from the when-they-say-trickle-down-they-really-do-mean-trickle dept.
The Center for American Progress reports:
In 2013, the share of corporate income that trickles down to workers hit its lowest point since 1950, according to an analysis from the Economic Policy Institute.
Corporate income, which makes up about three-quarters of all private sector income in the country, can either go to employees or the owners of companies, and last year just under 73 percent went to employees, the lowest point in more than six decades.
Workers' share of corporate income was trending downward for at least a decade before the recession hit, and it only rebounded in 2008 because corporate profits were hit by the financial crisis, falling faster than wages for several months.
Workers aren't earning less because they're slacking off -- just the opposite. Their productivity increased 8 percent between 2007 and 2012 while their wages actually fell, a trend that has been going on since at least 1979. And they've been speeding up since the recession, increasing their productivity last summer at the fastest pace since 2009.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:43AM
the government keeps telling us there's no inflation too
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday September 09 2014, @12:40PM
You claim statistics can be interpreted any way you want. That's only true if you don't have enough statistics, or are being willfully ignorant.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:42PM
...or you are deliberately selective about how you collect data in the first place, or you're a moron government worker incapable of performing basic arithmetic, or you just make shit up that may or may not be supported said statistics, etc
statistics are more often than not merely a tool intended to carry weight in convincing people that whatever you're trying to argue is right, regardless of whether it really is or whether the statistics actually support your argument
statistics quoted by any politically motivated organization or government agency are usually questionable, particularly those related to interpretation of economic data
ftfy
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 09 2014, @07:38PM
or you're a moron government worker incapable of performing basic arithmetic, or you just make shit up that may or may not be supported said statistics
Making shit up like "moron government worker incapable of performing basic arithmetic" perhaps. Valuing your prejudice over the data.
statistics quoted by any politically motivated organization or government agency are usually questionable, particularly those related to interpretation of economic data
Of course they are. The operative word here being "quoted". But go back to the source document and evaluate from there. Consider the source. An actual government statistical analysis is far more likely to be real and accurate then one from a "think tank" aka lobbyist for example. In functional democracy countries at least. So long as the source is good, you can find out in what way the politically motivated person or organisation was bending the truth. That's not a problem with statistics, but of selective quoting.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:04PM
hence why stats can be interpreted however you want (i never said that the stats themselves were wrong)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Geezer on Tuesday September 09 2014, @10:02AM
We talking net, gross, EBIT, or what here? Corporate gross income has to cover expenses like, um, workers.
The share of profits (surplus income after taxes and expenses) going to directly to employees usually approaches zero, except where employees hold equity positions or where explicit profit-sharing plans are part of employee compensation packages. These are generally reserved for management, except for a very few enlightened employers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @10:16AM
I think you may have answered your own question. The only interpretation that makes any sense in gross income before expenses or taxes. (Not that big companies pay taxes anyway, but that's another story...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @12:44PM
> (Not that big companies pay taxes anyway, but that's another story...)
The average rate paid by S&P500 companies is about 30%.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:16PM
>> (Not that big companies pay taxes anyway, but that's another story...)
>The average rate paid by S&P500 companies is about 30%.
In theory, yes. In practise, we all know the majority of them pay nothing or less than nothing by sleazy tax-avoidance tricks and corporate welfare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359 [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-09/the-u-s-corporate-tax-dodge [bloombergview.com]
http://www.alternet.org/13-mindblowing-facts-about-americas-tax-dodging-corporations [alternet.org]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-47bn-corporation-tax-lost-through-evasion-and-avoidance-as-royal-mail-is-sold-for-650m-less-than-it-is-worth-8874873.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:49PM
The 30% number is calculated by dividing taxes paid into profits made. It's not something you can obfuscate. The issue you are referring to is how they get to the 30% from the statutory 39% rate. Whether 30% or 39% or 89% is the "fair" number, I don't comment on, but it is absolute fact that the companies in the S&P500 are paying roughly 30% tax rates.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @03:11PM
Right, so they pay 30% on their profits? But the trouble is, they didn't make any profits, because despite selling a a billion dollars worth of widgets at a very healthy price, they also happened to pay a billion dollars of license fees to a shell company abroad (owned by the same company, of course) for the right to use their own logo. That means they get to write off a billion dollars off their tax bill by transferring that money to a tax haven like the Cayman islands or Switzerland.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @03:56PM
Profits of the 500 S&P companies are roughly a trillion dollars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:06PM
No, Geez has a good point. The phrase "portion of corporate income accounted for by workers' wages and benefits" doesn't make sense, because wages and benefits are costs that decrease corporate income. It's like asking how many of a baseball teams' wins during a season were one run losses.
