. Advances in medicine have real cost increases. Expectations to live longer and get more care for things have gone up. Standards of living are much higher. Tons more money goes into administration, government, bureaucracy, insurance, regulations, compliance, environmental, etc. Himes are bigger. Cars are better. Entertainment and eating out and cloths and toys etc. are off the charts.
And, whiles jobs may be on the rise now, it is a lot of shit, dead end, no benefits jobs.
The picture being painted is that Scrooge McDuck and Mr. Burns are evilly hoarding billions and gleefully releasing the hounds on starving younger generations. And, frankly, sure, maybe 0.1 percent of the population may be like that.
But way more than that 0.1% are painted as some sort of evil, greedy, bad guy.
The former enlisted SEAL SOIDC that went to college on the GI Bill, med school on HPSP, paid that off as a DMO in the Navy and makes 400k a year now as a civilian is not preventing somebody else from doing that.
The pie of wealth is not a fixed size. The above guy could write a best selling tell all book about SEALs and make 800k next year instead of 400k and it didn’t steal wealth from anyone.
If you drop out of high school, pop out some kids, with baby daddies that don’t have jobs, live on welfare, burn medicare on all their ER visits, get in accidents without insurance, shop lift, etc. THEY are actually the ones dipping into the pie and taking other people’s stuff.
If you finish HS, knock out and engineering degree, get your Ph.D. In materials science, think rack up 500k a year in consultant money from saving clients 50,000,000 in manufacturing costs,
People are not starving and doing poorly because he makes so much.
At least those on welfare can still take expensive vacations.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts-ebt-cards-were-used-in-elite-hotels-in-hawaii-report
At least those on welfare can still take expensive vacations.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts-ebt-cards-were-used-in-elite-hotels-in-hawaii-report
One of my high school jobs was in a grocery story and there was a lady who shopped there that was always dressed very well and drove a new Cadillac or Mercedes while paying with food stamps.
So I got to see that side of it along with the people that sent their kids in to buy 3 cent pieces of gum so the change could be used to fund cigarette purchases.
ramairthree
12-03-19, 12:38
I had forgotten to add that half the states have a minimum wage more than the federal.
The points I continue to try to make are:
Our standard of living in very high
You can go from poor upbringing to very successful
The achievements of successful people do not “take” things that would have gone to poor people
We support too many people doing nothing
We import too many people doing nothing
We have exported and over regulated and driven far too much of what makes the backbone of a successful nation
Interesting, I have not read his work either. We have record unemployment, food and transportation availability unlike anytime in history. We have an obesity epidemic (especially among the poor) and everyone has a new car or two in the driveway. Yet people are leaving their chosen religion in epic numbers and humanism and secularism are on the rise. We have banned God from the public arena, replaced Him in schools with a multitude of humanistic and hedonistic studies and turned to government for our guidance. I think the problem is complex on the surface but below it is really the huge spiritual void in today's modern society.
I think you nailed it on the head here. The sermon this weekend was about joy, and the difference between joy and happiness. Happiness is temporary and based on your happenings/circumstances, but true joy comes from the presence of God and can lift our spirits even in terrible times. The reason I mention this is one of the main ways we can grow in our joy is our perspective, particularly when things don't go our way. We can have gratitude or we can grumble.
You could say it's all about perspective. We have people living in large houses, driving multiple cars, eating plenty of great food with all the luxuries they could imagine, yet they're miserable because Karen up the street has a newer car and a prettier house or someone on social media is always posting about their beautiful vacations that you don't get to take.
We don't tend to look at those less fortunate than us and think, "Wow, I'm truly blessed to have what I have. I live a life that billions of people in this world would kill to have." Instead we compare our circumstances to those we perceive as having it better than us, and that makes us miserable.
So what happens when people make more? They demand more. When there is more demand, price goes up. It’s simple. Purchasing power parity. It’s a thing. Essentially, we get more of the inflation you guys are bitching about.
That's not inflation. You're describing normal behavior of the price system, a signal about relative value of the goods in question.
Inflation is a characteristic of the money supply relative to production. Inflation causes rising prices, not the reverse.
I had forgotten to add that half the states have a minimum wage more than the federal.
The points I continue to try to make are:
Our standard of living in very high
You can go from poor upbringing to very successful
The achievements of successful people do not “take” things that would have gone to poor people
We support too many people doing nothing
We import too many people doing nothing
We have exported and over regulated and driven far too much of what makes the backbone of a successful nation
Having elites that aren't allowed to fail does prevent others from succeeding though. Someone that saved their pennies should have been able to buy GM, AIG, and other too big to fails at auction.
