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, @08:27AM (5 children)
Move to the 3rd world, half your salary, but become the top 1% in the region.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday August 03 2018, @10:39AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Flyingmoose on Friday August 03 2018, @12:43PM (3 children)
Living in Cebu, Philippines right now.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday August 03 2018, @01:45PM (2 children)
Every time I see "Cebu", I get this song stuck in my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uv8Ej4CEoQ&t=103 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Snow on Friday August 03 2018, @04:54PM (1 child)
Haha, that's pretty funny! It's a catchy tune.
They used to make us watch that crap in Catholic school.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RS3 on Friday August 03 2018, @05:25PM
Now I feel badly- I should have added a disclaimer: Mute audio. This tune can not be unheard. You've been warned.
(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.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:32AM (42 children)
This is not surprising. You can have people with good jobs, six figure salaries living in a cheaper area and still living paycheck to paycheck and yet have immigrants earning minimum wage saving enough over years to buy houses with cash.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:38AM (15 children)
If you apologize for illegals depressing wage growth and increasing housing costs while paying no taxes - you are financially illiterate.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:41AM (10 children)
And if not?
Nothing in the above suggests the topic is illegal immigrants.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @09:18AM (9 children)
You can't pay cash for a house working minimum wage unless it's a retirement property. Do the maths deducting rent, living costs and taxes.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @09:44AM (6 children)
How about living in a caravan and having the meals covered by food stamps?
Nothing suggested it's not about buying a retirement property.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @10:58AM (5 children)
Why is the government subsidising working people?
Don't have children, never spend any money and right before you die, you may be able to afford an asset that's overpriced due to immigration. Welcome to the American Dream. One offer per person, terms and conditions apply.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:45AM (3 children)
Worth your fate, then.
Cause it ain't the immigrants that rob you, it's the 1%-ers that take your money and the immigrants' money. all the same.
The difference between the immigrants and you? The immigrants manage to tighten their ass and grow some kids on the same or lower income as you.
All the while you are skulking over the immigrants instead of looking for who takes the money from both of you.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @12:18PM
Immigration places downwards pressure on wages and upwards pressure on property prices. A growing percentage of the population cannot afford to buy a home and raise a family without government assistance. The top 10% disproportionately pay for that assistance [dailysignal.com] and it is unsustainable. [wikipedia.org]
Sorry, no. We're discussing economics, not my personal finances.
That's not the poverty trap. Reread the first paragraph above until you understand it.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday August 03 2018, @12:28PM (1 child)
FTFY. But don't worry, the Western way of life (living on credit, throwing perfectly good stuff away, over-eating, designer clothes, must have latest shiny) will soon rub off on them - although they will still churn out those hordes of kids. As things are going, in a generation or two the USA (and maybe Europe too) will look like a combination of India and Mexico today and maybe the whites (those still around) will be in reservations. The One-Worlders actually want that, it would be the culmination of their self-hate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:49PM
What brought about such insanity? Or is your name indicative of being a North Korea plant? Hopeful, crazy, and insanely dedicated to making the world worse?
(Score: 2) by julian on Friday August 03 2018, @10:23PM
"Don't have children" is fundamentally good advice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:01PM (1 child)
I did. There are thousands of houses for sale around the US in the sub $20k range. Most are fixers, but a couple of year of fixing was enough to make it rentable and also to get a loan for an even better house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @12:04AM
I'm pretty sure GP was talking about people who weren't living in their mother's basement while earning the $20k for a fixer-upper to flip.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday August 03 2018, @10:42AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:35AM
Come on - that's not the driver of house pricing, it's simple supply and demand with an unhealthy dose of cheap credit forcing prices upwards.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @01:32PM (1 child)
There immigrants in Europe and Canada and they don't have wage issues there.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:44PM
That's the thing. The issue with wages isn't the immigrants, the number of jobs that they can do is relatively small compared with what somebody born here can do. There used to be many janitors in the US with PhDs in things like nuclear physics because they didn't have the language skills for better jobs and there were already enough people working those jobs.