Not saying you can't have a useful metric here, but it has to explained a lot more carefully than author and editor of TFA do.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:12PM
And likewise, the lion's share of personal income goes to food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. All of which are necessary to continue producing their labor product.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:55PM
Wages and benefits decrease net income, not gross income. The simple form of all corporate accounting is (gross income) - (expenses) - (wages) - (profit) = 0. TFA is just saying that wages/(gross income) is declining, and implying that profit/(gross income) is rising. It could be that other expenses - taxes, rent, materials, etc - are rising so fast that both wages&benefits and profits are declining, but I keep hearing the phrase "record profits," so I'm guessing that's not it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @11:08AM
73% seems like a pretty high figure to me, assuming TFA means that 73% of gross income is going to employees as wages and entitlements (super).
the progressive idiots will of course assume that the greedy stockholders are hoarding more profits (and spending it on dildos cos who would ever want to reinvest it?). what's more likely is that costs of running a business (labor included) are all increasing, but that non-labor costs are likely increasing at a greater rate than salaries/wages.
if companies tried to increase salaries/wages to keep up with real inflation (as opposed to the bullshit that comes out of washington dc) they would go out of business.
inflation is the real killer here, and you thank your government overlords for falsifying figures to enable the federal reserve to justify a zero interest rate, which allows the federal government to borrow and spend, seemingly without consequence... until down the track at least
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @12:48PM
Two years ago, the owner of my workplace made $10 million.
It wasn't enough, so he cut a department, transferred their work to other people but cut overtime pay.
My boss hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years, nor has one of our most visible employees. Minimum wage staff have only had an increase because minimum wage went up, but the CEO (not the owner) is stealing our wages (hours as well as holidays) as well as diverting public funding into running costs (against the law) to make up for the increases.
So yes, the excessively wealthy (the owner didn't work hard to get there, he was born into it) are hoarding their money and not giving a penny of it to their employees.
(Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:05PM
wtf is "excessively wealthy"? it's even more abstract than "the greedy 1%" lol
people who own businesses take risks that nobody (including yourself) would be willing to take without opportunity for reward.
starting (and maintaining) a business is a huge risk and is extremely hard work, and if you're jealous of the owner merely because he was born into a wealthy family then you're petty and sad. if you owned a successful business, would you really not pass some of it onto your children?
if employees weren't getting a penny, they wouldn't show up for work. idiots who compare having a job to slavery are just that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:21PM
Not really. They take risks because even if they lose 100% they still have enough to never work another day and have a middle class existence for life. Most of us would likely be willing to risk a few million if we knew we'd be fine no matter which way it went.
Many people have little enough that even risking it all doesn't add up to the cost of Donald Trump's lunch. Unlike 'The Donald', they have one shot and it's not a big one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:11PM
i really don't get why you would compare business owners to donald trump
most business owners don't make millions of dollars and work their asses off to keep their businesses afloat and their employees paid
in fact most businesses are small to medium enterprises, and they deserve more of a break
it's really a pity that more people can't appreciate the sacrifices required to start and run a business, particularly in bureacracy-heavy usa
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday September 09 2014, @11:32AM
"while their wages actually fell"
Its actually a little worse than that.
See, this is a "story" thats near a cut and paste of a "story" at :
http://www.epi.org/publication/2013-workers-share-income-corporate-sector/ [epi.org]
thats a "story" based on actual .gov data from
If you look at the hand .gov publication at
http://www.bea.gov/national/pdf/chapter10.pdf [bea.gov]
Then you'll discover that its not wages, but wages, bonuses, all .gov fees (aka social insurance aka unemployment fees (former) employers pay) plus, critically, health insurance. With the cost of health insurance going up in a hyperinflation graph, you can see how my pay has not gone up terribly much over the last decade but I'm sure my health insurance costs have gone from like $2K to $20K. So my total share of corporate income has gone up somewhat less than 10% over the rate of inflation whereas my net income in the paycheck has dropped a bit WRT inflation (although it has gone up somewhat over the last decade nominal, (real, not .gov) inflation has gone up considerably faster)
So its actually worse, in that wages are dropping even faster because various benefits like health insurance are currently in hyperinflation mode.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 09 2014, @11:33AM
"thats a "story" based on actual .gov data from"
http://www.bea.gov/national/Index.htm [bea.gov]
Although thats not exactly secret and anyone motivated could find it with google in about 10 seconds.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:16PM
It is also classifying people as 'exempt' which basically means the business does not pay you for hours but a flat rate. Work 80 hours get paid the same as if you 'slacked off' and worked 40. You then have the major companies not hiring people because of another company on their resume. Then popping in an h1b because 'they cant fill the role'.
