• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT: Majority Of New Jobs Pay Low Wages, Study Says

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While a majority of jobs lost during the downturn were in the middle range of wages, a majority of those added during the recovery have been low paying, according to a new report from the National Employment Law Project.

The report looked at 366 occupations tracked by the Labor Department and clumped them into three equal groups by wage, with each representing a third of American employment in 2008. The middle third — occupations in fields like construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13 — accounted for 60 percent of job losses from the beginning of 2008 to early 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-wages-study-finds.html?_r=1

high wage jobs were 19% of jobs lost during the recession, 20% of new jobs created since then

60% of middle wage workers were slashed in the darkest days, only 28% have come back

and at the bottom, $7.69 to $13.83: 21% of jobs lost were what used to be called "entry level"

a tragic, heartbreaking 58% of new jobs created since the end of the recession, which almost exactly coincides with the three years of obama's failed presidency, are the lowest on the rung

the greatest number of jobs created in the barack hussein obama "recovery" were in retail, averaging $10.97, followed by food prep and service, $9.04

and it's not like there's an abundance of these go-nowhere repositories of hopelessness, laments the gray lady (nyt)---there's so few net jobs to start with, any little inroad makes a large share

that's the new york times talking, folks---friday, august 31

where do you go to retrieve your self respect?

obama depends on the uninformed---but it's pretty hard not to know when you're hosing down the parking lot in your chick fil'a uniform

"many" of these jobs, she laments, are being filled by older workers whose retirement plans have been wrecked, with no currently conceivable hope of rebound

last week just about every major msm outlet out there (cbs, the globe which is owned by the times, cnn, usnwr) stopped what they were doing to report that middle class incomes have declined TWICE as fast AFTER the recession officially ended than they did DURING the worst days of the recovery

a very, very under-appreciated parameter in all poor-economy elections, standing powerfully beside unemployment rates, is WAGES

few talk about it but the pros all know

and WAGES in this hussein obama economy are, i believe, significantly worse than the pure bls numbers that come out on the first friday of every month

incidentally, obama will close his convention in charlotte with his acceptance speech thursday nite, and we will all awake the next morning to another pitiful bls report that shows more americans going on disability than finding new employment

it is what it is, you really need to learn to see moves ahead

oblivious obama sure can't

the middle class is hurting hard across the board, but the pain is particularly acute in two places---youth and those nearing retirement

no spin, lynn

seeya at the polls
 
Last edited:
govt data projects faster growth in incomes?

what a relief

having fallen twice as fast in the three years AFTER the recession ended than incomes dropped DURING the deepest, darkest days of decline---such that 58% of what paltry jobs created in these 3 years of obamite hopelessness and despair earn between $7 and $14 an hour---all sober and mature americans can finally sigh easily at these glad tidings from labor and exclaim, it's none too soon

LOL!
 
Well, it is a "buyers" market for labor. Since labor is a competitive market, just like most anything else, when we are overstocked with available labor, it is going to cause lower wages.

Add to this the growing and large costs of benefits and arduous laws and unions making almost impossible to get rid of bad workers, I have seen many companies switch to only hiring part-time/temps so that they have a "vetting" process. Even the part-timers rarely get fired, the usual process is to cut their hours until they quit. Luckily for our companies, there are no unions involved, so they at least can have some method of getting rid of bad workers, there is not union "sign-off" to get rid of someone.

This was not a totally unpredictable result from labor laws intended to provide job security and benefits packages. While the needs and wants of workers does need to be addressed, the needs and wants of employers also needs to be part of the process. It has to have some balance or it fails. You cannot give to the workers every thing they want at the cost to employers, ignoring or being hostile to them, or the employers will eventually just leave if they can or simply close if it becomes unprofitable or to arduous to continue doing business.

As the job market and business environment has become more arduous and hostile to companies, they have been moving those jobs. Outsourcing. Why people think this would not and should not happen is beyond me. The government recently has not only tried to become more and more hostile to companies, it has been actively inciting hatred and animosity towards business. Is it any real surprise that we now see companies that are able start moving overseas? I don't think so.