What depresses wages is the extremely low interest rates and tax structure. If we had a tax structure that encouraged poorer people to save and discouraged the hoarding of money by the wealthy we'd see an income distribution where it's realistic to expect that all but the very poorest would be saving money for the future. As it is, the government encourages the people with money to invest it in companies that try to return as much of the ROI as possible to the investors with no safety valve or sanity check on the process to protect the poorest from working for essentially nothing.
There shouldn't be people with full time jobs that are homeless or on government assistance.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 03 2018, @08:39AM (18 children)
90% of statistics are bullshit. Have a citation for yours or is just annecdotes that you share?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:49AM (10 children)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/94-percent-of-americans-failed-this-financial-literacy-quiz.html [cnbc.com]
http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/financial-literacy/ [fortune.com]
https://annexwealth.com/polls/4-hardest-questions/ [annexwealth.com]
https://www.financialeducatorscouncil.org/financial-literacy-statistics/ [financialeducatorscouncil.org]
http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/financial-literacy/ [fortune.com]
https://www.creditdonkey.com/illiteracy-in-america.html [creditdonkey.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2010/08/24/financial-illiteracy-is-killing-us/#bd9d3084ac42 [forbes.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Friday August 03 2018, @10:59AM (6 children)
Yeh, I took that test ( top item ). I think its kinda bogus, in the matter that different people have different circumstances.
I will cite the first question about how much money you should save up for a rainy day. They cite the correct answer as three to six months.
Now, I felt the correct answer was "One year or more". I am am fundamentally an analog electronic engineer, and dabble in power, embedded software, robotics, and refrigeration. I knew there is a good chance that when I am let go, at my age, I would likely never regain employment, or if I did, it would be working for a bottom-feeder who is going to offer me something I will have to take a loss to accept. I am quite used to the word "overqualified". Which is the legal word for "age discrimination". I can't blame 'em for it either... I flat do not have the energy anymore to put on theater for the executive types. Every hour spent for presentation skills is another hour I get no useful technical work done. Even things like dressing up for office presentation would drain off significant amounts of time and energy.
Yeh - I'm simply getting old. I won't push my old van hard either... all I will do is blow the thing up. Easy does it and that van will last me the rest of my life, but I am not racing any BMW's ( or MBA's ) .
I knew if I was to have a job after Corporate, I would most likely have to make my own job.
And I was right. I got laid off from my last corporate job. Never got into another. At my age, I did not want to go all over the country chasing a job, and going through all that expense of selling and buying a home all over again. It was very obvious to me there were a lot of people chasing the same jobs I was, and a lot of them seemed to have no qualms about claiming rockstar status. I've been in this game long enough to not promise that which I am not sure I can deliver... and the kind of engineering I have always done has been right at the bleeding edge... where sometimes I can get it to work, and sometimes I can't. I am not at the point where I can take the sustained psychological stress of a manager riding my ass anymore.
If I had not been as fastidious about keeping my financial support infrastructure stable by living within my means and staying out of debt, I would have been in trouble big-time.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nuke on Friday August 03 2018, @12:50PM (5 children)
I took the first test too, and even allowing for the fact that I am a European, it is bullshit. Skipped the first question as it is about US healthcare costs, but seeing we have just been told that 80% of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck, I wonder you don't all die at 65 or soon after - or long before. Second question was badly worded "If you purchase a bond and interest rates rise, what will happen to the price of the bond?"; well in the UK you cannot generally sell a bond once you have bought it (if that is what they mean) - that's why it is called a "bond". Maybe there are exceptions.
Third question, how long you expect to live after the age of 65, is irrrelevant financially to me and most in UK - in retirement we generally live on pensions till death not savings. Anyway, I don't go on average; in my 50's I don't have anything wrong with me and never have had. Last question - rate of inflation of tuition fees - irrelevant except for people paying for tuition.
The more I read about the USA the more I think it must be hell to live there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @02:27PM (2 children)
If your markets have a modicum of freedom, one will get organized that can purchase your bond before maturity, conversely sell you one. If I had a UK bond, I'm sure I could liquidate it within a week.