Every single job I have had my employer abuses exempt. It is always the same tired cliches. "We need to buckle down" "X left so we need to pick up the slack" "We just need this push to get things done" "We need to do whatever it takes". Then when 'bonus' time rolls around you see crap except for the one guy who is bff with the boss.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:29PM
Actually, one of the effects of Obamacare appears to be a tapering off of the hyperinflation of health insurance premiums. This probably has something to do with a provision of the ACA which states that at least 85% of total premiums paid to an insurance company must go towards health care (if they go under that limit, they have to refund customers until they reach 85%). That means they can't just keep raising the premiums unless the costs of actually providing health care increase along with it.
Now, there's still lots of problems left to tackle. My guess on the next 3 pieces that would really get the costs of health care in the US under control:
1. No provider or hospital can charge more than X% higher than the price Medicare will pay for the same service, regardless of any other factor.
2. Medicare uses its negotiating power to even out those prices from hospital to hospital - right now, it's quite possible for hospital A to charge $4000 for the same service hospital B in the same geographic area does for $500.
3. Allow Medicare Part D to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs. As things stand, the way that program was put together drug companies can charge the government whatever they like for their pills.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:36PM
"unless the costs of actually providing health care increase along with it."
Hmm yeah good luck there, too.
(Score: 1) by cl0secall on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:22PM
I was going to say, "Does this factor in things that are paid on the employee's behalf by companies, but that they are legally enjoined from counting as employee pay?" I'd look at the data myself, but I am late for work...
I'll have to read it later.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:47PM
Yes, thats a good summary of the first prose paragraph in the "chapter 10" link I posted. Assuming by your description you mean things like health insurance.
If you mean something obscure like tuition reimbursement or generic expense accounts like travel mileage, I'd have to study to find an answer.
I suppose that doesn't matter in the end, if you assume the data only has 2 or 3 real sig figs of accuracy and corrections for obscure things like reimbursement of P.E. certification tests or .gov license fees would be deep in the decimal places.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Justin Case on Tuesday September 09 2014, @11:50AM
So now you're saying those rich bastards aren't content with merely owning a company (so they can entertain themselves by laying people off by phone from their yachts) but now they want to get paid for it too?
Protip: if you have most any kind of retirement plan, you are an owner too through stock purchases. Those nasty greedy profits (ugh) go to you through dividends and increases in the share price.
But wait! You've been making only a couple percent? Or losing? It is getting to the point where you'd feel safer pulling your money out and doing something else with it, something with less risk, or maybe better return? Or maybe just spending it on something that makes you happy now instead of waiting for the dollar to become worthless?
You see, you want a return on your investment, otherwise you won't invest, and if nobody does, those corporations (and jobs) won't exist.
If you really think the scales are tilted too far in favor of corporate owners, become one! It is (supposed to be) a free country! You can start a corporation typically with less than $100 of paperwork.
Oh, but the barriers to entry for new, small businesses are too high?
You can thank the regulate-everything-for-your-safety crowd, secretly backed by big corps and big bureaucrats, who have conspired to suffocate competition and keep the little guys down. That's the real problem. It was (supposed to be) a free country, but big government plus big crony capitalists ruined that. And that is the cartel we have to break up to get our freedom -- and economy -- back in our own control.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @11:58AM
pretty soon anyone with a job will be part of the "greedy 1%", and they will be taxed to oblivion
what's the point in working when obama can just look after us with money run off the federal reserve printing press?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @12:53PM
Sorry, I don't. I'm paid (through taxpayer funding) less than $10k/year while my CEO steals wages and holiday pay, redirecting public funding to cover business expenses. The owner of the workplace made $10 million a couple of years back.
Apparently, employees thinking they should be paid for their work is wrong-thinking. It also seems like something you said, too...
I've had more than $2k out of my $10k paycheck stolen by my employer. Their attitude is that it's not so much illegal as if I don't like it, I can quit any time I like.