Having elites that aren't allowed to fail does prevent others from succeeding though. Someone that saved their pennies should have been able to buy GM, AIG, and other too big to fails at auction.
I agree. It’s not government’s job to save private industries that aren’t saving themselves.
GM vics are trash. At one point, not bad but here lately? Why bother.
Too much pork.
ramairthree
12-04-19, 19:24
I am not saying I understand why tons of insurance CEOs make ten million a year or more, and more a million and up, and why the average insurance broker executive salary is 250k a year.
Their entire job is to pay people taking care of you as little as possible, and get people and businesses paying as much in premiums as possible. That’s billions a year taken from individuals and businesses, kept by insurance companies, and not paid for actual medical care.
I also don’t understand why automotive and other senior executives get hired and paid millions a year, then Sales tank, moral tanks, reputation tanks, and they leave with a severance in the millions for failing and making things worse.
I am not saying there are not excesses and wastes.
Worker demands and union fights for increased pay and benefits have driven out some formerly competitive Amercian facilities.
Some city employee pay and pensions are off the charts for the quality density of the positions and not sustainable.
Regulation and compliance have driven entire industries OCONUs.
Automation of formerly skilled and unskilled positions have driven away jobs.
Double income families take two instead one job.
There are a ton of factors that have changed employment in the US. Compared to America’s peak, we have more competition, more on the dole, entire departments eating pay that did not used to exist, administration 1000’s of percent higher, etc.
Nothing I know to fix those sorts of things. But where else can you go from drop out parents to Ph.D., MD, MBA and hit top percentile income in a single generation?
Wealth is not a fixed size pie. Someone succeeding on the up and up does not take somebodies piece of the pie.the pie changes.
If I save up ten pieces of gold and start raising goats, and Firefly saves up ten and starts raising chickens, and SteyrAug saves up ten, and starts raising hogs,
And we keep using the same 30 pieces of gold back and forth buying eggs, dummies, fermented goats milk, cheese, steak, etc, from each other, we may swap that 30 pieces around a lot, but we also start having more goats, chickens, and cows.
And we trade or sell those for other stuff.
Without taking anyone else’s piece of the pie.
Branch that out into a lot of other things- lumber, crops, etc. and it explains how a cop making 80k a year can start a PSD company and now makes 800k a year without stealing somebody else’s pie. Or a guy that was a SF medic becomes an MD and makes 500k a year and no other person starves because of either of their successes.
The main gist I take from all of this class and income divide talk I see seems to revolve around successful people have somehow robbed unsuccessful people. That is not true ar all. If you and I start working part time at Autozone when we were in HS, and you have been their full time since graduation and make crap and have crap benefits- and after graduation I started a Pot-O-Let rental service- and now make ten times as much as you a decade later-
My success and pay are not why you are not rich and successful.
This is a good snapshot of what is going on:
Understanding The U.S. Economy: Lots Of Rotten Jobs
Steve Denning, Senior Contributor, Forbes
“It doesn’t make any difference whether a country makes computer chips or potato chips!” —Attributed to Michael Boskin, Chairman of President George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors
When U.S. unemployment is at a 50-year low, why do so many people have trouble finding work with decent pay and adequate predictable hours? A new economic indicator—the US Private Sector Job Quality Index (JQI)—gives the answer: we have lots of jobs, but they are increasingly low-quality jobs.
“The problem is that the quality of the stock of jobs on offer has been deteriorating for the last 30 years,” says Dan Alpert, an investment banker and Cornell Law School professor. The JQI is built and maintained by Alpert and his fellow researchers at Cornell University Law School, the Coalition for a Prosperous America, the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. (As to how the JQI is constructed, see the technical note below.)
So, when tomorrow morning at 8.30 a.m. EST, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announces the monthly official unemployment statistics and the administration trumpets “the best economy in history,” we will know why that isn’t true.
The quality of jobs today is not quite as bad as it was in 2012, but it’s much worse than it was in 1990s and the early 2000s. Overall, we are seeing a secular decline in job quality.
The JQI not only offers “a real-time read on the quality of U.S. jobs.” It indicates solutions to problems that economists have puzzled over for decades.
1. If Unemployment Is So Low, Why Don’t Wages Go Up?
Economists have long wondered: if unemployment is so low, why aren’t we seeing more rapid wage increases? In fact, median salaries have been mostly stagnant in the U.S. for the past several decades. The strong relationship between unemployment and inflation was based on data first observed by New Zealand economist, William Phillips in 1958 and the resulting ‘Phillips Curve,’ and is still part of the standard policy doctrine of most central banks.
