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.
It's not the governments job to fix every individuals financial situation. If you look closer, most people create their own problems.
As far as inflation is concerned, it can be traced directly to the current presidents first few days in office, cancelling the pipeline, and sourcing our oil purchases from overseas, despite having more than enough right here in North America.
Kathy Hochel imposing demands on the people, forcing her follies on us, surely raises our COL too.
Pay attention, and it becomes clear that it's the government who creates these problems.
I never mentioned the government in my post. So, where did that come from?
Is it the government or the private sector, which has seen those at the top get much higher pay increases relative to inflation than workers? Perhaps this could be a matter of those at the top picking "winners and losers" in a way many state in regards to politicians.
I suggest that you actually read the data that I posted versus assuming this is simply caused by the governor and president.
From the article: "Wage stagnation has been a subject of much economic analysis and commentary, though perhaps predictably there’s little agreement about what’s causing it (or, indeed, whether the BLS data adequately capture what’s going on). One theory is that rising benefit costs – particularly employer-provided health insurance – may be constraining employers’ ability or willingness to raise cash wages. According to BLS-generated compensation cost indices, total benefit costs for all civilian workers have risen an inflation-adjusted 22.5% since 2001 (when the data series began), versus 5.3% for wage and salary costs.
Other factors that have been suggested include the continuing decline of labor unions; lagging educational attainment relative to other countries; noncompete clauses and other restrictions on job-switching; a large pool of potential workers who are outside the formally defined labor force, neither employed nor seeking work; and broad employment declines in manufacturing and production sectors and a consequent shift toward job growth in low-wage industries."
The first part of this quoted may be a big aspect in this, as compensation(a key word) may have just shifted from actually being monetary to benefits in many cases.
This is the last portion of the article: "Sluggish and uneven wage growth has been cited as a key factor behind widening income inequality in the United States. A recent Pew Research Center report, based on an analysis of household income data from the Census Bureau, found that in 2016 Americans in the top tenth of the income distribution earned 8.7 times as much as Americans in the bottom tenth ($109,578 versus $12,523). In 1970, when the analysis period began, the top tenth earned 6.9 times as much as the bottom tenth ($63,512 versus $9,212)."
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 01-11-2023 at 08:46 AM..
I never mentioned the government in my post. So, where did that come from?
Is it the government or the private sector, which has seen those at the top get much higher pay increases relative to inflation than workers? Perhaps this could be a matter of those at the top picking "winners and losers" in a way many state in regards to politicians.
I suggest that you actually read the data that I posted versus assuming this is simply caused by the governor and president.
From the article: "Wage stagnation has been a subject of much economic analysis and commentary, though perhaps predictably there’s little agreement about what’s causing it (or, indeed, whether the BLS data adequately capture what’s going on). One theory is that rising benefit costs – particularly employer-provided health insurance – may be constraining employers’ ability or willingness to raise cash wages. According to BLS-generated compensation cost indices, total benefit costs for all civilian workers have risen an inflation-adjusted 22.5% since 2001 (when the data series began), versus 5.3% for wage and salary costs.
Other factors that have been suggested include the continuing decline of labor unions; lagging educational attainment relative to other countries; noncompete clauses and other restrictions on job-switching; a large pool of potential workers who are outside the formally defined labor force, neither employed nor seeking work; and broad employment declines in manufacturing and production sectors and a consequent shift toward job growth in low-wage industries."
The first part of this quoted may be a big aspect in this, as compensation(a key word) may have just shifted from actually being monetary to benefits in many cases.
This is the last portion of the article: "Sluggish and uneven wage growth has been cited as a key factor behind widening income inequality in the United States. A recent Pew Research Center report, based on an analysis of household income data from the Census Bureau, found that in 2016 Americans in the top tenth of the income distribution earned 8.7 times as much as Americans in the bottom tenth ($109,578 versus $12,523). In 1970, when the analysis period began, the top tenth earned 6.9 times as much as the bottom tenth ($63,512 versus $9,212)."
Yes, but you DID mention inflation. jesh
I see this as opportunity, with those higher wages. I don't understand what your problem is with the wages. It's up to every individual to find his own way. if they sit on the bottom rung of the ladder, that is their choice for 90% of the population. People writing books, in the media ,blogs, whatever, esposing how bad it is, and "not their fault" only gives comfort to those on the bottom rung.
I see this as opportunity, with those higher wages. I don't understand what your problem is with the wages. It's up to every individual to find his own way. if they sit on the bottom rung of the ladder, that is their choice for 90% of the population. People writing books, in the media ,blogs, whatever, esposing how bad it is, and "not their fault" only gives comfort to those on the bottom rung.
Inflation is ongoing and the point is that wages haven't kept up in general in the US. It doesn't have anything to do with feelings, but this is about data. The fact still remains that the buying power of much of the American workforce hasn't changed much since the late 1960's. So, the article in the original post isn't surprising when you see what has occurred on a national level.
From the beginning of the Pew Research article from 2018: "On the face of it, these should be heady times for American workers. U.S. unemployment is as low as it’s been in nearly two decades (3.9% as of July) and the nation’s private-sector employers have been adding jobs for 101 straight months – 19.5 million since the Great Recession-related cuts finally abated in early 2010, and 1.5 million just since the beginning of the year.
But 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."
Inflation is ongoing and the point is that wages haven't kept up in general in the US. It doesn't have anything to do with feelings, but this is about data. The fact still remains that the buying power of much of the American workforce hasn't changed much since the late 1960's. So, the article in the original post isn't surprising when you see what has occurred on a national level.
But the question is, "why". Look at the rate of inflation, over the last 2 years. In the practice known as "analytic troubleshooting", the first question you ask, "what changed". In the USA, the main thing that changed, is the WH administration.