Odd that, when someone there not so long ago used a printer for private work, he was fired for stealing company resources. It's theft when you print something out, but not when they take your time and refuse to pay you for it.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:10PM
They're right. If it's actual illegal stealing (rather than you just giving up part of your paycheck for a service they provide - like room and board), you could always get that money back in small claims court. And of course, look for a better job.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:14PM
They're right in part. If it's actual illegal stealing (rather than you just giving up part of your paycheck for a service they provide - like room and board), you could always get that money back in small claims court. I bet they neglected to mention that. But, of course, you can look for and get a better job.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by strattitarius on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:21PM
You can start a corporation typically with less than $100 of paperwork.
Now that's a good one! Seriously LOL!
Legal Zoom paperwork is not a business.
Oh, but the barriers to entry for new, small businesses are too high? You can thank the regulate-everything-for-your-safety crowd, secretly backed by big corps and big bureaucrats
I do somewhat agree with you there, but this is still not the biggest barrier. Name a business, any business, and I bet you can't get it started for less than $10k. That is not even including your salary. If you make a mere $5k a month, your expenses are $60k in the first year just for yourself.
I say we play a game. Name a business you think we should/could start and we will start naming off the costs of starting up and running for the first year.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:44PM
IT consultancy?
(Score: 1) by strattitarius on Tuesday September 09 2014, @03:43PM
Computer (somewhat high end) = $1000
Internet connection = $1200 (year)
Now you need people to know about you...
Local trade show booth = $2500
Local advertising = $2500
Internet advertising = $2500
(yes, all the above can vary wildly)
Uh oh... a bit unprofessional to have clients meet at your living room?
Part time office rental = $3500 (year)
Webex subscription = $500 (year)
Ready to start! Not so quick... Can you be a consultant with no credentials? Do you need some industry certs? Surely you can't claim ANYONE can start this business, so instead of an investment in equipment you have to invest in your brain!
Certifications = $5000
College degree???? = $20,000
Surely, now we are ready! Nope... remember how you need to pay your mortage... yep, you already have 1 very expensive employee.
1st month's salary = $5000+
Are we ready now? Nope, turns out you can't do shit on that $1000 computer when you clients need integration between two different mainframes.
Time sharing on mainframes (or VM or whatever) = $2000 (year?... depends on work I guess).
There is still more needed and even without the college degree, which is pretty much the same as buying a machine to do physical work so I think it should count in startup costs, you are hitting $20k. Now you can maybe work on a small scale and pull in a few grand for the first few years and build up, but that's hardly "starting a corporation", now is it?
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:13PM
If it's just you, then it's nothing more than you being a worker, but without the rights of being an official employee. If it's a genuine consultancy, where you employ other people, then there are plenty of costs, starting with an office and salaries to pay.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:21PM
I gather the original poster's point was if corporations are such a big deal in themselves, then you get in that game with just $100. If there's more to it, then golly, maybe that's part of the reason both good and bad why business owners might be getting more money than their employees.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:18PM
> Protip: if you have most any kind of retirement plan,
If you have any kind of retirement plan, you are either extremely wealthy, in the public sector, or were lucky enough to begin your career in a less predatory era. I make a decent wage. My wife earns too. We can't afford to save any meaningful amount for retirement unless we forego things like housing, electricity or food. My only hope is to raise millionaire kids, or maybe I'll just drop dead at retirement age when I stop being economically productive. I'm pretty sure that's what the people at the top would prefer. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the elderly are being euthanised as unproductive drains on the economy by the time I get there. Financial value seems to be the only kind of value that matters any more, even with people.
Once upon a time, a worker could earn enough to raise a family on one wage, leaving their partner to stay at home and look after the kids, while enjoying the promise of a comfortable, well-earned retirement. Now two incomes is barely enough to scrape a living in an over-priced matchbox of a house, and you still find yourself tightening your belts another notch every year. What the fuck happened? There's plenty of money out there, but less and less of it seems to be available to the working masses.
Retirement plan? HA!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 09 2014, @03:46PM
A promise that was often broken sometime between 1980 and today, as companies raided the pension fund on their way to bankruptcy.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:50PM
http://everything2.com/title/Continental+Can+and+BELL [everything2.com]
Some companies won't wait till you drop dead after retirement to get rid of you and your 'drag' on their 'bottom line'.... :P
To avoid being exploited and discarded, you HAVE to be successfully self-employed.
But that appears to be like a 'reskinned' version of the lottery--spend a little bit of money and hope to 'strike it rich' with some product or service you come up with and sell.
Since the chance of that is essentialy zero, people basically DO THE SAME THING to be (under)paid out of someone else's wallet through 'job hunting' and 'normal employment' for others.