In the US we "live" on social security in retirement too. Many Americans prefer some freedom on how they live in retirement though. Social security is our involuntary safety net, it is up to us to plan for the luxuries we will want to enjoy in retirement.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday August 03 2018, @08:21PM (1 child)
Yes, you can cash it in early, but only for the price you paid for it, and probably less than that to cover their "expenses". ie you will get no interest if you cash in before the term. The question in the quiz seemed to concern a scenario of selling it to a third party. I don't know of UK bonds that are transferable like that, but I'm not saying they don't exist.
https://www.nationwide.co.uk/products/savings/fixed-rate-bond/features-and-benefits [nationwide.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @09:12PM
I mean at Present Value, of the principal and remaining interest payments.
What you are describing is called a Certificate of Deposit in the US. Those don't usually have paper certificates to be traded easily, but we could still come to a legal agreement, where I pay you a discount on the maturity value in exchange for your promise to pay me the maturity value at the maturity date. How much of a discount, that will be based on remaining run time, current interest rates and your credit risk.
In your own example, instead of "getting no interest", the bank will charge a flat 90 day's interest. That is probably the worst deal you could possibly get, but the easiest and most liquid market since you have no paper that documents an obligation from someone with a better credit risk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:07PM (1 child)
http://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Finlit_paper_16_F2_singles.pdf [gflec.org]
So what you are saying is that most of the world is financially illiterate except americans because you think some test is bullshit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_literacy [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday August 04 2018, @08:02AM
Not at all. I think the test is bullshit.
Its a lot like many other tests I have taken, which more accurately measure the correlation to how I think with the way the test-maker thinks, and tests next to nothing about either one of us.
Some of those tests are damned frustrating... like those "which is next in the sequence" tests. I may see another sequence, be able to demonstrate why I believe my answer is just as valid as the answer the test-maker said, and I am still wrong. Well, according to the proctor, I am wrong.
All I believe the test was doing was correlating my way of thinking to the one who designed the test. Neither one of us are God. I absolutely hate those things when they show up on employment screening exams, and I am faced with your typical HR drone which seems to have the mental capacity of a washing machine.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @01:09PM (2 children)
The quiz referenced by CNBC was bullshit, in my bold opinion. Only a few questions tested financial literacy. It didn't have any questions about tax planning, savings rates, withdrawal rates, investment strategy, opportunity cost, or a plethora of important aspects of financial literacy.
Financial literacy is so much more than knowing the rate of college inflation or long you will live after 65. It is NOT knowing what the income cap is on roth IRA contributions. It is NOT knowing the difference between a call and put option. It is a mind set. It is about designing your spending around your values. It is about understanding financial topics that apply to YOUR situation. It is about educating yourself to get the most value out of your time and money. It is about choices.
I hate mainstream financial advice and mainstream financial media. E.g., cut lattes, save 10%, etc. They take the wrong approach. If you design your lifestyle where you are saving 10% of your income, it would take 5 years to build the recommended 6 month emergency fund. Some of the paycheck to paycheck problem is people mindlessly spend money and don't design their purchases and services around their needs and values. E.g., buying some trinket because it is kind of cool and only X dollars. The proper way to buy things is determine your need or want, determine the costs of options, and decide.
I will use phones and phone plans to make my point.
Phones and phone service is a great example. Most people don't need unlimited data. Unlimited data contracts have often contained ways for providers to weasel out of it. A lot of data usage can be avoided with some minor usage changes. Google maps allows you to download maps locally. Amazon video lets you do the same. Dolphin web browser can be configured to not download images and video on data.
Person A and B are co-workers and use their phones for the same things.
The typical approach to purchasing phone service is something like this: person A usually uses X GB/month, so they buy Y plan. They are used to iPhones and don't want to learn android. They take a lot of videos and pictures, so they need big storage. What would their peers think if they had a cheap Android phone? They want to look successful. They buy a $100/month phone plan and an $800 iPhone. 2 year cost: $3,200
The better way is: person B needs a phone and service to do X, Y, and Z. X can be pre downloaded, Y doesn't use much data, and Z uses a lot of space, but accumulates over time. Person B calculates that they need 1GB/month and 32 GB of space. Person B finds that microSD cards are cheap and buys a 32GB card for $15. They download the files to their PC every week. They buy a $100 Android phone and a $30/month plan. 2 year cost: $835
After 4 years, assuming new phones, we are at $6,400, and $1,670, respectively. A difference of $4,730 dollars. Both person A and B do the same things with their phone, B buys around their needs, A doesn't even think about it that way. Person A and B both need new water heaters. Person A puts it on a credit card and pays an extra $80 in interest. Person B grumbles and pays cash, and goes on a weekend get away to unwind a bit. Person A complains they can't afford it. Person A tells person B that since they have money for get aways, that they can afford a better phone...
