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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:07PM (4 children)
... except for the parts that aren't.
Like, how less of the population proportionally is in relative poverty than 50 years ago, and how absolute poverty is a statistical outlier in the US.
Like, how social services are more accessible and better funded than they were 50 years ago.
Like, how a large part of the problem with the unions isn't that people are clamouring to get in and can't, but are clamouring to get out and have been.
Like, how wages are rising, but in specific fields or locations. Not that long ago we had stories about non-poaching agreements between fast food chains. There are building contractors who will pay handsomely for people to do roofing, but they can't get them. It's not a uniform landscape.
I won't address all of this, but the last part is dramatically wrong. Policies may have been more big-business-friendly (where big business here is any organisation that can hire the paper pushers to deal with the thicket of regulations) but have been absolutely punishing to smaller businesses. Funnily enough, Trump ran against that regulatory mill, and got a lot of support on that plank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @07:03PM (2 children)
I look forward to the day when the wealthy deign to provide "adequate" food, shelter and education for the poor huddling masses of poor people. Your life will be ground into dust as you toil to maintain decent living quarters and a few amenities and you'll be safe in the knowledge that if something happens you'll still have a 6x6 room and regular slop meals.
Perhaps absolute poverty has decreased, but the average American is closer to poverty than they ever were before while the rich are getting richer. Besides, #2 is a lie, social services are less accessible and less funded than previous years.
Unions? Well they got taken over by corrupt bastards, much like the rest of society. That isn't a strong argument.
Wages are rising? Haha, where again? Show me these imaginary jobs paying high wages. Perhaps you're just hanging around a bar hearing some business owner bitch and moan a lot?
I will agree that small businesses need to have an easier time getting started and we should review the various regulations to see if they really make sense. Simply removing them all, such as environmental protections, is a terrible idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:26PM (1 child)
You can buy a farm for $20k and have a good life with freedom, relative material wealth, all the most healthiest food you can eat and a healthy lifestyle. In what ways are farmers poor?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @12:47AM
For the benefit of the peanut gallery, because parent is obviously trolling. At least, I would hope nobody is that naïve and/or stupid.
You can buy unimproved farmland for $20k. (Around $1k per acre in my neck of the woods--doing a quick search yields around $32-$48k for 40 acre parcels.)
Then you need additional capital to work the land. Don't forget grain storage (most farms I see have 2 or 3 silos) and a barn and any other necessary structures. My grandparents' farm had a barn, a workshop/machine shop, and a separate equipment storage building (think tractors and PTO equipment, combines, bailers, wagons, etc). I remember there was a dual diesel/kerosene pump near the equipment storage (implying underground tanks which would need to be dug on unimproved land).
If you're going to elect to use beasts of burden instead of modern farming equipment, those will have different expenses you need to account for.
Most people want to live on their farmland, so you're also looking at buying a double-wide, installing a septic tank, digging a well, etc etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:31PM
What is the difference between relative and absolute poverty? How are they measured?