Depending on whether they see some kind of hope of change come November, next year we could see the beginning of a mass exodus of those who are able. Some posters here have been very hostile towards the idea of them leaving and have advocated trying to stop them. That was tried by the Soviet Union and East Germany. Do we really want a "Berlin Wall" around America now? I know if someplace was extremely hostile towards me, I would either fight back if I could, or go elsewhere if I couldn't. I think most people, put in a constantly hostile environment will take one of those two options. You expect people who own or run business to do any different. Do you actually expect them to lie down and allow themselves to be repeatedly kicked and beaten down like an abused dog?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-wages-study-finds.html?_r=1

high wage jobs were 19% of jobs lost during the recession, 20% of new jobs created since then

60% of middle wage workers were slashed in the darkest days, only 28% have come back

and at the bottom, $7.69 to $13.83: 21% of jobs lost were what used to be called "entry level"

a tragic, heartbreaking 58% of new jobs created since the end of the recession, which almost exactly coincides with the three years of obama's failed presidency, are the lowest on the rung

the greatest number of jobs created in the barack hussein obama "recovery" were in retail, averaging $10.97, followed by food prep and service, $9.04

and it's not like there's an abundance of these go-nowhere repositories of hopelessness, laments the gray lady (nyt)---there's so few net jobs to start with, any little inroad makes a large share

that's the new york times talking, folks---friday, august 31

where do you go to retrieve your self respect?

obama depends on the uninformed---but it's pretty hard not to know when you're hosing down the parking lot in your chick fil'a uniform

"many" of these jobs, she laments, are being filled by older workers whose retirement plans have been wrecked, with no currently conceivable hope of rebound

last week just about every major msm outlet out there (cbs, the globe which is owned by the times, cnn, usnwr) stopped what they were doing to report that middle class incomes have declined TWICE as fast AFTER the recession officially ended than they did DURING the worst days of the recovery

a very, very under-appreciated parameter in all poor-economy elections, standing powerfully beside unemployment rates, is WAGES

few talk about it but the pros all know

and WAGES in this hussein obama economy are, i believe, significantly worse than the pure bls numbers that come out on the first friday of every month

incidentally, obama will close his convention in charlotte with his acceptance speech thursday nite, and we will all awake the next morning to another pitiful bls report that shows more americans going on disability than finding new employment

it is what it is, you really need to learn to see moves ahead

oblivious obama sure can't

the middle class is hurting hard across the board, but the pain is particularly acute in two places---youth and those nearing retirement

no spin, lynn

seeya at the polls

Ummmm....

But aren't conservatives against collective bargaining for wages?

And against wage and salary controls for CEOs?

And against the minimum wage?
 
the OP is a great argument for labor unions, and is just one more nail in the coffin of trickle down economics as a sustainable positive for the middle class.
 
the OP is a great argument for labor unions, and is just one more nail in the coffin of trickle down economics as a sustainable positive for the middle class.

Or, if not labor unions, then a welfare state that provides food, housing, and transportation subsidies to the working poor.
 
know if someplace was extremely hostile towards me, I would either fight back if I could, or go elsewhere if I couldn't. I think most people, put in a constantly hostile environment will take one of those two options. You expect people who own or run business to do any different. Do you actually expect them to lie down and allow themselves to be repeatedly kicked and beaten down like an abused dog?
What on earth are you rambling about? Modern day USA is as friendly to business as just about any other country in the developed world, and boasts the largest capable consumer base in the free world. Those who are moving overseas are doing so largely in order to expand their consumer base, reduce labor costs and maximize profit margins. To operate on the notion that the USA overnight has become simply inhospitable to business is simply absurd. A quick read that might alleviate a flurry of misconceptions.

Ease of doing business index (1=most business-friendly regulations) | Data | Table
 
the OP is a great argument for labor unions, and is just one more nail in the coffin of trickle down economics as a sustainable positive for the middle class.
If there was "a great argument for labor unions," labor unions would be making it. Unions are in decline precisely because there is not a good argument for their existence. As for wages, they arent really the only measure of wealth. What things cost plays an equally imoportant role. A millionaire, for example, isnt particularly well off if a Happy Meal runs him a million bucks. Inflation is more devastating to wealth than anything else and inflation is the result of government policy.
 
Or, if not labor unions, then a welfare state that provides food, housing, and transportation subsidies to the working poor.

i'm just happy to see a hyperpartisan republican poster who is so concerned about the plight of the working poor. i hope that his next thread is about extreme income inequality, the effect that the inequality has on market volatility, and the measures we should take to remedy the situation.
 