Apply this phone process to transportation, housing, insurance, internet service, etc.
On to low wage workers with degrees. This isn't entirely their fault. They did what society told them. Higher education isn't being used as intended. Liberal arts is NOT job training. When fewer people went to college, education was a good filter for who can learn things and is reasonably intelligent. The huge push of young people to get an undergraduate degree reduced this utility. This is a tough situation, especially with student loan debt. It sucks going to college and not using the education. I have to ask if they have considered learning a skilled trade like plumbing or electrical work? What about car repair--start off with oil changes--and assist with more complex jobs? Do those kind of companies hire unskilled helpers that will eventually learn the ropes and get licensed? What about temp agencies? Starting a side business? A simple side hussle like landscaping can turn into a highly profitable business. It will be hard for these people to get out of this hole. Political action would help, but can't be counted out. Debt not applicable to bankruptcy should not exist. The best they can do is change their expectations, self educate on relevant financial topics, and make the most out of their situation. There is a great personal finance community on the internet that is not mainstream that can probably help some of these people if they are willing to make some changes. It isn't right that it has to be this way, but it is what is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @07:26PM
TLDR: Get tracphone. Yearly cost for emergency and incidental family needs calls: $100
If you need any of the other phone crap for work or your business - the work or business should provide and pay for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @05:11AM
In most cases, there is very little education beyond the basics, much like with the K-12 system. Rote memorization and one-size-fits-all approaches are popular even in colleges, because they are cheap, easy, and give the illusion of education. In most cases, people don't even recognize this as a problem, since this is all they have ever known.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:59AM (5 children)
In addition to that list, I have many anecdotes and know many immigrants, the majority of whom are doing well. Have also worked with my share of dipshit coworkers who upon getting their $125k/year job go out and buy $100k/cars and move into $2k/month apartments, eat out for every meal and fly to Europe once a month while complaining they don't have any money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:27AM (1 child)
1. Yes I'm sure the H1Bs you know from your San Fransisco / California IT job are rather well to do.
2. And I'm confident your idea of "doing well" is in consideration of how most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck so it's only natural immigrants will do no better than them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:10PM
Most of America is not in San Francisco. I don't know any H1Bs, besides, the consensus here said they were a good thing after trumpf cutback on them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday August 03 2018, @06:15PM (2 children)
It's not really that simple, and not really about financial literacy.
A few decades ago the accountant for the company I worked for retired. She was definitely NOT financially illiterate. She understood statistics. She ensured that the company followed the tax laws. Etc. She was quite competent.
She immediately cashed out her IRA and took the cash to Reno, and lost it. She ended up with a huge tax bill. But it wasn't financial illiteracy. If an engineer did the same thing, people would claim financial illiteracy, but would it be?
A lot of things people do aren't rational. They really aren't. Sometimes they work out better than a rational decision made with their priors would be. Sometimes they work out worse. Usually, though, they're made essentially out of ingrained habit, whether they're rationally justifiable or not. But explanations almost always are based on rational choices, because that's what's easy to explain. If you don't understand this, contemplate why the AI researchers are having such a hard time getting their AIs to explain why they decided what they decided.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:58PM (1 child)
Sounds like financial illiteracy to me, regardless of her previous occupation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:49PM
More likely gambling addiction.
(Score: 1) by dilbert on Friday August 03 2018, @06:35PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @09:10AM (6 children)
Are you suggesting Europeans and Chinese are more economically literate then Americans? Cause otherwise that's what we call a straw man.