Yet over the last decade, there has been an apparent disconnect between low unemployment and wage inflation. This has been attributed to lower participation rates among prime and younger workers. But that’s not the whole story.
“A far more substantial factor severing the earlier connections between unemployment and inflation, however, is the changed composition of the employment base itself,” states the JQI White Paper. “The channel through which this occurs is fairly simple: If a greater proportion of jobs produce incomes below the mean of all jobs (i.e. a reduction in the level of the JQI), than they did in the past, then an increase in the proportion of people working will have a lesser impact on household incomes—and therefore aggregate demand—than in the past… Despite central banks in the U.S., the Eurozone, Japan, and the U.K. having pumped more than $10 trillion into their collective economies over the past decade, aggregate demand remains tepid.””
2. Why Is Participation In The Workforce So Low?
Another perennial debate among economists is: why is participation in the workforce so low? Tens of millions of working-aged Americans are still not formally employed and have no apparent interest in sending out a resume. If the job market is so hot, why are so many people sitting on the sidelines? One frequently cited explanation is the growing proportion of older generation workers. Now we have another more important element. Workers don’t re-enter the workforce because many of the the jobs themselves are rotten.
3. Weren’t Manufacturing Jobs Replaced By Other Jobs?
The U.S. manufacturing workforce has declined dramatically in the past three decades from 23% of total US civilian employment in 1970 to just 8% in May 2019. Since overall unemployment is now so low, the lost manufacturing jobs must have been replaced by other jobs. But were they better or worse jobs? Now the JQI White Paper has the answer. “Lost manufacturing jobs were chiefly replaced by lower-wage/lower-hours service jobs.”
The decline in U.S. job quality over the past three decades is closely associated with the decline in manufacturing jobs. As the 1990s progressed, U.S. firms enthusiastically embraced the outsourcing of manufacturing to Asia, while the so-called Asian Tiger economies— Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea (all following the Japanese export model)—accelerated manufacturing at an enormous speed during the 90s. The U.S. manufacturing jobs were eventually replaced, but with low-value-low quality jobs.
4. Why Didn’t High Tech Save the U.S. Economy?
Many looked to the category of jobs known as Professional and Technical Services as a path for the economy to “move to higher ground.” Professional and Technical Services were supposed to offer high pay, growth in employee numbers, and an opportunity to increase productivity. In fact, the JQI does report that employment is up 41% in this sector and the average weekly pay for non-managerial workers of $1,575 exceeds the pay of many other industries.
But that’s not enough to rescue what the economy lost in manufacturing. “The sector—with its 7.5 million non-managerial employees (7% of all private sector non-managerial jobs) is simply not large enough to weigh heavily in the national totals and the welfare of the labor force at large. Therefore, the ‘moving to higher ground’ hypothesis is far too slender a reed on which to build a national economic growth strategy for a nation of 327 million people.”
The idea of the ‘higher ground’ proponents was that the U.S. economy would take the high value work and become the idea and design base for the world’s great companies, while Asian economies would be left with the low-value ‘workshop,’ building the products.
“This theory has been proven to be incorrect,” says the JQI White Paper. “South Korea began that way in the 1960s, deferentially approaching leading US and European companies to learn about the latest manufacturing techniques. As time went on, it learned that designing the products and owning the brand names was far more lucrative. Today, South Korea is the world’s leading manufacturer of cellphones, televisions, and other consumer products. China, now the world’s manufacturing behemoth, hasn’t missed this fact… With other countries targeting what they see as high-value industries, the U.S. is not just in danger of, but actually has been, forced into greater reliance on low-value, low-growth industries, offering lower-wage, lower-hours jobs.”
5. Why Has U.S. Productivity Stalled?
Another standard economic puzzle has been the failure of productivity to increase over the past decade. Not really a surprise, says the JQI White Paper. “As more highly productive goods-producing jobs have declined over the past three decades, in favor of more, generally less productive categories of service jobs, it should be axiomatic that labor productivity gains would stall. And, comparing the trend of non-financial labor productivity growth from 1947 through 2009 to that from 2010 to date, then near-flatlining of productivity growth has been historic in its degree and duration.”