(Score: 1, Troll) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:08PM
Troll? Really? it's on-topic, non-inflammatory, and offers an honest and truthful observation / opinion. Kindly explain yourself, mod.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:21PM
Thanks troll-mod. Here's another post for you to mark as troll. You obviously don't deserve your mod points, so please continue to waste them.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:32PM
There was a time the green site had a really good meta-moderation system where you basically voted if the mod was a good one or not. I hope SN is planning on implementing that feature at some point. Green site has moved to a new way of meta moderation that didn't seem to work as well (in my mind).
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by AlHunt on Wednesday September 10 2014, @02:59AM
It didn't work for shit after they changed it, moderators went insane and it's why commenting went straight to hell.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:28PM
Or maybe made a plan.
Two things. First, you bought too much house and paid too much for it. Second, you're competing with workers elsewhere in the world and a bunch of them are willing to do your work for a small fraction of your current wages and other costs. That last dynamic means that developed world wages will continue to decline to somewhere around the median globally, perhaps a bit lower, if employment regulations remain hostile to employers.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:28AM
Too much house? Too much? Ha! Where I'm from, a two-bedroom flat (with "bedroom" defined as an 8 foot by 5 foot box with no storage) in a crappy neighbourhood will set you back £150,000 (that's quarter of a million US dollars) or more. If I bought more than I could afford, it's because that was the only thing I could do to have somewhere for me and my family to live. I'd like to move up to a 3 bedroom house with a garden, but sadly I don't have £200,000 kicking around at the moment.
So, to summarise:
Wages are staying the same, or going down, for the vast majority of people.
Thanks to the "property makeover" craze, the minimum family home will set you back between 7 and 10 times the average annual salary (more like 15 times by the time after tax)
Thanks to the "buy-to-let" craze, renting is even more expensive than buying (but plenty of people have no option because they can't raise the deposit to buy)
Prices for food, energy and every other fucking thing are rising relentlessly year on year.
On top of that, I'm expected to find a couple thousand a year to put into a "retirement fund" for some fat fucker to steal from under my feet ten years down the line. Yeah, thanks.
Face it: If you're not one of the wealthy few, you are cattle to be milked dry and then discarded.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:00PM
I think what's most annoying about this topic is the feigned helplessness. So you painted yourself into a corner with a family and an expensive new home? The easy way out is to spin that as rich people milking you dry while continuing the sort of behavior that got you where you are. The hard way is to realize that hey, maybe you should plan these things out a little, maybe do a little budgeting, and maybe save some money.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 12 2014, @02:43PM
What's annoying about this is your continued, uninformed, blanket assumption that I'm just a lazy idiot who doesn't understand money and spent my way into trouble.
I do budget. I do plan. I don't spend frivolously. We waited years for a family until it was almost too late, purely for financial reasons (and to be honest, it probably would have been wiser to do it earlier than we did, from a medical point of view). I use 5 year-old cast-off phones and computers from work and second-hand furniture picked up for free / cheap. I drive a small, inexpensive car. I grow my own vegetables to save money, I ride a bicycle to work to save money. I don't go on holiday. I have always been frugal, careful and looked at the long term costs/ benefits of any deal I get into. I read the small print before signing. I paid extra for a fixed rate mortgage so that I wouldn't be one of those poor, irresponsible sods who wets their pants every time the interest rate goes up half a percent. I don't have any loans (apart from the mortgage) and I don't buy shit on higher purchase or store cards. I don't have a games console or cable TV and I don't gamble, smoke or have any other expensive habits (well, the odd beer...). Every time I read one of those "helpful hints to save some cash" articles I find I'm already doing all of it, and have been for years. There is no more wiggle room. As for my "expensive new home" - the home I've been in for ten years is a hundred years old, damp, crumbling around me, with a depressingly short lease that will probably cost me upwards of ten thousand to renew when I do try to move. It's one of the cheapest homes in the area (that's why we bought it) and despite all that it's priced through the fucking roof just because a bunch of greedy arsechasms have been blowing pretty property bubbles since the eighties.
So do NOT wave your hand and glibly tell me I recklessly went out and bought an "expensive new home". You know nothing about me.
The simple but uncomfortable fact is that saving is impossible at my income level, despite my income being above the national average. Sadly, I can count myself one of the lucky ones because I have a job, some job security (another vanishing concept these days that the older generation took for granted), a good support network and I havw always managed keep my head above water, financially. However every penny I earn is taken up by taxes and bills and unexpected costs (the fridge breaks down, the car gets broken into (and of course the insurance wriggles out of paying)) which just rise and rise and rise. And this is how it's been since I started my first adult job.
