• 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!

Bad news for Dems;wages set to soar

ttwtt78640 said:
Indeed it could mean that yet the data show that the pay of those in the top 20% is rising much faster than the pay for those at any other income level.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com...9/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective
Click to expand...

which might be the case

i still think the upper management, and highly skilled are getting good raises....i know i have been

management knows who they HAVE to pay....and they pay them

and they pay as little as possible to the rest to keep expenses down

basic business 101....you pay your producers, and the people who keep the ship running straight and narrow

the rest, you try and keep as satisfied as possible while keeping the wage expense in line

if people dont make enough...they need to increase their skills and or productivity
 
cabse5 said:
Not at the price of CEOs, yes, you're right. The other part of the equation is supply. For example, maybe someone should (in a waitresses' union, if one existed) limit the number of waitresses to make their wages go up?
Click to expand...

Bingo - a low wage (doing a very easy) job plus "safety net" benefits can supply a decent standard of living that would take much more effort (doing a much harder job) to rise above that standard of living.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare-recipients-paid-more-minimum-wage.html/
 
gdgyva said:
which might be the case

i still think the upper management, and highly skilled are getting good raises....i know i have been

management knows who they HAVE to pay....and they pay them

and they pay as little as possible to the rest to keep expenses down

basic business 101....you pay your producers, and the people who keep the ship running straight and narrow

the rest, you try and keep as satisfied as possible while keeping the wage expense in line

if people dont make enough...they need to increase their skills and or productivity
Click to expand...

Or convince the taxpayers (actually only a few congress critters) to supplement that meager income via the "safety net".

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare-recipients-paid-more-minimum-wage.html/
 
gdgyva said:
which might be the case

i still think the upper management, and highly skilled are getting good raises....i know i have been

management knows who they HAVE to pay....and they pay them

and they pay as little as possible to the rest to keep expenses down

basic business 101....you pay your producers, and the people who keep the ship running straight and narrow

the rest, you try and keep as satisfied as possible while keeping the wage expense in line

if people dont make enough...they need to increase their skills and or productivity
Click to expand...

An institutional not individual upward pressure on wages for Labor is what,

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
 
gdgyva said:
which might be the case

i still think the upper management, and highly skilled are getting good raises....i know i have been

management knows who they HAVE to pay....and they pay them

and they pay as little as possible to the rest to keep expenses down

basic business 101....you pay your producers, and the people who keep the ship running straight and narrow

the rest, you try and keep as satisfied as possible while keeping the wage expense in line

if people dont make enough...they need to increase their skills and or productivity
Click to expand...

Rational management generally pays as little as they can to everybody.Sometimes that can be a lot, though.

The Golden State warriors pay Step Curry 34.7 million dollars a year, because they concluded that was the *LOWEST* amount they could offer and still land him.
 
danielpalos said:
An institutional not individual upward pressure on wages for Labor is what,

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
Click to expand...

the $ 15 min wage would help two things

one...it would help some unions whose pay is set at x above the minimum wage as a scale, so their workers would get auto raises

two...it would help uncle sammie as payroll taxes would rise for both fed tax and fica tax, and he would have more money hit the coffers

it wouldnt help the min wage workers....because everyone above them would be entitled to raises to at least the 35-40 dollar hour level to compensate for the floor sweeper now making $ 15 bucks a hour

And it would make everyone raise prices on everything, and inflation for wages go nutz

And who gets hurt? The people on a fixed income....the people on SS who can barely make it on $ 800 bucks a months but now inflation is kicking them in the ass, and their COLA raise is 2-3 years away...because the government is slow on the uptake

So the prices rise....it eats up everything the min wage earner got....but they pay more taxes, well because now they are earning HIGHER wages

well done....:shock:

raising the min wage is NOT the answer....at least not to $ 15 an hour

and it NEVER will be
 
Soar? 3% for a mid level average guy is a soaring wage? In what world? 3 % of a 3,000 pay check is 90 bucks. Taxable.

