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.
Some of the statistics make you really stop and think.
"Almost 80% of Americans say they live from paycheck to paycheck, many not knowing how big their next one will be."
"The typical American worker now earns around $44,500 a year, not much more than what the typical worker earned in 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation."
"Add to this the fact that the richest 10% of Americans own about 80% of all shares of stock (the top 1% owns about 40%), and you get a broader picture of how and why inequality has widened so dramatically."
"The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009, and is now about where it was in 1950 when adjusted for inflation."
Do you think your future is secure? Are you worried about what will happen if you have a setback? Are you concerned for the future of your children?
Not really. But not for the reasons you might be thinking. I'm half prepared for all h*ll to break loose. But for the usual reasons most people are thrown off, I think the probability of that is pretty low. I've earned a pretty modest income in a high cost area, but have consistently saved/invested a double digit % of my income for the past 21 years. The way you do that is you reject some or even most of the "standard" things you're "supposed to" do for your income level. I'm totally fine with being a frugal weirdo. I strive to follow my own internal priorities, not the stuff everyone tries to impose on me from the outside world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
Are you worried about what will happen if you have a setback?
Well, the likelihood of the standard setbacks that happen to people is fairly low for me (but certainly not zero), so I don't worry too much about that. All hell breaking loose? I worry about that a lot. It's always in the back of my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
Are you concerned for the future of your children?
I don't have any kids. But I am concerned for the future of America. I don't think it looks very good, but not necessarily for the usual reasons cited.
Regarding kids, I think the biggest thing that messes people up is our 40% out of wedlock birth rate. It's a disaster for parents and children alike--financially, and otherwise--and even secular liberal researchers are admitting it. No wonder the middle class is shrinking.
Do you think your future is secure? Are you worried about what will happen if you have a setback? Are you concerned for the future of your children?
Yes, I think I'm secure, no I'm not worried.
The only job security that exists is being good at what you do, and I constantly learn what I need to adapt to changing times. The days of working the same job for 30 years are over, so assume you need to put a few hours/week in to learn new skills in your free time. I've had major setbacks and have bounced back quickly because of what I just described.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,690 posts, read 57,994,855 times
Reputation: 46171
Author ....
Robert Reich, is the Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the the twentieth century.
So sad academians and Labor Secretaries are so far out of touch with reality.
1) How many US employees have he recently hired? (Woefully inadequately trained (ruined) by spending 12 - 14 yrs in failed USA EDU systems.)
2) Has Riech ever missed a meal in his life due to 'meeting payroll' for his all important staff?
3) How many businesses has this guy started that led to community building and job creation?
4) Is his paycheck tomorrow based on the results of those he employs today?
Hint: You don't see the job creators / employers writing this type of article, because we are too busy trying to train, and motivate the very low skilled and unmotivated candidates for employment (They have been stuck in Public schools WAITING for instruction, and they seem to think employers are babysitters / school teachers.
The wage crisis is related to:
1) Very incompetent unmotivated USA workforce (getting much worse every yr)
2) Entitlements (unreality / public assistance programs)
3) USA business law (Removed all investment credits and tax incentives to grow business
4) Globalization... (other countries are not strategically sitting on their thumbs thinking things will work out... , as is the USA (Yes, I would much rather hire a foreign applicant that has a decent education, personal values, and motivation to work)
5) USA consumer's fickle purchasing stance. Yup, I can buy 3 of these garbage gadgets instead of one that will last 10x as long.
6) Passivity of USA (ez to be lazy) and survive WELL!
Some of the statistics make you really stop and think.
"Almost 80% of Americans say they live from paycheck to paycheck, many not knowing how big their next one will be."
"The typical American worker now earns around $44,500 a year, not much more than what the typical worker earned in 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation."
"Add to this the fact that the richest 10% of Americans own about 80% of all shares of stock (the top 1% owns about 40%), and you get a broader picture of how and why inequality has widened so dramatically."
"The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009, and is now about where it was in 1950 when adjusted for inflation."
Do you think your future is secure? Are you worried about what will happen if you have a setback? Are you concerned for the future of your children?
1) That just means 80% of Americans don't live below their means. In short-term, some don't have any choice about that. But many do. Higher incomes won't change that any. The mentality needs to change otherwise income goes up and that just means more consumption but no change in living paycheck to paycheck. The 80th percentile has a personal income of around $75,000/year.
2) Standard of living hasn't increased that much over the last 40 years, particularly for the bottom 40%. The top 5%, 20% and even 40% have done well. The middle 20% okay. There's a relative glut of unskilled labor though, so if you choose to put yourself in the bottom 40% it's not so great.
3) Yes, it does. Too many people regardless of income live paycheck to paycheck which means they'll never accumulate any significant wealth as they simply spend everything they make. Wealth inequality is being driven by both factors.
4) Not really relevant as around 98% of workers earn more than the federal minimum wage. Some because they're covered by higher state or local minimum wages, others because they simply make more than the minimum wage in their place of occupation. It's relevant to that 2% or so of workers that do make the federal minimum wage, but it's such a small population it really doesn't have much impact overall.
I'm secure enough in my future. Something may change and I'll need to adapt, but I'm not overly worried about that. If I need to retrain, I'll retrain. Depends on the setback. If I become permanently disabled, yeah, I'm worried about that. Although I do have supplemental long-term disability insurance it would mean a much lower standard of living than I currently enjoy. If I just am out of work due to injury or illnesses for a few months, no. Worrying about it in either case doesn't do much good. Planning for it does. Generally worrying about something is the first step in planning for it, but without going beyond simply worrying about it it's pretty pointless.