Now you tell me: Is it really too much to ask that the work I do be rewarded with more than just staying afloat? That maybe I could be allowed to look forward to a retirement, or that my two kids might be allowed to have a bedroom each? That maybe they could have a higher education one day if they have that potential? I'm not saying my boss doesn't pay me enough, I'm not asking for a hand out, I'm not begging for charity, I'm not denying responsibility for my mistakes. I'm simply suggesting that the scales be rebalanced so that an ordinary working man can enjoy a decent quality of life on an average income without constantly feeling like a frog in a piranha pool.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Friday September 12 2014, @06:58PM
I don't buy it. There's something you're not telling me. Maybe you have more than just two kids, your house is more expensive than you let on, or you have a coke and hookers habit on the side. There's one or more money drains in there that you aren't letting me know about. Sure, I know nothing about you, but what I do know is that the litany of expenses you just mentioned, just don't cost that much even in the UK, and your alleged income combined with your alleged fiscal discipline should be more than sufficient to save a significant portion of it.
On a related note, what's up with your home? Are you really leasing the home you mortgaged? At one point you talk about the mortgage and at another point, there's some lease that costs 10k pounds to renew? Sounds like you're paying twice for the same house.
That depends on who pays. I don't think you are entitled to a bit of it, sorry. This goes back to my observation about cheap developing world labor willing to do many of the jobs you can do for a fraction of the cost to the employer. I think the real question here should be what are you going to do to earn those things you want rather than merely tell the rest of us what you want without some means for getting it aside from grabbing other peoples' money. Those guys are getting more productive as well.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 15 2014, @09:42AM
> I don't buy it. There's something you're not telling me. Maybe you have more than just two kids,
Haha, definitely not, I'd have noticed. It really is as I said.
> your house is more expensive than you let on,
I think I gave an indicator of house prices in my area upthread. A two bedroom flat (with bedrooms barely big enough for a single bed and a wardrobe) around here can easily set you back £150000 (quarter of a million USD). Add 50% if you're within half a mile of the sea, and another 25% if you're within 2 miles of a so-called "good school". Three bed houses (with similarly small rooms) start at 170,000. If you want one that isn't in an area routinely patrolled by feral knife-wielding teenagers then you can tack on another 10 or 15k.
Something that we haven't touched on so far is that these numbers are so far out of alignment with wages that they may as well be in a different currency. Let's say I became a successful breatharian and was therefore able to save 10% of my wages every month towards a new home (screw the retirement and kids' university). It would take me almost half a decade to save up a 5% deposit, which is the minimum deposit to really make a difference to what you can afford. By the time I had the savings to make a move worthwhile, the kids would be moving out anyway and I'd be looking to downsize. Life is literally too short. Not to mention that house prices are going up between 6% and 8% per year anyway, so that 5% I'm chasing moves further and further away...
A lot of people around here seem to be better off than me on similar incomes, ironically because they were more reckless: During the early 2000s bubble they were buying up way more house than they could afford, gambling their homes and rapidly scaling the property ladder. A lot of them got stung in '08 and all of them still keep a nervous eye on interest rates but most of them weathered the storm and are now in large homes for the price of a smaller one. What's the moral of that story?
> On a related note, what's up with your home? Are you really leasing the home you mortgaged?
About the lease, or rather leasehold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leasehold_estate [wikipedia.org] - it's the normal arrangement when you're in a flat rather than a house. It's one of many reasons I'd really like to move into a house.
> That depends on who pays. I don't think you are entitled to a bit of it, sorry.
What I am doing to earn those things is having a decent job, paying taxes, living within the law, being neighbourly and responsible and basically being and doing all those other things that the great unwritten social contract of western civilisation tells us that good little citizens should do. It's also what society says you should do if you want to reap the rewards and benefits of living in a modern first world nation, but it seems that society isn't upholding its end of the bargain. Is that what this "entitlement" is that I keep hearing about? Asking that someone else fulfils their half of a contract?
As I said before, I'm not looking for a handout, and I think my requests are modest: The opportunity to use my own hard-earned money to buy a house that fits my family with a bit left over to save for the future. Previous generations seemed to manage this. How is it that we are supposedly more "advanced" than our ancestors but unable to offer this basic necessity to our population? Oh yeah, we can all buy 52 inch flatscreen HDTVs now instead[1], well fuck-a-doodle-do. I'm happy to work and to pay for what I want, but as long as what I want isn't ephemeral consumerist bullshit and the rich keep hoarding all the wealth and squeezing the rest of us harder and harder, it will never be possible no matter how hard I work.