6. What Do The New Jobs Actually Look Like?
What do the new jobs actually look like? The JQI White Paper paints a grim picture. “The success of superstar companies like Google or Apple or Pfizer should not blind us to the fact that today Leisure & Hospitality is our largest sector with 14,7 million non-management employees. It’s a sector that pays such workers $16.58 an hour and the average worker works just 25.8 hours a week – resulting in average weekly income of $428. (Benefits like health insurance in the sector are small to nonexistent.)”
What were policy makers thinking while all th0se high-quality manufacturing jobs were being shipped to other countries? A clue comes from the remark attributed to Michael Boskin Chairman of President George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors: “It doesn’t make any difference whether a country makes computer chips or potato chips!”
His flippant remark has proven tragically incorrect. “When all that a country has left is the domestic manufacture of processed foodstuffs,” concludes the JQI White Paper, “you end up with a lot of unhealthy and unwealthy workers who are in dire shortage of security, much less dignity. A republic that offers no better than this cannot long endure.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/12/05/understanding-the-us-economy-lots-of-rotten-jobs/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Valerie%2F&fbclid=IwAR13WaGDhRzolbkk_e7Nc00j8GeMvNgFDZDUS2BDlEwnU14rWGLf94tZ5po#77cd025f2d97
morbidbattlecry
12-12-19, 20:13
.
Worker demands and union fights for increased pay and benefits have driven out some formerly competitive Amercian facilities.
To compete with the rest of the world American pay rates would have to be 3rd world levels. Sounds awesome. The most prosperous time in american history had High taxes on the rich and plentiful unions.
Some city employee pay and pensions are off the charts for the quality density of the positions and not sustainable.
So they have a good union that gets them good benefits. Why not join them and get good pay with a good job?
Regulation and compliance have driven entire industries OCONUs.
Regulations exist for a reason, They keep the Environment clean and Workers healthy and alive.
Automation of formerly skilled and unskilled positions have driven away jobs.
Automation eliminated jobs.
Double income families take two instead one job.
Because people have been conned into think unions and taxes for the ultra rich are bad.
The people that are upset about the haves and have nots are mad because the group of people that benefited the most from unions and social programs are the same people that say no one else can have the same things.
The people that are upset about the haves and have nots are mad because the group of people that benefited the most from unions and social programs are the same people that say no one else can have the same things.
Folks rarely see themselves in that context.
For instance, I generally don't comment too much about pensions, because I'm drawing .mil retirement which I sure as shit didn't pay anything into.
Evel Baldgui
12-14-19, 14:27
There are several differences between then and now. First, they didn’t measure success and financial well being by whether they had a new car in the garage Of their McMansion. They didn’t even have a garage. They had a crappy little clapboard house that was the equivalent of today’s two bedroom apartment. They didn’t have a 65” tv with 120 channels. They had a radio and they were lucky of they received more than one channel. They didn’t have a cell phone and internet. If they had a phone at all it was a party line.
Success for them was a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, heat in the winter and warm clothes. Luxury was a swamp cooler for the unbearable summer days and new shoes for the school year.
Today what we have is an ENTIRE industry devoted to selling misery. It tells you that you’re unhappy if you don’t have a half dozen schwoopy shoes in the closet. It tells you that a $5 coffee from a luxury shoppe every morning is a necessity. It tells you that unless you have 300 channels with nothing on and a personal assistant disc on the coffee table to cater to your every whim, you’re missing out on life. Same same for the robotic vacuum your cat can ride while you schedule it’s rounds from your $1,000 cell phone while you’re on the toilet. You no longer have to save half a year to order something nice out of the Sears catalog that will arrive in 4-6 weeks. You press a few buttons and presto, your trinkets will arrive by delivery drone in a couple of hours (not available in all areas, yet).
How we measure success these days is quite frankly, indulgent. If you turn off all the noise and programming, you can get back to happy if you have a roof over your head, food in your belly and clothes on your back. People just need to reprogram what they require to acquire happiness.
There is a tremendous difference between living and living well. Food in the belly can be McDonald's or Filet mignon, clothes can be Walmart brand X or Hugo Boss, roof over your head...clapboard house in ____ with 94 Corolla versus luxury waterfront condo with an S class Mercedes. Happiness is 'relative'. Some may be quite content with a timex, for others it's an Audemars Piguet. Jus' sayin'.
Fun facts:
In the U.S., executive compensation has increased, on average, by nine hundred and forty per cent since 1978, according to one estimate; during the same period, worker pay has risen twelve per cent. Income inequality hasn’t been this extreme since the nineteen-twenties.
