Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question provides it's own answer. Unregulated Capitalism, which is what we pray to in the USA, creates something called the Lowest Common Denominator.
A test was done online about a decade ago where a system was set up so that good writers could bid on writing articles of X number of words. Think of it as an eBay for outsourcing articles on various topics. It was set up as a perfect experiment...for the very reason to find out where in the world people (of skill) would wok for the lowest price...and how much that is.
The USA won. Writers were willing to submit entries for as low as $0.25 an hour.
And this is the general story elsewhere in the economy.
Take a semi-skilled job...or low skilled hard work. My own initial experience.
I worked in the South as a house framer in 1973-74. I made $5 an hour and I was not the crew chief...had no idea how to read blueprints, but could carry lumber and follow instructions for hammering or lifting a wall.
$5 an hour then is $28 an hour today. That's WITHOUT actual wage growth. If the system was so grand, that job would pay $40 an hour today, even if wage growth outpaced inflation by a small amount.
But what does it pay?
"TN - Average Construction Worker salary: $13.51 per hour."
1/3rd of what it should.
There is nothing wrong with women working, of course...and many (most?) should, even if it's volunteer and other efforts that fit in with their lifestyle (a mother, etc.). BUT, the result should be a marked increase in the wealth of the household as compared to that $40 an hour "single laborer".
Unregulated Capitalism is perfect in one way....it can pay those at the top to insulate themselves from the the realities of their society so that they can smugly claim "anyone can do it" and pay themselves on the back.
You need to learn about how economics work. Of course it ok for women to work, but when you flood the labor market you end up depressing wages. It's just a fact.
Everyone wants to talk about how houses cost only 14k-30k in the 60's and now they are hundreds of thousands...yet incomes in the 60's were low. My dad got hired on as a commercial airline pilot in 1966 and his salary was 500.00 mo (with a wife and 4 kids). He took 2 part time jobs in addition to being a pilot to make it work...taught flying and also changed oil at a gas station)and on probation with airline for a year. Todays young people don't even considervtrying to get a 2nd job. Now commercial pilots make hundreds of thousands a yr.
In my suburban (an hour from Boston off-peak) town, a small apartment rents for $1500 a month and a 1300 foot house built in the 1950s (and possibly not updated since) sells for $400,000. If you move any closer, those numbers go up exponentially.
If you go back in time, would those houses have cost as much with inflation today? No. And they still don't have air conditioning.
The increased cost of housing can't be offset by cutting phone or internet plans (I wonder what my employer would say if I told them I'm not able to respond to email at home? nothing before they fired me) or trading in appliances that make all of our lives a little easier after commuting 3 hours a day.
I wonder why anyone even bothers anymore. No matter how many times you say this, 5 more internet block heads will come in saying that the problem is cell phones and TVs, and then another blockhead quotes them and says "yeah, I know, when I was walking uphill both ways to school in 1964 I didn't have a damn CELL PHONE!!!. I only had almost free public higher education, cheap healthcare and a pension coming to me!! "
Everyone wants to talk about how houses cost only 14k-30k in the 60's and now they are hundreds of thousands...yet incomes in the 60's were low. My dad got hired on as a commercial airline pilot in 1966 and his salary was 500.00 mo (with a wife and 4 kids). He took 2 part time jobs in addition to being a pilot to make it work...taught flying and also changed oil at a gas station)and on probation with airline for a year. Todays young people don't even considervtrying to get a 2nd job. Now commercial pilots make hundreds of thousands a yr.
Have you seen what young pilots make now? Probably relatively even worse.
Everyone wants to talk about how houses cost only 14k-30k in the 60's and now they are hundreds of thousands...yet incomes in the 60's were low. My dad got hired on as a commercial airline pilot in 1966 and his salary was 500.00 mo (with a wife and 4 kids). He took 2 part time jobs in addition to being a pilot to make it work...taught flying and also changed oil at a gas station)and on probation with airline for a year. Todays young people don't even considervtrying to get a 2nd job. Now commercial pilots make hundreds of thousands a yr.
granted this article is over 4 years old, but the above bolded is not the usual.
Quote:
According to data for 14 regional airlines, the average new pilot’s hourly wage is about $24 per hour, the report says. But the Air Line Pilots Association estimates that the average starting salary is even lower than that — $22,500 per year, which for a 40-hour work week equals an hourly rate of $10.75. Why airlines are running out of pilots | Fortune
In general, I support the idea of having one's adult children pay rent if they live with you after graduating college. But if your one grandson is taking care of his father, he should either be allowed to live there rent-free, or paid for his job as a caregiver. JMHO.
Mine, too.
Not only must he watch over his alcoholic dad, he also has to be able to go to the nursing home when his grandmother is having some trouble. They should be paying the kid. But, in the long haul, the kid will be equipped to handle anything that comes his way.
