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: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Friday August 03 2018, @12:12PM (6 children)
It's also bullshit both ways. It's probably similar here in Oz. The house I am in, which I bought 20 years ago, cost at that time about three times the mean annual income. Same house now, no changes to it, is worth about ten times mean annual income. (and the mean has gone up far faster than the median).
A lot of the shit people buy now couldn't be bought at any price in 1980. What was the 1980's price for a multi-gigaflop handheld computer with a 10 Mbit radio internet connection?
Without doing any rigorous analysis, what it seems to me is that housing cost (both rental and buying) has increased massively, big ticket items, (one-off consumer goods like TVs, dishwashers, washing machines, etc) are far cheaper, but there are many more on-going 'fees and charges'. Utilities have gone up, but basic groceries seem to have remained about the same.
I think many of the arguments about it are between people who have different profiles. If, like me, you bought a house many years ago, have a twenty year old car, don't spend a lot on 'social things', and mostly cook your own meals, then things seem to be getting cheaper. If you rent, go out with friends a lot, have a high data plan, and always want a modern car, then you are spending a lot of money I don't and things seem tougher all round.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Nuke on Friday August 03 2018, @01:05PM (5 children)
Putting it in a nutshell, subsistence and other basic things have become much dearer, but optional things have become generally cheaper. So the poor, who do not stretch to the optional things, are hit worse.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 03 2018, @06:43PM (4 children)
Sorry, but that's not true. Yes, housing costs have risen, and they are a basic need. But we've also doubled the average amount of living space per person since the 1970s, so people are paying more for bigger houses.
But costs for food and clothing (the other basic essentials) have plummeted in past century. "Optional things" have become much cheaper too. (I summarized a lot of this in a post a while back [soylentnews.org].)
The poor are hit worse because of increasing concentration of wealth in a small elite, as well as for reasons mentioned in the summary -- poor people today often have to cobble together a few part-time jobs and may not get benefits (healthcare is really the thing that's increased significantly in cost). As the "gig economy" grows and unions power decreases, the poor workers are stuck back in the situation like characters of out On the Waterfront, standing around on the dock hoping a ship will come in that they can get paid to load/unload today and have money to buy dinner...
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday August 03 2018, @08:46PM (2 children)
Not in the UK. Most new houses are tiny, frighteningly so to my mind. They tend to have no front gardens, and back gardens only about 20 ft deep. One reason the space per person may have increased is that there are a lot more people living single; I get the impression that most new houses are designed for them. I would not say food is relatively cheaper than in 1980 (which the previous post mentioned); I don't know about a century ago. My local supermarket now has a collection bin for donating tinned and bottled food to the poor, and I live in a prosperous area.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 03 2018, @09:23PM
Sorry, TFA was about the U.S., so that's what I was speaking to.
Maybe trends are different in the UK. I could look up stats, but I'm busy with other things at the moment... but obviously (I agree with you) trends might be different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @12:09PM
Those collection spots are only placed in relatively prosperous areas. It's a way for the grocery store to sell more food and appear to be progressive by making people feel good about themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:57PM
That's probably true, but it's not the poor that are making the decisions about how and what to build for housing. And likely they aren't even a consideration as they can't afford to buy what the developers want to sell.
The whole thing is a massive ponzi scheme and thanks to the incompetence of all administrations going back to at least Reagan, there's not going to be any funds available for stimulus the next time the economy goes bust.