A recent study by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that, as a result of cuts to estate and corporate taxes, as well as the 2017 G.O.P. tax bill, the four hundred richest Americans pay a lower over-all tax rate than any other group in the country.
the four hundred richest Americans pay a lower over-all tax rate than any other group in the country.
The wealthy don't make most of their yearly income from a salary. It is from Capital Gains; which are taxed at a lower rate than salary. Anyone can enjoy this benefit.
Fun facts:
In the U.S., executive compensation has increased, on average, by nine hundred and forty per cent since 1978, according to one estimate; during the same period, worker pay has risen twelve per cent. Income inequality hasn’t been this extreme since the nineteen-twenties.
A recent study by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that, as a result of cuts to estate and corporate taxes, as well as the 2017 G.O.P. tax bill, the four hundred richest Americans pay a lower over-all tax rate than any other group in the country.
Lest anyone think that is always for a job well done (at least in the classic sense), a couple of years before the 2008 meltdown it was reported the best paid 27 or so Japanese auto executives (their cars were selling well) had a combined salary equal to the top 8 or 9 US auto executives (their cars weren't selling well.) And of course post 2008, companies that couldn't make ends meet were using tax dollars to pay bonuses to the elites in their companies.
Fun facts:
In the U.S., executive compensation has increased, on average, by nine hundred and forty per cent since 1978, according to one estimate; during the same period, worker pay has risen twelve per cent. Income inequality hasn’t been this extreme since the nineteen-twenties.
A recent study by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that, as a result of cuts to estate and corporate taxes, as well as the 2017 G.O.P. tax bill, the four hundred richest Americans pay a lower over-all tax rate than any other group in the country.
A few questions:
1) Why? What is driving this?
Is it really a case of evil execs just stealing all the wealth and buying tax laws in their favor, or is it the result and reality of exporting all those jobs overseas and managing them here with domestic executives?
There are more variables than just _% growth for them vs _% growth for them.
I’m truly curious as to what you feel is the root cause.
2) what do you want to do about it?
Would you prefer to just create legislation that narrows the gap artificially?
What is the solution for what you believe the root cause to be?
3) “Tax rate”. Well- 1% of $1Billion is a much, much larger SUM than 75% of $100K.
It’s a bit misleading and disengenuous to play the rate game and not discuss the actual sums of money being paid for proper context.
So what “rate” do you think is right, for whom and why?
I believe I’m seeing this all from a. Different angle and focusing on different details than you are.
Executives here in the US are managing a work force that has been sold off to other countries. Workers here are kept as needed to keep the machine functioning.
I see the root of the problem as trade deals that suck for us and suck us dry.
Licensing and regulation that is so stringent and ridiculous that anyone who wants to run a business in The USA pays more to the .gov, in many ways- not just taxes that it becomes less expensive to set up shop in China, manufacture an item and ship it half way across the planet than it does to do it in a factory down the street from your home... it’s insane!
Add in technology replacing the work force, still need administrative and executive level decision makers, but not so much need for workers.
Add in chronie capitalism bullshit. “Too big to fail”. Etc.
And perhaps the biggest elephant in the room... illegal immigrants who will do it shittier and for less and get a bunch of salmonella in it...
The problems I see are seemingly much different than what you see?
I call it- “focusing on all the wrong details”.
Or is it really just evil white rich dudes screwing over the poor workers?
A few questions:
1) Why? What is driving this?
Is it really a case of evil execs just stealing all the wealth and buying tax laws in their favor, or is it the result and reality of exporting all those jobs overseas and managing them here with domestic executives?
There are more variables than just _% growth for them vs _% growth for them.
I’m truly curious as to what you feel is the root cause.
I truly believe it is the way our system has evolved to give those lucky enough to have jobs that 1) have benefits and/or 2) made enough to put invest some on their own, the opportunity to own shares of stock in a wide variety of companies, thus reducing risk - in simplest terms - funds.
All those shares of stocks get voted, almost all of them by proxy, this gives the folks heading those funds a tremendous amount of power in that respect. As a result corporations are ran to deliver shareholder dividends in the present, rather than in the future. One of the easiest ways to ensure profitability, and thus dividends, is to manage labor costs.
So that, IMO, damaged the relationship between employer and employee, employees are thought of resources/costs to be controlled for maximum profit. When you combine that with the fact that the big corporate CEO's salary is set by a board that, while stockholders, view the CEO's salary in the context of all expenses, and are perfectly willing to use what amounts to OPM to fund lavish salaries.