The current "administration", and I use that term VERY loosely, upon "installation", immediately undid all of the successful policies of the previous administration, in what appeared to be a huge case of juvenile spite, and the rate of inflation immediately began to rise. Then, as if their initial "got-chas" weren't enough, they continued to pile on more and more detrimental policies, causing even more inflation, which is another "high falootin" term that means the cost of living is going up.
Higher minimum wages don't help, because those working at that pay grade are, in many cases, are paid exactly what they're worth, doing very basic jobs. So, that, in turn, causes costs to rise even more. The group that really hurts, from all of this, are older, probably retired people, like me.
Before I retired, I evaluated my financial situation, and I was in good shape. The down side, however, is that my pension is fixed. I signed up for "X" dollars in 2008, and that's what I get.....period, for the rest of my life. I already went back to work, part time, for several years, after Obama's inflationary policies hit my wallet, but I recovered, and then some, under Trump. Since Biden took over, I'm back to Obama levels, in my 401.............
I'll do whatever is necessary, but I really don't want to go back to work, AGAIN!!!
But the question is, "why". Look at the rate of inflation, over the last 2 years. In the practice known as "analytic troubleshooting", the first question you ask, "what changed". In the USA, the main thing that changed, is the WH administration.
The current "administration", and I use that term VERY loosely, upon "installation", immediately undid all of the successful policies of the previous administration, in what appeared to be a huge case of juvenile spite, and the rate of inflation immediately began to rise. Then, as if their initial "got-chas" weren't enough, they continued to pile on more and more detrimental policies, causing even more inflation, which is another "high falootin" term that means the cost of living is going up.
Higher minimum wages don't help, because those working at that pay grade are, in many cases, are paid exactly what they're worth, doing very basic jobs. So, that, in turn, causes costs to rise even more. The group that really hurts, from all of this, are older, probably retired people, like me.
When I retired, I evaluated my financial situation, and was in good shape. The down side, however, is that my pension is fixed. I signed up for "X" dollars in 2008, and that's what I get.....period, and for the rest of my life. I already went back to work, part time, for several years, after Obama's inflationary policies hit my wallet, but I recovered, and then some, under Trump. Since Biden took over, I'm back to Obama levels, in my 401.............
I'll do whatever is necessary, but I really don't want to go back to work, AGAIN!!!
The problem is that this has occurred over various administrations, given that the buying power has pretty much stayed put since 1978. So, this goes beyond the current administration.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 01-11-2023 at 10:19 AM..
The problem is that this has occurred over various administrations, given that the buying power has pretty much stayed put since 1968. So, this goes beyond the current administration.
We did not have to worry about inflation under the 4 years of Trump. You are just a Biden apologist.
Getting back to your OP, so basically the complete lock of Democrat power in NY has done nothing to improve the economics for the people in this state and they have squandered how many trillions so far?
We did not have to worry about inflation under the 4 years of Trump. You are just a Biden apologist.
Getting back to your OP, so basically the complete lock of Democrat power in NY has done nothing to improve the economics for the people in this state and they have squandered how many trillions so far?
No, I'm not an apologist for anyone like the political idol worshipping I see on here. My point stands that buying power for the American worker has pretty much been pat since 1978(not 1968).
Again, the rest of the article, as i don't think people try to read on here: "The disconnect between the job market and workers’ paychecks has fueled much of the recent activism in states and cities around raising minimum wages, and it also has become a factor in at least some of this year’s congressional campaigns.
Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013. But in the years just before the 2007-08 financial collapse, average hourly earnings often increased by around 4% year-over-year. And during the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 7%, 8% or even 9% year-over-year.
After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. 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.
A similar measure – the “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time wage and salary workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars.
Wage increases in the U.S. rise to the top earners
Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).
Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course – health insurance, retirement-account contributions, tuition reimbursement, transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation."
Keep in mind that this article was written in 2018. That means Trump was president during the time of the article. Again, that's neither here or there, but all I'm saying is that on a national level and over a period of decades, what we find in NY is as much a national phenomenon.
No, I'm not an apologist for anyone like the political idol worshipping I see on here. My point stands that buying power for the American worker has pretty much been pat since 1978(not 1968).
Again, the rest of the article, as i don't think people try to read on here: "The disconnect between the job market and workers’ paychecks has fueled much of the recent activism in states and cities around raising minimum wages, and it also has become a factor in at least some of this year’s congressional campaigns.
Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013. But in the years just before the 2007-08 financial collapse, average hourly earnings often increased by around 4% year-over-year. And during the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 7%, 8% or even 9% year-over-year.
After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. 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.
A similar measure – the “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time wage and salary workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars.
Wage increases in the U.S. rise to the top earners
Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).
Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course – health insurance, retirement-account contributions, tuition reimbursement, transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation."
Keep in mind that this article was written in 2018. That means Trump was president during the time of the article. Again, that's neither here or there, but all I'm saying is that on a national level and over a period of decades, what we find in NY is as much a national phenomenon.
In 2018, we did not need to read about statistics from biased liberal media. We saw with our own eyes when eggs were $1.49 that are now $5.99 and everything else that is so inflated.
In 2018, we did not need to read about statistics from biased liberal media. We saw with our own eyes when eggs were $1.49 that are now $5.99 and everything else that is so inflated.
It isn't from media but from a non-partisan research thank tank, which is done on purpose on my part for that very reason. Try again...
It is essentially a source for those that are looking for straight data.
That’s even worst. Those so called non partisan research orgs are very much partisan and are paid to spin data to fit a certain narrative. If you put complete faith in them then says a lot about how naive you are. All you are doing is spreading their lies for them.
All one has to do is look at the prices for literally everything now compared to 2018 and see the drastic difference, which according to your phony think tanks is suppose to be very little change.
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.