I generally like efforts to bolster the economy, but the US lost 2.3 trillion dollars in this tax bill. It is hard to swallow when you see low paid teachers dipping into their pocket to pay for their students to have a classroom, when you see health care costs becoming outrageous, when you see NASA shrinking, or when you aren't sure if will have your job the next months. My concern is that the cost of those tax cuts are all things I think that the US should put money into like education, infrastructure and making sure the US is prepared for the scientific and military challenges of the next thirty years. Instead, this feels like a giveaway to rich folks, companies and especially the richest executives of companies and on top of that, coming at the expense of things I believe the US should put money into.
 
Moderate Right said:
Oh Jesus. You guys still believe the world began in 1968. From your own reply "it’s not a picnic for everyone". It will never be a picnic for EVERYONE. We don't live in a socialistic society. There will always be dirt poor and there will always be mega rich and everywhere in between.
Click to expand...

...and therefore we should just accept things peaked in 1968 and will never be that good for the working class again?

Uhh. No.
 
HowardBThiname said:
That's actually good news. We've been hearing tall tales about reduced purchasing power and now we find out that's not true.

Thanks for sharing that.
Click to expand...

What it doesn't say is that for decades prior to that point everybody was actually getting richer every year at about the same rate. The rich got "x" richer and the middle got "x" richer and the poor actually got a tiny bit more than "x" richer.

That abruptly ended in the mid-seventies and wages have stayed the same, adjusted for inflation, since then while profits and CEO compensation have skyrocketed.
 
cabse5 said:
Hasn't it always? I mean, name a time when the income of top earners didn't rise faster than any other in the US. Maybe not during Jimmy Carter as president?

What credence do you give to the fact that less are on gov't assistance, now, than before?

Come on. Your lean is libertarian. Does that mean you're against capitalism?
Click to expand...

1945 to the mid seventies.

Everybody was getting richer at about the same RATE during that time.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
These people read titles and just repeat the dumb **** they are told. No amount of their bull**** changes the fact the rich are forking us and they are the ones getting all the tax benefits, millionaires and billionaires that already own most of the wealth. **** off with the constantly right wing lies, they have absolutely no credibility
Click to expand...



Most everyone got a 2500 tax cut tho.
 
gdgyva said:
the $ 15 min wage would help two things

one...it would help some unions whose pay is set at x above the minimum wage as a scale, so their workers would get auto raises

two...it would help uncle sammie as payroll taxes would rise for both fed tax and fica tax, and he would have more money hit the coffers

it wouldnt help the min wage workers....because everyone above them would be entitled to raises to at least the 35-40 dollar hour level to compensate for the floor sweeper now making $ 15 bucks a hour

And it would make everyone raise prices on everything, and inflation for wages go nutz

And who gets hurt? The people on a fixed income....the people on SS who can barely make it on $ 800 bucks a months but now inflation is kicking them in the ass, and their COLA raise is 2-3 years away...because the government is slow on the uptake

So the prices rise....it eats up everything the min wage earner got....but they pay more taxes, well because now they are earning HIGHER wages

well done....:shock:

raising the min wage is NOT the answer....at least not to $ 15 an hour

and it NEVER will be
Click to expand...

Yes, it will.

An institutional not individual upward pressure on wages for Labor.

Even the dollar menu won't double.
 
What if...? said:
What it doesn't say is that for decades prior to that point everybody was actually getting richer every year at about the same rate. The rich got "x" richer and the middle got "x" richer and the poor actually got a tiny bit more than "x" richer.

That abruptly ended in the mid-seventies and wages have stayed the same, adjusted for inflation, since then while profits and CEO compensation have skyrocketed.
Click to expand...


Around the Seventies, we stabilized. Before that, we had a lot of families who were still suffering second-generation effects from the Great Depression. That's why the lower and middle class continued to climb before that in purchasing power.

However, the poverty rate has continued to decrease, even though purchasing power has not seen a lot of movement.

historical-poverty-reduction.jpg



The yellow line is the US. You can see that over the time you mention -- poverty continued to drop. Of course we still have folks that can't afford a mortgage, but, by and large they are better off.
 