I just read an article that referred to the salary of Walt Disney's CEO, at the time referenced, his salary was $66,000,000. Consider that this guy neither started or owns Disney. He has worked for them since 1996, been CEO since September 2005. Do you think he brings $66 million worth of new ideas to Disney each year? What is the actual contribution he makes? Sure he has contacts, but in reality much of a CEO's job is simply giving approval to implement ideas that other people have developed. Even 'steering' the company is, in many cases, not seat of the pants, but rather a calculated decision in which many people have participated.
Another example, when you look at not-for-profit hospitals, you often find obscenely high executive compensation, largely because since these organizations are not-for-profit, all they have to spend money on are new buildings and compensation.
2) what do you want to do about it?
Would you prefer to just create legislation that narrows the gap artificially?
What is the solution for what you believe the root cause to be?
To answer these questions:
I don't really know what the best response would be. I am a believer in Keynes theory of a gentle regulatory hand on the economy, but I think capping executive compensation is a bridge too far.
Likewise methods to address the inequality by increasing minimum wages too much, will be met by an increase in cost in order to maintain shareholder dividends and executive compensation.
Furthermore, while I don't believe in supply side economics for even a moment, increasing taxes on the wealthy to pass the monies into social programs is not the answer, either.
Maybe the best we can hope for is an increased sense of altruism among the ranks of the super compensated.
3) “Tax rate”. Well- 1% of $1Billion is a much, much larger SUM than 75% of $100K.
It’s a bit misleading and disengenuous to play the rate game and not discuss the actual sums of money being paid for proper context.
So what “rate” do you think is right, for whom and why?
While 1% of one billion dollars (10,000,000) is indeed a greater amount than 75% of one hundred thousand dollars (75,000), lets look at it another way: if I tax one billion at 75%, the taxpayer still has $250,000,000 to play with, compared to the $25,000 dollars of the other guy. Pretty sure I could live on the former amount, not the latter. It is all somewhat relative.
If I'm pressed, even though I'm not fond of our current progressive tax rate, I can come up with a credible defense of it: corporations, and those who make higher annual salaries make more use of what the tax dollars pay for (infrastructure, defense, regulatory agencies, etc.) than those who make lesser amounts.
My first preference would be for a federal sales tax. The thought being that with excise and other taxes removed from the cost of producing goods, prices would drop. Additionally, the federal sales tax would target all money spent, even unreported criminal earnings. The reality is, though, that prices are elastic up and sticky down, so the cost of goods would not drop the full amount of the tax reduction.
In view of that, I feel a flat tax is the best option. Unlike most proponents of the flat tax I would tax dividends, capital gains and other distributions. I would also think a certain amount of income, say $25,000, should be tax free.
I believe I’m seeing this all from a. Different angle and focusing on different details than you are.
Executives here in the US are managing a work force that has been sold off to other countries. Workers here are kept as needed to keep the machine functioning.
Assuming you are correct, why does that work to justify the exorbitant income disparity? Going further, I believe if you check, while many jobs did go overseas, even more have been lost due to automation and other advances in technology.
I see the root of the problem as trade deals that suck for us and suck us dry.
Licensing and regulation that is so stringent and ridiculous that anyone who wants to run a business in The USA pays more to the .gov, in many ways- not just taxes that it becomes less expensive to set up shop in China, manufacture an item and ship it half way across the planet than it does to do it in a factory down the street from your home... it’s insane!
Don't really know what to believe on that aspect. I do know that most of the farmers I talk with are of the opinion that the Trump Administration's back and forth with China has hurt them.
Add in technology replacing the work force, still need administrative and executive level decision makers, but not so much need for workers.
Add in chronie capitalism bullshit. “Too big to fail”. Etc.
And perhaps the biggest elephant in the room... illegal immigrants who will do it shittier and for less and get a bunch of salmonella in it...
Addressing your first point, if automation has displaced workers, as I already mentioned, why aren't the salaries of the remaining workers increased out of the savings?
I agreed with the bailouts, what I didn't agree with was allowing the folks who caused it to escape virtually scot-free.
As far as the illegals, they are here largely because corporate America wants them. And in terms of doing it shittier, I'm not sure of that any longer. Around here Hispanics make up the brunt of construction jobs, whether it be concrete, framing, dry-walling, masonry, or erection. I have a friend (maybe had a friend, he has early onset dementia, I believe from boxing, and is in a home) who owned a pipeline construction company. He employed around 200 folks, most of them Hispanic, because, as he put it, 'a lot of white boys don't want to work that hard.'
