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.
"Rents increased by 12% from 2000-2010, but median income fell by 7%"
"the share of cost-burdened renters nationwide more than doubled, from 24% in 1960 to 49% in 2014."
A 5% increase for an ABOVE min. wage worker here in Florida means $10.50 an hour instead of $10.....
A 3% increase for a household making 200K means $6,000 dollars more.
Figures lie and liars figure. Wages against productivity have went nowhere for about 40 years - productivity has tripled and wages have only increased slightly (adjusted)...even worse when the needed expenses like health care are figured in.
Yes, if that $8 an hour worker in Florida or Texas is now making $10 that's a massive percentage increase. But it's not making a bit of difference, really, when the chit hits the fan.
Kudos to the places going for $15 an hour - that, compared to the $10, does make a difference. Someone working 45 hours a week makes $225 more, enough to actually make a vast difference.
I assume that at some point, you'll read some of the figures and links in the thread. And then possibly modify your position. Probably not, but I'm an optimist.
Last edited by BoBromhal; 01-24-2020 at 07:40 PM..
A 10 to 10.50 (5%) increase in a low wage state means $20 more in the weekly check.
Does that help? Which would you rather have - $20 more a week or $200?
Uh $10 vs $15 is a 50% increase.
And now to compare, use a week of 45 hours at $15 to get $225 increase vs 40 hours $10.5 to get $20 increase - similar hours would be $200 vs $20 increase if wanted to direct compare - just another way to color the narrative.
You used $10 vs 10.5 as a 5% increase as an HOURLY increase compared to 3% of $200K increase to get $6000 which is a YEARLY increase. The year increase of $10 to $10.5 is $1000 for the year (40 hrs a week for 50 weeks) - $1000 vs $6000 not as dramatic as $0.50 vs $6000. Then comparing $10 to $15 as a $225 WEEKLY increase instead of the yearly which is $10,000 more a year with 40 hr (vs 45 hr used) work week.
By using different time comparisons (hour for lowest, week for middle, and year for highest) you highly color the narrative. The $10 to $15 hour increase is actually bigger than the 3% of $200K increase - and they are all in the thousands, even the $0.50 increase.
Again, exactly what Mr. Mnuchkin and his cronies want you to do.
I remember the old days when they said the future was going to be good - that we'd need to work less for more due to automation and efficiency.
Now all you need to do is work more jobs......
for the most part, other than some sideswipes from others on your side, it's been a non-partisan discussion. And yes, there are some on "my" side also responding by including Obama.
But it IS a non-partisan discussion. Nevermind, it's easily shown the figure has gotten BETTER over the last 2+ years.
As to the "work less for more" for entry-level or low-pay jobs - I don't recall that. maybe you can help us out.
And now compare use week of 45 hours at $15 to get $225 increase vs 40 hours $10.5 to get $20 increase - another way to color the narrative.
You used $10 vs 10.5 as a 5% increase compared to 3% of $200K increase to get $6000 which is a YEARLY increase. The year increase of $10 to $10.5 is $1000 for the year (40 hrs a week for 50 weeks) - $1000 vs $6000 not as dramatic as $0.50 vs $6000. Then comparing $10 to $15 is $10,000 more a year.
By using different time comparisons (hour for lowest, week for middle, and year for highest) you highly color the narrative. The $10 to $15 hour increase is actually bigger than the 3% of $200K increase - and they are all in the thousands, even the $0.50 increase.
You must not understand what I am getting at....because you are doubling down on the point I am making....in other words, we agree (in a warped way).
The upper 1%, for example, could see a 3% increase in a 500K wages.....(plus, of course, from tax cuts which working people will have to pay for) and from stock dividends and other income. They see tens of thousands of dollars.....more in a year, which is all over and above their "baseline" (of what it takes to survive and pay health insurance, etc.) - disposable income.
If, at the same time, the $10 an hour person got a 5% increase, the headline in financial sites would say:
"Working People seeing much larger gains than others", because - of course - 5% is a larger gain than 3%.
But why even discuss this? These are all peanuts - chicken feed. The true proof is in the results - that is, the share of assets and net worth owned by working people compared to others.
And so, the bottom 50% - those exact people who are the subject of this thread, now have had their share of the nations income reduced by almost 50% (from 23% to 13%).
Why quibble about the crumbs? The chart shows just what this thread is about. It's not like the rising tide is floating all boats. It's floating large yachts and sinking the dingy.
There are at least two time periods mentioned......one of 10 years more recently and then overall. The charts are clear and are indexed.
Did you not see the charts? They are indexed and show every data-point along the way.
Not sure what you are saying. Based on your statements rents are getting lower and lower and easier for people to afford?
Is that your summary statement?
Yes I saw that every chart and stat is indexed to 1960 - that puts the large 60s increase in front of everything.
Rental increases lag wage increases normally. Partially because in long term leases, prices are locked in for years and the impact of rent controls in many locations. The chart you have is mainly long term impact because of general housing increases due to shortages. In a growing economy - wages go up then rentals do unless there are shortages. Increases are more seen in aggregate as people enter and leave the rental market than someone experiences in the market.
for the most part, other than some sideswipes from others on your side, it's been a non-partisan discussion. And yes, there are some on "my" side also responding by including Obama.
But it IS a non-partisan discussion. Nevermind, it's easily shown the figure has gotten BETTER over the last 2+ years.
As to the "work less for more" for entry-level or low-pay jobs - I don't recall that. maybe you can help us out.
It has always been predicted that the future in the USA would be better and better for each generation as a whole - they would work less and recreate, leisure, etc. more.
That was the curve for a long time - say from about when Henry Ford offered double wages ($5 a day) to about the mid-1960's. Sure, the Depression had put some crimps in it, but the whole idea was that all Americans would share in the increased productivity, better infrastructure and industrial booms.
A famous 1952 article on what life in 2000 would be - and this was agreed upon (in general) but most who studied the matter:
"ECONOMICS: New Living Standards
The nation's industrial and agricultural plant will be able to support 300 million persons 50 years from now - twice the present population. Land now unproductive will be made to yield. Science will steadily increase crop production per acre. Technological, industrial and economic advances will give the American people living standards eight times as high as now."
I would venture to say that we are not 800% above the first Levittown standards.
"Technical advances will be well distributed throughout the economy"
Hmmmm..........
They really did get many things right in the prediction - population, life span, air travel, medicine, women working mens jobs, etc.
And here you go:
"LABOR: A Short Work Week
There is every reason to believe that the steady growth of organized labor in the first half of 1950 will continue along the same trend in the second half of the century. So tell your children not to be surprised if the year 2000 finds 35 or even a 20-hour work week fixed by law"
As a futurist myself, you can see why I am shocked by "get a second job" as compared to what the leading economists, futurists and other predicted if we stayed on the same curve.
Yes I saw that every chart and stat is indexed to 1960 - that puts the large 60s increase in front of everything.
No one denies that the wage stagnation started in the 1960's time period.
In fact, most charts that you find comparing (lackluster) wage growth against productivity will start there...for good reason. It was the 15 years post-war when the USA ramped up using much of the capacity and infrastructure built out for WWII.
Looking at that another way, you now produce 250% more widgets than you did in 1970 in the same work week. However, you don't even make the same wages (a few percent less) and you don't share in the least in the gains made.
The usual counter to this is "well, the Boss put in the capital to buy the new machine that allowed you to increase your productivity by 250%".
I don't buy it. Sure capital should get some of the money. So should labor, so should CEO's and so should the government (taxes). There is plenty to go around
Keep in mind that much of that extra productivity came from government funded advances...which makes ALL Americans due the credit. If interstates, built with our Fed. Tax money, helped productive...and lasers and GPS and many medical advances.....all paid by you and I.....isn't it unfair for 100% of the creme to go to shareholders and capital (banks, investment firms, ceos)????
I think it is. Even on a micro scale like my mom and pop stores, when we made a lot more money it was spread around.
But if business is soul-less and there is no American creed....if it's all just the lowest common denominator, then we have the setup of today...where we actually borrow a TRILLION per year just so we can give MORE to capital. That 250% increase isn't enough for them, nor is the lowering of Federal Tax Rates from 90% (under IKE) to 35%. Nothing is ever enough for them.
A large segment of the American population isn't too bright. If this surprises you, then you're likely one of them.
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.