I wonder why anyone even bothers anymore. No matter how many times you say this, 5 more internet block heads will come in saying that the problem is cell phones and TVs, and then another blockhead quotes them and says "yeah, I know, when I was walking uphill both ways to school in 1964 I didn't have a damn CELL PHONE!!!. I only had almost free public higher education, cheap healthcare and a pension coming to me!! "
Its not that these things are the cause of inflation or shrinking purchasing power but often the reason both spouses work is because they want cell phones, electronics, new cars, vacations, saving for retirement, college funds, etc. not because it is taking every thing both earn just to pay rent/mortgage, utilities, food and other necessities.
I have known a few couples who decided after the birth of the second or third child that one parent would be a SAH. They managed this by giving up much of the extra non-essentials.
Its not that these things are the cause of inflation or shrinking purchasing power but often the reason both spouses work is because they want cell phones, electronics, new cars, vacations, saving for retirement, college funds, etc. not because it is taking every thing both earn just to pay rent/mortgage, utilities, food and other necessities.
I have known a few couples who decided after the birth of the second or third child that one parent would be a SAH. They managed this by giving up much of the extra non-essentials.
College funds and retirement are kind of important things nearly on par with rent food and utilities. At least, in a first world country. American exceptionalism, and all that. When you are talking bout declining standard of living, education and retirement are part of that standard. Those things did not suffer in the "good old days" because many jobs had pensions, and public higher education was very inexpensive if even necessary to earn a good living.
If you're saying those things have to go living on one salary, you're already conceding things are harder now.
I have personal experience - started a mom and pop shop in Retail and ran it for 20 years.
Paid my employees at least 50% more than the going wages - plus benefits that others didn't pay.
I made MUCH more than my competitors and provided products and services to customers for less than them also. Like Costco.
Higher wages at WalMart might mean:
1. The Waltons, all together, are worth only 70 billion instead of 140.
2. That Door Buster special TV might cost $129 instead of $126.
That wouldn't make a bit of difference in the scheme of things. The Waltons can't buy a single thing more with 140 Billion that 70 Billion wouldn't purchase...and you would still likely buy that Door Buster, especially if you felt better about the place knowing they paid their due.
My manager, in a small retail store, made $70K plus bennies in 1992. More run of the mill employees made a little less than 1/2 that. No college required.
Putting that into dollars today, that would be $126K for the manager and 60K for the Retail Floor Employees.
This didn't cost me money. It made me money. The business lasted 40 years (we sold it) until the current owners ran it into the ground by adopting an outlook like you are pushing. It took them almost 20 years to run all the value out of it.
Some basic calcs....a decent appliance store (in our sector) could make 40% plus if they knew how to purchase right. With 3 full timers and family...and a few part timers, that comes to maybe 350K for all the salaries put together (w/employer taxes and other costs). Add in 50K for rents, 50K for misc and 30K for marketing. That's about 480K.
Do 1.5M m in business at 42% (yes, that was our margin) and that is almost 630K in gross profits, meaning 150K plus all the goodies (business expenses, car, gas, etc.) for me. That was quite decent money in 1990.
Also, to be honest, the 70K I paid the manager didn't work out because he was incapable of doing the job assigned to him (which was to allow me to step away). After a year he admitted it and still wanted to work, so he went down to 42K (which would be 70K today). So that would increase my take to 180K.
These figures are not exact but close enough. We'd take that 180 or 200 and give bonuses, add to our IRA, some profit sharing, etc.
I don't think I ever took an actual salary higher than 90 (which would be 150 today). But when you fund an IRA for 20 years and have many of your expenses paid it can add up.
A Costco employee making $25 an hour is at 50K, which is lower than my retail floor employees. It's totally doable. Costco makes a ton of money because they, like we, went direct to most sources and made win-win deals.
Anecdotal stories still don't mean that it's possible for any and all businesses to pay their employees $25.00/hr and up.
I wonder why anyone even bothers anymore. No matter how many times you say this, 5 more internet block heads will come in saying that the problem is cell phones and TVs, and then another blockhead quotes them and says "yeah, I know, when I was walking uphill both ways to school in 1964 I didn't have a damn CELL PHONE!!!. I only had almost free public higher education, cheap healthcare and a pension coming to me!! "
"But the TVs!" I could buy a 55' TV right now for just a little over $300 (though I don't because the Boomers in my life keep giving me their cast-offs every time they upgrade). I can hook up the Roku I got 5 years ago for $50 and have cable for $20 a month. All in all, that's less than the equivalent would have cost older generations because the cost of tech has come down. It doesn't really impact the affordability of staples like homes and healthcare.
The other thing that kills me is the thought that having the internet and a computer/smart phone at home is an extra. I am expected to be able to respond to emails or issues at work from home. I don't know many Millennials (or anyone else, really) who work in professional roles who don't have similar expectations. I must have the internet and a means to do my job from home, and my employer will not pay for that any more than they'll pay my electric bill or for my commute from home - it's just an expectation for employees.
I remember a few years ago when I went hiking and didn't have cell service. The head of my department called me 15 times while I was gone for 4 hours. It was a weekend and there was no real expectation of being "on call" and yet I was expected to be available and responsive. While my job was fine, it's still a sign of the changing employment landscape. I end up responding to work issues at least once most weekends, even when I'm on vacation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