And, yes, it is also true that illegals are taking jobs Americans want: https://issuesinsights.com/2019/12/31/turns-out-trumps-evil-ice-raids-benefited-american-workers/
The problems I see are seemingly much different than what you see?
Or is it really just evil white rich dudes screwing over the poor workers?
I really don't think we are seeing different things, maybe different solutions.
And I think the rich dudes, for the most part, are not saying to themselves 'eff 'em' they just have no real idea.
JMO
In view of that, I feel a flat tax is the best option. Unlike most proponents of the flat tax I would tax dividends, capital gains and other distributions. I would also think a certain amount of income, say $25,000, should be tax free.
We were discussing this today when we were doing year end office work at our business. One of my lower level employees asked a pretty good question. "What happens to all those employed in the tax business?" I quickly Googled up that there are about 1.3 million people involved in that service industry. I also support the idea of a flat tax, but this question has me thinking of a solution that I can't wrap my head around. The only thing I know is that if the flat tax idea didn't put more money back in the hands of the job makers, there is no way to re-train that workforce into something else.
We were discussing this today when we were doing year end office work at our business. One of my lower level employees asked a pretty good question. "What happens to all those employed in the tax business?" I quickly Googled up that there are about 1.3 million people involved in that service industry. I also support the idea of a flat tax, but this question has me thinking of a solution that I can't wrap my head around. The only thing I know is that if the flat tax idea didn't put more money back in the hands of the job makers, there is no way to re-train that workforce into something else.
I think a lot of those folks are seasonal and part-time workers, plus there will still be a need for CPA's and accounting firms.
If you look at it, computers replaced a lot of book keepers, digital medical records replaced a lot of medical records folks (I know a couple of folks who were displaced) and cellular phones have all but eliminated telephone operators.
I agree, creating jobs to keep workers employed is important. As we automate further it is going to be increasingly difficult.
The only thing I know is that if the flat tax idea didn't put more money back in the hands of the job makers, there is no way to re-train that workforce into something else.
An additional observation: I think the idea that higher taxation stifles creativity and the drive to grow companies is overblown. Yes, at some tax rate capital will not be available to expand, but history indicates that through out America's golden age of economic growth, tax rates on the wealthiest American's were much higher.
I think a lot of those folks are seasonal and part-time workers, plus there will still be a need for CPA's and accounting firms.
If you look at it, computers replaced a lot of book keepers, digital medical records replaced a lot of medical records folks (I know a couple of folks who were displaced) and cellular phones have all but eliminated telephone operators.
I agree, creating jobs to keep workers employed is important. As we automate further it is going to be increasingly difficult.
If a flat tax was passed, I would send notice of termination to my CPA the next day. (as I imagine most of her clients would). My bookkeeper would stay on because she still is needed to do payroll and keep track of everything else. As for medical records folks. I only know the industry for the last decade, as my daughter is a certified medical coder and my sister-in-law manages a doctor's practice. They are constantly hiring and coders are still needed to translate the digital data and properly bill it. They both don't think the digital record keeping is all that it's cracked up to be.
sundance435
01-02-20, 11:07
We were discussing this today when we were doing year end office work at our business. One of my lower level employees asked a pretty good question. "What happens to all those employed in the tax business?" I quickly Googled up that there are about 1.3 million people involved in that service industry. I also support the idea of a flat tax, but this question has me thinking of a solution that I can't wrap my head around. The only thing I know is that if the flat tax idea didn't put more money back in the hands of the job makers, there is no way to re-train that workforce into something else.
First, let me say that I don't believe any tax system can be fair, but I also think that it's a red herring to say taxes should be fair in the first place. I am not a Bernie-backer or a fan of Elizabeth Warren. I think people are entitled to the fruits of their labor up to a certain point. At some point, the untaxed or undertaxed accumulation of wealth starts to hurt the rest of us. Along those lines, I don't believe that one person's wealth should be allowed to continue into perpetuity without ever having been taxed like the rest of us.That's what the very wealthy have got most of us to buy into while they reap the benefits. My opinions are based on what is pragmatic/realistic and not the premise that all taxes are bad and unfair and should be done away with. I'm not an economic libertarian.