I don't have kids. I think any parent should worry about the future of their children. Particularly they should be worried if their children show a lack of motivation and/or a paycheck to paycheck mentality.
Considering the source - enough said.
Pull information off US Department of Statistics and read ALL of the information regarding average income. According the that I am gainfully inexistent but my quarterly payments are welcome, actually demanded almost like a mortgage payment book back in the day.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii
Do you think your future is secure? Are you worried about what will happen if you have a setback? Are you concerned for the future of your children?
Yes, I think I'm secure, no I'm not worried.
The only job security that exists is being good at what you do, and I constantly learn what I need to adapt to changing times. The days of working the same job for 30 years are over, so assume you need to put a few hours/week in to learn new skills in your free time. I've had major setbacks and have bounced back quickly because of what I just described.
That's the key, continual learning, and adapting to changing times and new technology. That takes a lot of self-motivation and there are those who will be left out.
I'm not worried about our kids, who are all successful already (millennials). I have confidence in their ability to raise the grandkids with the education and motivation to succeed, but no one can guess what the world will be like when today's toddlers are adults.
The gloom and doom presented along with requests for donations makes the article a bit suspect. According to the article the "typical American worker now earns around $44,500 a year...". For a couple, married or living together, that would be $89,000, a decent household income in most parts of the country. For a single person even that $44,500 is enough to buy a house in many parts of the country.
For a single person even that $44,500 is enough to buy a house in many parts of the country.
Um...not trying to contradict you, but where in the country can a single person earn that much and be able to buy a house in the same town or city?
I mean the average person. We know that people working for tech companies in the Bay Area get paid quite a bit, but for your average person there, the wages aren't quite as good.
1) That just means 80% of Americans don't live below their means. In short-term, some don't have any choice about that. But many do. Higher incomes won't change that any. The mentality needs to change otherwise income goes up and that just means more consumption but no change in living paycheck to paycheck. The 80th percentile has a personal income of around $75,000/year.
2) Standard of living hasn't increased that much over the last 40 years, particularly for the bottom 40%. The top 5%, 20% and even 40% have done well. The middle 20% okay. There's a relative glut of unskilled labor though, so if you choose to put yourself in the bottom 40% it's not so great.
Hmmm...I wouldn't be able to live below my means either if my entire paycheck went to rent, utilites, and food. To live below their means, which would you like them to cut back on?
While I think you're wrong about most people having a fairly high income, I like to focus on the lower 40% because those are the ones who will cost the country the most in social services if they run into a spate of bad luck, like a medical emergency or a job loss. Those are also the ones with the most capability of moving up and paying more in taxes with a higher salary, benefiting the community and everyone who lives there. They're also the ones who have the least chance of advancing.
This isn't a question just for you, Malloric, but for anyone who cares to answer:
I understand that there are some things people do to put themselves in that position. But if you had someone in front of you, working two low wage jobs to support a family, living paycheck to paycheck (never mind how they got in that position), and you knew no one was going to step in with extra money, what, exactly, would you tell him or her to do first? Whatever you tell them to do, remember money still has to come in so this family can eat and have a roof over their heads.
Um...not trying to contradict you, but where in the country can a single person earn that much and be able to buy a house in the same town or city?
In my part of the country, $44K/year is entirely sufficient for a single person to buy a house (a single-family detached house) of modest proportion, if avoiding the tonier and costlier neighborhoods. By this I mean buying in a working-class inner suburb, where entirely serviceable 3-bedroom, 2-bath houses with a 2-car garage on 1/3 acre can be bought for $100K.
To attempt to address the question about "the person in front of me", my recommendation would be entirely un-American, and perhaps not even possible in modern America. But it is worth mentioning. Different families would pool their resources, if necessary enforced by formal contract, to jointly by a McMansion. This is say a 5-bedroom house with a full basement. It could accommodate, with a bit of loss of privacy, 3 families, each with kids. One of the adults would stay home, to tend to everyone's children. Another adult would also stay home, specializing in house-maintenance, car-maintenance, groundskeeping and the like. These persons would register with the state, as "domestic providers". They would either draw a state stipend, or in any case a de facto sum credited to them annually, so that when they retire, they would be eligible or a higher Social Security benefit. Meanwhile those adults who are working part time, would be able to file their taxes as "married filing jointly", regardless of their actual filing status. And the subdivision where this McMansion is built, would receive a premium from the state - say, $500/month - towards its HOA. This would offset any ill-feeling towards housing "undesirables".
For single people without children, who presumably are more mobile and have fewer demands on their time, a federal job-corps would be available. This would be akin to the military, but without regimental discipline (though it might offer housing and meals in barracks), or warfighting. It would however mean relocation to wherever one's labor is needed. This would work well for people with criminal records, or drug problems, who would otherwise struggle to find gainful employment. Employers who are willing to take on such employees would receive a tax-break, and employees who stay in the program long-term would receive the analog of a 401K plan-matching from the government, so that employers would not have to commit to the expense themselves.
None of the above however is possible, given the prevailing attitudes in American culture. And this brings me to what I believe is a deeper answer to why wages have stagnated: it's the culture. It has less to do with employer greed (that's always been there!) or government incompetence (likewise), than with with a particularly American distaste for public-private partnership, for innovative solutions on housing and job-training and the like. The way to address our problems is not through tariffs or revisions to tax-policy, though certainly, screwing these things up, can substantially hurt. Rather, the solution is to revise the culture. And how likely is that?
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.
, as is the USA (Yes, I would much rather hire a foreign applicant that has a decent education, personal values, and motivation to work)