I can fully understand those people who say "fuck it" and give up completely, either diving gleefully into debt, abandoning (declared) work for welfare, or/and just ditching the social contract altogether and pursuing crime. Again, ironically, people who do this are more often than not doing it for above mentioned ephemeral consumerist bullshit rather than any high-minded ideas about planning for the future or providing for the families.
> This goes back to my observation about cheap developing world labor willing to do many of the jobs you can do for a fraction of the cost to the employer.
Yeah, I got that, but just saying it out loud doesn't make it OK. What you seem to be implying with that statement is "The world is the way it is because the very wealthy are greedy and they are prepared to mercilessly squeeze everyone else dry for their own profits and they've got the game rigged against us. And that's nothing to complain about." whereas what I'm saying is "The world is the way it is because the very wealthy are greedy and they are prepared to mercilessly squeeze everyone else dry for their own profits and they've got the game rigged against us. And that's shitty, maybe we should do something about it."
[1] Needless to say, I do not own a 52" flatscreen HDTV.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:41AM
Doesn't sound like you make median household wage right there. Pre-tax median wages for the UK are 21k pounds per year. That means you should be picking up 7.5k in under four years (that's 10% of your wages before taxes, not after). And you claim instead that you make above the national average, which is 26k pounds. That's less than three years at 10% saved. And notice I didn't take into account taxes. The "breatharian" saving approach is 10% before taxes not after. Maybe that's the problem
But if you can't put away 10% of your pre-tax salary, then there's something wrong with your current financial situation. I think you need to consult a financial adviser to find out where the problem lies.
(Score: 1) by brocksampson on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:41AM
Two things. First, you bought too much house and paid too much for it. Second, you're competing with workers elsewhere in the world and a bunch of them are willing to do your work for a small fraction of your current wages and other costs. That last dynamic means that developed world wages will continue to decline to somewhere around the median globally, perhaps a bit lower, if employment regulations remain hostile to employers.
Willing to do your work for a small fraction? You mean able because their standard and cost of living are so much lower. Of course, if you don't want to compete with unskilled laborers from other countries, you could get a college education. The entire University of California system and many other fine state colleges are free after all... oh, wait, that was 30 years ago, now you will have to borrow most of your future earning potential just to afford a degree. And the terms of your government-backed, private loan ensure that you can never, ever escape that debt. It's like a tax, but levied by private banks against students to discourage them from not being born to wealthy enough parents to pay for their education. And if you do manage to find a job, we'll give you even more debt to buy a house at an inflated price so that people wealthy enough to know what a CDO is can profit from your ability to make your mortgage payments. But you're not so trustworthy, so they can also buy some credit default swaps that pay off when other CDOs go South... and when that whole scheme implodes, there will be a nice bailout waiting for them. (But not you, you greedy leech, looking for government handouts to avoid losing your house and your car along with your livelihood--you should have made a plan!)
It's funny how downward pressure on wages--oh, those onerous government regulations on the poor downtrodden employer--translates into the accelerated accumulation of wealth for the wealthy. It reminds me of a scheme... named after a shape... A sphere scheme? A cube scheme? What is it again...
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday September 10 2014, @09:46PM
Well, ok. But their college educated folk are able to do your work for a small fraction of the cost too.
Not "funny" in any sense of the word. It's straightforward economics. The supply of labor vastly increased without a correspondingly huge jump in demand for such labor. So the price labor can command goes down. This will stabilize when labor prices are much more inline globally, with the price of labor in China and India near the price of labor in the developed world. Meanwhile capital and other assets didn't drop in value because the supply of them didn't change. So of course, the rich, who have most of their wealth in the form of capital rather than labor, fared better.
As to those "onerous government regulations", they don't actually benefit any one aside from a few rent seekers and perhaps labor in the developing world which might get a larger share of the jobs overall. You don't see the people who would have been richer in the absence of these policies or the poor who would have been less starving. Opportunity costs are invisible.