My take is that those with means will always be able to game any tax code, especially until it goes from byzantine to double-digit pages in length. I will say that I'm more in favor of a "wealth" tax now, even as my own income has gone up, because I think it's the only government-provided solution that will do anything to tackle income disparity. Granted, I think any wealth tax needs to be implemented with huge tax reform in general and not as a one-off solution, so I'm probably in a very small minority here. My line of thinking is that if you make it expensive enough for corporations to pay a CEO $66 million a year, then that will fall out of fashion - either the board will realize it or shareholders will demand it. The key is to not provide a bunch of workarounds for the individual and the corporation through byzantine tax provisions like those that currently exist. It's also very popular for CEO's to be paid a more modest base compensation with the rest of it being options, actual stock grants, and retirement incentives - none of which will ever be taxed at the "income" rate. There is absolutely no reason that capital gains realized as income prior to retirement need to be taxed at a substantially lower rate than what is currently considered income by the IRS. Any argument to the contrary is incredibly esoteric, ephemeral, and not tied to real-world results. Same with the estate tax. The very wealthy and those with vested interests have done a fantastic job of convincing most of us that increased capital gains taxes and any death tax are harmful to everyone, neither of which is true if exclusions are kept few and objectively reasonable thresholds are maintained.
A flat tax, on the other hand, is inherently the most disproportionately painful tax system for the kind of people you're speculating about that are under-employed and whose wages haven't risen. Granted, a flat tax would not happen in a vacuum and other tax code changes would need to happen, but 26 Inf's own example of a 75% tax on $1 billion vs. $100,000 starkly illustrates the inherent problem with a flat tax, unless it is lower than what the guy making $100,000 is paying now. The tax credits that are intended to ameliorate disproportionate impacts of taxes are a nightmare and need to be changed, regardless. A true progressive tax system with multiple bands like some states have would arguably be the "fairest". There should be some kind of "means" test for SSI, Medicare, etc. I would guarantee Warren Buffett is drawing a social security check. Yes, he probably earned it under the current rules and he takes it because he's not the type to leave money on the table - there's no objectively valid reason for it, though. Social Security doesn't need to be run like everyone paying in gets payed out. That's the bulk of the problem. Same with Medicare.
I'm not sure where I stand on a national sales tax. It would arguably be more "fair" by taxing consumption and not production, but I don't think it would have much of an effect on income disparity. I have no idea what the broader harm would be to our economy through a federal sales tax, since 70% of our economy is driven by consumers. The wealthier the person, the more likely they are to game a sales tax and alter their lifestyles to avoid paying it. Poorer people just won't or can't do that. That's not a knock on people who make more, it's just the reality. I have a feeling that if you experimented with this, you would see lower-income people being disproportionately affected by a national sales tax, as well. Excluding "essential" goods and services would change little. By the numbers, it's the non-wealthy driving our consumer-centric economy, anyway, so there'd be little narrowing of income disparity. People always think of mega-yachts, mega-mansions, etc. when talking about how a national sales tax would be more fair, but in reality those types of transactions are an aberrance and wouldn't have much of an impact on the tax amounts collected. The bulk of transactions generating it would be small to medium purchases for regular folks.
An additional observation: I think the idea that higher taxation stifles creativity and the drive to grow companies is overblown. Yes, at some tax rate capital will not be available to expand, but history indicates that through out America's golden age of economic growth, tax rates on the wealthiest American's were much higher.
I agree, to the extent that higher taxes on the very wealthy have little to no negative impact on the broader economy. The reality is that those folks set up their lives to avoid paying the kinds of taxes that regular folks do, including income and sales. Only by simplifying the tax code and closing the myriad loopholes that exist would higher taxes translate to a benefit for most Americans, though. Simply increasing the marginal tax rate on the very wealthy is pointless. One thing I liked about the 2017 tax bill was that it incentivized corporations to repatriate profits and to spend profit on capital expenditures here. I think there's a lot more room for that and more incentives should be created for that type of investment, while closing loopholes for shielding profits from U.S. taxes through various accounting gimmicks. We have some of the most lax corporate tax laws in the world and we were on the low end for effective corporate tax rates before the 2017 law.
And I think the rich dudes, for the most part, are not saying to themselves 'eff 'em' they just have no real idea.
JMO
Not all, but some.
I had a superior who would sometimes forget to shut his door when on the phone with even higher ups in the company and owners of businesses we dealt with and got clued in how we were viewed somewhere between vermin and live stock.
Another was bragging about how an item the company had produced in the US had cost $43 per unit to manufacture while the deal he had made to get it made in China(and close the US facility) resulted in a delivered price of $32 per unit and how he wished they had made the move sooner. What he failed to mention during the self aggrandizing was the bulk of the Chinese products failed to work properly and he and the rest of our brain trust failed to get any guarantee from the Chinese on product quality so it was actually $64 plus additional money for reshipping, removal/reinstall costs, and further penalties.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.