Unions are in decline precisely because there is not a good argument for their existence.

we live in a labor reality of no job security, low pay, decreasing benefits, and the cost of essentials outstripping increases in pay for an increasing number of Americans. in the past, with a little hard work, most people could begin and end their career at one or two companies if they so chose. now being hired is becoming a strictly temporary situation; even the highly educated are being hired as "independent contractors" for set periods of time, after which they are often automatically fired regardless of performance. many at the lower end of the scale have even lost control of their shifts and hours. if these points aren't an argument for labor organization, i'm not sure what is.


As for wages, they arent really the only measure of wealth. What things cost plays an equally imoportant role. A millionaire, for example, isnt particularly well off if a Happy Meal runs him a million bucks. Inflation is more devastating to wealth than anything else and inflation is the result of government policy.

i agree to a point. i'd simply like to see some of the missing rungs restored to the ladder. someone who works hard should be rewarded, and should have opportunities. this is becoming less and less common, and the eroding middle class is an illustration.
 
we live in a labor reality of no job security, low pay, decreasing benefits, and the cost of essentials outstripping increases in pay for an increasing number of Americans. in the past, with a little hard work, most people could begin and end their career at one or two companies if they so chose. now being hired is becoming a strictly temporary situation; even the highly educated are being hired as "independent contractors" for set periods of time, after which they are often automatically fired regardless of performance. many at the lower end of the scale have even lost control of their shifts and hours. if these points aren't an argument for labor organization, i'm not sure what is.
Again, if those are good arguments for unionizing, why is union membership declining? You arent ever going to see a more labor friendly administration than this one and still unions continue to fizzle. It could just be that unions are a good and necessary thing in the early stages of industrialization, but have no real role in the later stages. I sometimes think liberals look to things that "worked" in the 1930's and assume they will 'work' today--be it stimulus, infrastructure spending or unionization. Might be time for progressives to be a bit less regressive in their thinking. This isnt 1932, it is 2012.




i agree to a point. i'd simply like to see some of the missing rungs restored to the ladder. someone who works hard should be rewarded, and should have opportunities. this is becoming less and less common, and the eroding middle class is an illustration.
How do you go about fixing that?
 
the OP is a great argument for labor unions, and is just one more nail in the coffin of trickle down economics as a sustainable positive for the middle class.

Not surprisingly you did not understand what was written. People are losing decent jobs and are having to take jobs at fast food and health care facilities. It seems that the article accurately describes that we need to not only be concerned with the number of unemployed but the quality of the jobs that the employed have.
 
the OP is a great argument for labor unions, and is just one more nail in the coffin of trickle down economics as a sustainable positive for the middle class.

You talking about those teachers unions that have destroyed our education system. Whom you can't fire a bad teacher and all teacher get tenure, and who are against a voucher system so kids and get a real educations.

Now tell me how trickle up economics works? How do the poor and those on welfare and food stamps create businesses to hire people?
 
You talking about those teachers unions that have destroyed our education system. Whom you can't fire a bad teacher and all teacher get tenure, and who are against a voucher system so kids and get a real educations.

Now tell me how trickle up economics works? How do the poor and those on welfare and food stamps create businesses to hire people?
Teachers unions existed in periods in which our education system was fairing quite well by most standards. To assign blame to a singular source is a fool's errand.

Said businesses prove to be unsustainable without the consumer activity that stems from the poor and middle classes, food stamps, since you brought them up, provide many local grocers, shipping companies, and farmers with large amounts of demand for their goods that would otherwise be absent due to personal debt and other immediate concerns.
 
Again, if those are good arguments for unionizing, why is union membership declining?

largely because of free trade with low wage labor markets, and partially because of "pro-business" legislation. additionally, unions didn't anticipate and prepare for globalization when they had larger percentages of the workforce.

How do you go about fixing that?

it's going to have to be fixed from the bottom up. businesses can't expand and hire more people when there aren't enough customers to purchase their products. my suggestion would be a massive reallocation of revenue to expand our highways and infrastructure, as well as a national energy initiative. some of this money can be reallocated from American global police actions, and it's my opinion that we should let all of the tax cuts expire. basically, we need to invade the US and win the hearts and minds of Americans by hiring them to build roads and bridges. then they spend the money, and it trickles up. this plan is certainly better than paying entitlements to those who can't find good paying work. we can either pay them to do something, or we can pay them not to do something. i'd prefer the former.
 