I figure it'll be over in about 50 years no matter what sort of policies the developed world does. A country can do your "pyramid scheme" regulation, which just has the effect of making a small elite richer while making the local economy (and perhaps global economy) worse, or it can adapt to the changing times.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:25PM
No, the retirement plan is SUPPOSED to be money owed to you later in lieu of salary paid now. Of course, they'll likely pull some kind of stunt and *POOF*, no more retirement after the fact. It happens all the time and I have never heard of a court that didn't release the poor poverty stricken multinational business with it's 10 million dollar CEO from its obligation to pay money already earned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:47PM
Protip: if your business can only generate a profit because your employees are eating the government dole, you do not own a successful business, and you should not get paid.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:34PM
I would dearly love for this to be implemented and Walmart management to instantly go bankrupt. Excuse me, I think I may need to douse myself in cold water to regain my focus, I seem to be losing myself in this lovely corner of my imagination.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:10PM
If you really think the scales are tilted too far in favor of corporate owners, become one! It is (supposed to be) a free country! You can start a corporation typically with less than $100 of paperwork.
Clearly you've never actually set up a business yourself. Having a document to say you have a business does not mean that income is going to come. There are precious few businesses that need no investment. And none that are anything more than lifestyle businesses.
You may have owned shares. But that is beyond an awful lot of people. They are busy paying rent or mortgage, and (in America) for healthcare cover. Owning shares comes a long way down Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In any case retail investors tend to lose as much as they gain. The real money is made by investment banks and those with inside information. It's their profits that up the average.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by tomtomtom on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:42PM
Actually, retail investors have a huge number of advantages over institutional investors and large-scale market participants which means they ought to be able to do a lot better, all other things being equal. To take a few examples: they often have better tolerance for illiquidity, they can buy small cap and penny stocks without moving the market price, they don't need to ensure they never underperform benchmark indices by more than a certain margin, they don't need to pay an army of legal and compliance specialists, and they can often bear significant losses/drawdowns for longer periods. It is also far easier to be a contrarian as a retail investor. The fact that institutions do relatively well (before compensation paid to the individuals doing the job, which often ends up making things a wash) *despite* all that should tell you something about how much hard work is really involved in investing successfully.
Investment banks and other similar institutions make most of their profits being paid to take risks which are not really directly related to investing - they are classic middle-men. They underwrite stock and bond issues for large corporates, arrange loans and merger deals, and provide liquidity to the rest of the institutional market. These are all valuable activities (certainly to institutional investors - perhaps not directly to many retail investors) and the risks are very real (otherwise they would all have been fine throughout the period 2007-2010). Arguably they overprice those risks in some circumstances but they are effectively protected from competition by heavy regulation which makes founding a new investment bank very difficult.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 09 2014, @10:08PM
The fact that institutions do relatively well (before compensation paid to the individuals doing the job, which often ends up making things a wash) *despite* all that should tell you something about how much hard work is really involved in investing successfully.
No, it tells me that your opinion is wrong and mine is right.
the risks are very real (otherwise they would all have been fine throughout the period 2007-2010)
2008 happened because they had come to believe they couldn't lose. That's how much of an advantage they had over retail investors.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by rfree on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:09PM
Sounds like empolyees would want to buy shares then, if that's really that much of a bargain - or try to save up and together open own businesses one day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:14PM
they might have to take risk then. can't have that
employees are entitled to their income regardless of whether stockholders make a profit or a loss, but that's just not enough... stockholders should cop the risk and pay more to their employees... cos even if they lose money they must be able to afford it... right?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @02:37PM
> CEOS are entitled to their income and golden parachutes regardless of how unprofitable the company and many employees they have to lay off.
FTFY
(Score: 3, Informative) by Snow on Tuesday September 09 2014, @03:46PM
Yes, employees are entitled to wages that they worked the hours for, but guess what happens when the company isn't making enough money? Layoffs. Saying that employees carry no risk is incorrect.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:02PM
To strengthen your point:
- If the company goes bankrupt, while unpaid payroll is typically the first thing that has to be paid off, it is by no means guaranteed that there will be anything available to pay it with.
- If there aren't similar jobs in the area available with another company, the employees are risking the cost of relocation.
- There are often risks involved in being in a workplace e.g. black lung disease or toxic fumes. With OSHA and the like these are supposed to be minimized, but there are lots of professions where that risk is known and tolerated.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:17PM
Like my friend the Comcast installer - got bit by a brown recluse crawling under a house for $15/hr and almost lost his hand. Show me a shareholder with more personal risk than papercuts and eyestrain.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday September 09 2014, @07:28PM
if the majority of companies aren't paying their employees living wages, then there won't be any money to use to buy products from any companies. by shorting their workers, they're ensuring that their companies are doomed. of course, they don't care because they'll be taken care of, fuck all those filthy, unwashed peasants (who are only unwashed because their pay has been cut so much directly and due to inflation that they can't afford daily showers); if they deserved to have money they'd work harder for it, right?