• 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!

WAL-MART CEO: Things Aren't Getting Better For America's Middle Class

But, my salary tripled. Hell my salary has tripled since 2000. Probably increased 5x since I was 18. I'm 45, now.

Good for you.
Your job skills have improved in the past 27 years.
 
Amazing what a little ambition will do.

No doubt.

I think probably most of us earn more at age 45 than at age 18. I know I did.

But, at age 18, I was able to make just over $2 an hour, which doesn't sound like much today. In 1961, however, it was enough to buy 8 gallons of gas. 90 hours paid for college tuition. 37 hours paid for a month's room and board at the university. Compare that with what the typical 18 year old can earn today and see if wages have kept up.

When I got my first "real" job in 1966, my salary was $5,900 a year. That was definitely an entry level salary, but it was almost half the cost of a modest home. It was enough for three brand new compact cars, or two larger ones.

I broke into the five digits in 1969 with a salary of $10,000. That year, I bought a house for $13,500 and a new car for $3,000. My son was born that year. The hospital charged $250 for a normal childbirth.

In 2001, my grandson was born. The cost for a normal childbirth was $10,000, or 40 times as much as in 1969. No, I wasn't making $400,000.

Of course, hospital costs have gone up way faster than inflation.

But, gas still cost a quarter back in 1969.
 
Last edited:
Ambition and class mobility are strawman arguments to this topic.

Not really, especially the last. Even if wages are flat for lower deciles, if people are moving up through them as they age, then American's lives are still improving.
 
Ambition and class mobility are strawman arguments to this topic.

Not at all...Ambition is necessary in beginning any career...And mobility is offered even at Walmart. Are you aware that if you work for Walmart, and desire to become a store manager, or higher, there is a program where Walmart will pay for your business training?
 
Not really, especially the last. Even if wages are flat for lower deciles, if people are moving up through them as they age, then American's lives are still improving.

Only on a particular individual bases, not in aggregate.
 
Not at all...Ambition is necessary in beginning any career...And mobility is offered even at Walmart. Are you aware that if you work for Walmart, and desire to become a store manager, or higher, there is a program where Walmart will pay for your business training?

Absolutely - on an individual bases.

But if we never become more productive in aggregate (as in more production per work hour, regardless of the cause of that increase), then the aggregate will never become richer, and the mean average income will remain the same.

Since our productivity has been increasing substantially (due to technology), all income classes should be increasing in income, with the possible exception of those who don't work. But that hasn't really happened much during the past 35 years. Nearly all the fruits of our increases in productivity has been acquired by the top 1%.

When all income classes don't share the fruits of increases in productivity more or less equally, then demand lags behind production (because the rich don't consume all of their income), and we end up with fewer jobs, and even less incentive for the owners of the means of production to compete harder for labor, thus we start slowly spiraling downward.

So what may be great for the individual, may have absolutely no effect on the wealth of the country. And sometimes what is good for the individual, such as saving a large portion of their income, is horrible for the country (look up "paradox of thrift").

There is a reason that microeconomics is taught in college as a class seperate from macroeconomics.
 
Ambition and class mobility are strawman arguments to this topic.

says who?.. your line is a "Obama slogan 101" liberal canard..
 
says who?.. your line is a "Obama slogan 101" liberal canard..

Let me try to explain this better.

For simplicity, let's say that we have four different income groups. The minimum wage group (25 million people in this group), the $15/hr group (100 million workers), the $50/hr group (25 million workers), and the owners of the means of production group (1 million owners) who have unlimited incomes.

Now lets say that I start out in the lowest paying group, and eventually, by improving my job skills and saving and investing, make it up to the "owners" group.

If nothing else changes, other than my personal ability to move up the ladder, our aggregate economy (wealth) is no better and no worse. That is what is to be expected if we (in aggregate) don't improve our technology any, and don't become more productive as a nation (GDP stagnates).

However, if we do become more productive per work hour as a society, and/or if GDP increases, then all income groups should increase in income and standard of living at about the same rate, regardless of whether or not individuals are moving up the ladder on an individual skill level bases.

So way back in 1914, maybe the average entry level wage, adjusted for inflation was $2/hr in todays dollars, the next group had an average wage of $4/hr, the highly skilled workers had an average wage of $7/hr, and those in the owners group averaged making $100,000 a year.

If the fruits of us becoming more productive per work hour (regardless of the cause of the improvements) didn't get shared by all income classes (they all went to the ownership class), then EVERYONE other than the rich would be poor. We would have no true middle class like we do today. Is that the world that you would want to live in?

Just a guess based upon statistics, but most likely you are middle class. You may be upper middle class or lower middle class, but if the fruits of our increasing productivity hadn't been shared between all income classes, today you would be poor. You wouldn't even have access to the computer you are using, let alone being able to afford to own it.

During the middle of the 20th century, roughly from about 1933 til 1975, all income classes did increase in income and wealth at about the same rate. Your standard of living and income level today, regardless of what income class you are in (with the exception of the rich), was established during that time period, and hasn't really changed much since. During the mid 1970's, something changed in our income distribution system, and suddenly most of the increases in income started going to the top income earners, and the middle class stagnated. The middle class has been pretty much stagnated ever since then, regardless of who was POTUS or who controlled congress. The point when income growth distribution changed is often refered to as the "Great Divergence".

If we could return to the economic income distribution gains of the middle 20th century, then your income would start to rise at about the same rate as our per work hour productivity, even if your individual value or skills didn't increase. If your individual skills continue to increase, then you would simply climb the economic ladder more quickly than you can under our current situation.

The chart below does a pretty good job of illustrating the Great Divergence:

11-28-11pov-f1.png
 
Only on a particular individual bases, not in aggregate.

:shrug: if by that you mean that only people are living better lives, then.... um.... sure?
 
Back
Top Bottom