KLATTU said:
Workers will finally be bringing home the bacon — salaries are about to break out of a decade-long slump.
US professionals nationwide will soon be taking home their biggest paychecks, as the tightening labor market and economic recovery will spur companies to confidently raise salaries and pay bigger bonuses, according to a new study by Willis Towers Watson Data Services.
https://nypost.com/2018/08/18/workers-are-about-to-take-home-their-biggest-checks-in-years-study/
Click to expand...

Prosperity's just around the corner.
 
What if...? said:
What it doesn't say is that for decades prior to that point everybody was actually getting richer every year at about the same rate. The rich got "x" richer and the middle got "x" richer and the poor actually got a tiny bit more than "x" richer.

That abruptly ended in the mid-seventies and wages have stayed the same, adjusted for inflation, since then while profits and CEO compensation have skyrocketed.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the dats that supports that.

My hunch is that it takes quintiles and evaluatues change within the quintiles, not actual individuals moving in and out of quintiles.

Evaluating quintile data has limittations. In other words , if the average income within the top 20% quintile increases significantly ,what does that really tell us ? That the salaries of high paying jobs have increased? hmmmm,so what.

It doesn't say the same PEOPLE have those jobs.


How Much Mobility?
These studies of relative mobility
have produced remarkably consistent
results, with regard to both the degree
of mobility and the extent of changes
in mobility over time.5 Mobility in the
United States is substantial according
to this evidence. Large proportions of
the population move into a new
income quintile, with estimates ranging
from about 25 to 40 percent in a
single year. As one would expect, the
mobility rate is even higher over
longer periods—about 45 percent
over a 5-year period and about 60 percent
over b
https://www.urban.org/sites/default...ans-Move-Up-and-Down-the-Economic-Ladder-.PDF
 
KLATTU said:
I'd like to see the dats that supports that.

My hunch is that it takes quintiles and evaluatues change within the quintiles, not actual individuals moving in and out of quintiles.

Evaluating quintile data has limittations. In other words , if the average income within the top 20% quintile increases significantly ,what does that really tell us ? That the salaries of high paying jobs have increased? hmmmm,so what.

It doesn't say the same PEOPLE have those jobs.


How Much Mobility?
These studies of relative mobility
have produced remarkably consistent
results, with regard to both the degree
of mobility and the extent of changes
in mobility over time.5 Mobility in the
United States is substantial according
to this evidence. Large proportions of
the population move into a new
income quintile, with estimates ranging
from about 25 to 40 percent in a
single year. As one would expect, the
mobility rate is even higher over
longer periods—about 45 percent
over a 5-year period and about 60 percent
over b
https://www.urban.org/sites/default...ans-Move-Up-and-Down-the-Economic-Ladder-.PDF
Click to expand...

I was speaking about all quintiles, not migration between them.

Here's a PDF covering what I'm talking about.

Picketty/Saez also covers this.
 
What if...? said:
What it doesn't say is that for decades prior to that point everybody was actually getting richer every year at about the same rate. The rich got "x" richer and the middle got "x" richer and the poor actually got a tiny bit more than "x" richer.

That abruptly ended in the mid-seventies and wages have stayed the same, adjusted for inflation, since then while profits and CEO compensation have skyrocketed.
Click to expand...

Might want to thank bill gates...technology changed the world

Offices that used to employ hundreds now employ 10-12

Database spreadsheets have replaced 18 column green book ledgers....and many of the lower bookkeeper class have gone the way of the dinosaurs

And who paid for all this? The owners...so should they spend millions on tech and not reap the benefits?
 
gdgyva said:
Might want to thank bill gates...technology changed the world

Offices that used to employ hundreds now employ 10-12

Database spreadsheets have replaced 18 column green book ledgers....and many of the lower bookkeeper class have gone the way of the dinosaurs

And who paid for all this? The owners...so should they spend millions on tech and not reap the benefits?
Click to expand...

Ahem. One has to have the philosophy that the 'owner-class' is entitled to rewards for investments...,for example.
 
cabse5 said:
Ahem. One has to have the philosophy that the 'owner-class' is entitled to rewards for investments...,for example.
Click to expand...

common sense is common sense

who paid for the tech?

so who should reap the benefits?

yes...the world has changed....and the rich have gotten richer, because they INVESTED in themselves

if only everyone would do the same....wouldnt we all be better off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom