SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the need-bigger-paychecks-or-shorter-weeks dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
America doesn't have a jobs crisis. It has a 'good jobs' crisis – where too much employment is insecure, and poorly paid
The official rate of unemployment in America has plunged to a remarkably low 3.8%. The Federal Reserve forecasts that the unemployment rate will reach 3.5% by the end of the year.
But the official rate hides more troubling realities: legions of college grads overqualified for their jobs, a growing number of contract workers with no job security, and an army of part-time workers desperate for full-time jobs. Almost 80% of Americans say they live from paycheck to paycheck, many not knowing how big their next one will be.
[...] The typical American worker now earns around $44,500 a year, not much more than what the typical worker earned in 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Although the US economy continues to grow, most of the gains have been going to a relatively few top executives of large companies, financiers, and inventors and owners of digital devices.
[...] Not even the current low rate of unemployment is forcing employers to raise wages. Contrast this with the late 1990s, the last time unemployment dipped close to where it is today, when the portion of national income going into wages was 3% points higher than it is today.
[...] By the mid-1950s more than a third of all private-sector workers in the United States were unionized. In subsequent decades public employees became organized, too. Employers were required by law not just to permit unions but to negotiate in good faith with them. This gave workers significant power to demand better wages, hours, benefits, and working conditions. (Agreements in unionized industries set the benchmarks for the non-unionized).
[...] Today, fewer than 7% of private-sector workers are unionized, and public-employee unions are in grave jeopardy, not least because of the supreme court ruling. The declining share of total US income going to the middle since the late 1960s – defined as 50% above and 50% below the median – correlates directly with that decline in unionization. (See chart below).
[...] This great shift in bargaining power, from workers to corporations, has pushed a larger portion of national income into profits and a lower portion into wages than at any time since the second world war. In recent years, most of those profits have gone into higher executive pay and higher share prices rather than into new investment or worker pay. Add to this the fact that the richest 10% of Americans own about 80% of all shares of stock (the top 1% owns about 40%), and you get a broader picture of how and why inequality has widened so dramatically.
[...] It is no coincidence that all three branches of the federal government, as well as most state governments, have become more "business-friendly" and less "worker-friendly" than at any time since the 1920s. As I've noted, Congress recently slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. [...] The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009, and is now about where it was in 1950 when adjusted for inflation.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:32AM (6 children)
Learned any lesson so far? No? Picture me unsurprised.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @01:09PM
No, the DNC elected Trump instead of Bernie. In fact, the DNC is so far still completely unable to admit their fuck-up.
But was it really a fuck-up? Trump seems to have given them the perfect excuse to go on an Orwellian crusade against "fake news." Facebook censorship targets the left [wsws.org]:
There you have it, folks. Facebook is going to shut down "fake news," and what "fake news" looks like is opposition to Hillary Clinton from the left.
"Fake news" opposing Hillary Clinton from the right will never be shut down, because that is not the intention. Instead we see CNN promoting and publicizing some hysterical conspiracy theory having to do with bad Reddit haiku and QAnon.
Overtures of impeachment have been a drawn-out, dramatic reality TV show with the sole intention of distraction from what's really going on. Does anybody here except our obvious DNC shill really think that if the Democratic Party gains control of Congress in November, they will begin the impeachment process to remove Trump from office?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by srobert on Friday August 03 2018, @04:40PM (1 child)
By "*You*", you could mean me. I didn't vote for Trump. But I voted for Bernie in the primaries. And I warned Democrats in the spring of 2016 that if they nominated Hillary, they would lose my vote in November, which they did. I warned that I thought there were a lot of people who were going to vote the same way I did. People like me are the real reason Trump won. If you watch CNN, you might think it was because of Russia.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:29PM
Pretty much. Hillary promised absolutely nothing to the voters, she chased after GOP and Independent voters that despise her and failed to offer the progressive wing of the party anything. And enough of us either didn't vote at all or voted for somebody else.
Being the party that's not quite as bad as the other party only works for so long. At some point you have to have actual policies to improve the lives of the people in your district. And the DNC still doesn't recognize this. They should have gotten rid of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi after they lost so many seats, but they're still party leaders despite being completely incompetent at anything other than being corrupt crooks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:41PM (2 children)
Nah, don't want to end up eating zoo animals and have bread lines. You can always move to Venezuela though. Let us know how it goes.
(Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Friday August 03 2018, @10:21PM (1 child)
Venezuela is as much an indictment of "socialism" (which right-wingers never bother to properly define so I have no idea what they mean by this word) as Somalia is an indictment of libertarianism. There's a vast space of possible societies that exist between those two examples of failed states. When someone in the USA advocates for "socialism" they usually mean something more precisely closer to "social democracy" which looks like Denmark, Germany, or Japan (in increasing order of economic conservatism). The libertarians have a harder time since their preferred societies don't actually exist, and never have. At least the social democrats have extant examples they can point to and emulate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @05:00AM
Venezuela.
Your arguments have been debunked.