Not surprisingly you did not understand what was written. People are losing decent jobs and are having to take jobs at fast food and health care facilities. It seems that the article accurately describes that we need to not only be concerned with the number of unemployed but the quality of the jobs that the employed have.

my response was to the hyperpartisan right wing poster's "analysis" of the article. he / she tried to present the current economic malaise as an indictment of the president; i countered by arguing that it is more an indictment of trickle down economics and a steep drop in worker organization / representation.
 
my response was to the hyperpartisan right wing poster's "analysis" of the article. he / she tried to present the current economic malaise as an indictment of the president; i countered by arguing that it is more an indictment of trickle down economics and a steep drop in worker organization / representation.

I have noticed some of your posts regarding unions. You may want to consider that problems unions face is less about pay and more about work rules. A good example would be all of the foreign car manufacturers that have opened MANUFACTURING plants in the U.S. Those jobs pay well, but the companies are not saddled with the lousy work rules of the UAW.

Worker cost is not only measured in pay but also productivity. If the work force is more productive then that can offset and explain higher pay.
 
I have noticed some of your posts regarding unions. You may want to consider that problems unions face is less about pay and more about work rules. A good example would be all of the foreign car manufacturers that have opened MANUFACTURING plants in the U.S. Those jobs pay well, but the companies are not saddled with the lousy work rules of the UAW.

unions aren't needed where working conditions are good, job security is adequate, pay is fair, and there's opportunity for workers to be rewarded for hard work and loyalty. i would argue that's not the norm these days. it is, however, present in some areas of manufacturing, and i applaud that.


Worker cost is not only measured in pay but also productivity. If the work force is more productive then that can offset and explain higher pay.



Great-Prosperity-vs-Great-Recession.jpg
 
Teachers unions existed in periods in which our education system was fairing quite well by most standards. To assign blame to a singular source is a fool's errand.

When was that?

Said businesses prove to be unsustainable without the consumer activity that stems from the poor and middle classes, food stamps, since you brought them up, provide many local grocers, shipping companies, and farmers with large amounts of demand for their goods that would otherwise be absent due to personal debt and other immediate concerns.

Got it, so the more people on food stamps the stronger the economy, and that's the resource to creating an economy from the bottom up.
 
What on earth are you rambling about? Modern day USA is as friendly to business as just about any other country in the developed world, and boasts the largest capable consumer base in the free world. Those who are moving overseas are doing so largely in order to expand their consumer base, reduce labor costs and maximize profit margins. To operate on the notion that the USA overnight has become simply inhospitable to business is simply absurd. A quick read that might alleviate a flurry of misconceptions.

Ease of doing business index (1=most business-friendly regulations) | Data | Table

Nice link. For the factors weighed, they made their assessment. But I note that the only factor shared between what I said and what you linked is Taxes, which is one area even they put the US very low in. It does not address labor costs, ease of doing business with the labor market, or all aspects of government regulation in the business environment. If you deal with chemicals or emissions, the EPA is going to have a much larger impact on your business than if you are only a retailer. But then again, if you are a retailer, you cannot outsource distribution or outlets.
 
i respectfully disagree.

You respectfully disagree that teachers unions have not destroyed our education system, then how is it better for a child's education from a bad teacher that you can't fire? How is it better for the eduction for a child, when teachers unions are doing everything they can to not have voucher system. Unless parents can afford a private school they are forced to be taught by incompetent teachers, that can't be fired or a good teacher given performance pay, how is this good for the education of the child. Is not school choice better for the education of the children so that parents can choose what school they want their child to go too.

Yes teachers Unions have destroyed our education system, we continue to pour more and more money into a failed system with no results. All the added money that goes into our schools go to over paid pension plans, not to educate the children.
 
Duhhh.

If I pay you idiot peons a higher wage, then there's less money for me.
 
You respectfully disagree that teachers unions have not destroyed our education system, then how is it better for a child's education from a bad teacher that you can't fire? How is it better for the eduction for a child, when teachers unions are doing everything they can to not have voucher system. Unless parents can afford a private school they are forced to be taught by incompetent teachers, that can't be fired or a good teacher given performance pay, how is this good for the education of the child. Is not school choice better for the education of the children so that parents can choose what school they want their child to go too.

Yes teachers Unions have destroyed our education system, we continue to pour more and more money into a failed system with no results. All the added money that goes into our schools go to over paid pension plans, not to educate the children.

i'm aware of those talking points.
 
Back
Top Bottom