(Score: 3, Touché) by G-forze on Friday August 03 2018, @09:41AM (4 children)
At least we know the difference between "then" and "than".
If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @10:33AM (2 children)
Than you think of yourself higher then the rest?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @10:52AM (1 child)
Well than, that is literally the most illiterate strawman I have ever encountered, where the man of straw is not any greater then, in an instance, we are talking about some alt-right white stuff that is racist. Know your place, white trash!@
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @03:55PM
Damn you're a triggered bit of trash. Incel alert!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:42AM
So, you're suggesting if we teach children the difference between "then" and "than" our economic problems will be resolved? Otherwise, yet another strawman. Well, adhominem, misdirection and some condescension. But as long as the other party shuts up I guess you won. So, here's your 10 Internets. Be sure to invest those wisely in Apple or whatever other scam your economic "literate" friends are currently committing while telling the people who aren't in-the-know it's their fault for wasting their time on STEM instead of picking up an MBA or BA for all that economic literacy and proper spelling.
Oh, and I know the difference. It's just muscle memory from touch typing fast if-then statements for a living. I also sometimes write which instead of witch. At least I don't duck type...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @01:23AM
The Chinese are shockingly literate when it comes to finances. They typically do all their transactions in cash because it's only been in recent times that debit cards have become common. Credit cards are relatively rare and it's hardly unheard of for them to strap enough cash to buy a car and walk into the dealership with the money to buy the car with that cash.
They also have to save their money for retirement as there wasn't historically a safety net other than their children.
So, yes, they tend to be more financially literate than we are in America. But, OTOH, it's a simpler set up and a bunch of them wind up collected scrap bottles for income in retirement.
(Score: 5, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 03 2018, @10:28AM (19 children)
Dumbass, "adjusted for inflation" means individual workers today are objectively better off than they were in 1978. The goal is to at least keep up with inflation. Everything beyond that is gravy on their standard of living.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:51AM
No, property prices massively outpaced inflation. [cnbc.com] Guess what the biggest single outgoing for most people is?
(Score: 5, Informative) by UncleSlacky on Friday August 03 2018, @11:58AM (6 children)
The point is that wages *used* to keep up with productivity increases, but they haven't since the 1970s:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-shot-2013-05-08-at-4.11.45-PM.png [nakedcapitalism.com]
(Score: 3, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 03 2018, @02:32PM (5 children)
Wages should never be linked to productivity increases. That's fucking insane. Idiocy like that would have auto workers making millions a year since they're able to get hundreds of times more productivity per person than they could in Henry Ford's day. And cars would cost so much that not even the auto workers could afford them.
Wages should be linked to the value of the job being done as determined by a competitive employment market (competition both on the employee and employer sides). With twelve inch anchor chain.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:53PM (4 children)
Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest.
We don't have a competitive employment market and morons like you are a large part of why we don't. Even now when unemployment is so low that companies are lowering their standards to make hires, the wages being offered still aren't increasing to reflect the imbalance.
As far as linking productivity to wages, of course they should be linked. Why should some rich people get to keep their ill-gotten gains when it was some poor schlub that has to do the actual work and risk losing their job in the future when productivity renders it redundant?
As far as linking value to pay, that's barely any better than the current system as it's the employer that decides what the work is worth and has no particular issue at setting the wages at a starvation rate knowing that there isn't a UBI or other meaningful backstop to prevent people from quitting en masse.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @10:09PM (1 child)
But his simplistic wisdom just RESONATES with a certain segment of the population. TMB really doesn't wanna see the Venn diagram of people who mod him up and people who support Trump. He considers himself a liberal apparently, and sadly compared to the general political climate in the US I'd have to agree. Our country went insane thanks to the propaganda efforts of the GOP and their affiliates.
For the obvious rebuttal of "but lookit all the crazy environmentalist SJWs!" I'll reply ahead of time that no Democrat politician is anywhere near as far out as the real extremist liberals, but look at our current Vice President and you can see he is about as nutty as some of the religious extremists affectionately known as ASSIS.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:27AM
Um, I get to see who mods me whenever I look at one of my comments. Wanna know a secret though? I don't give a shit who agrees with me. That's making the person doing the arguing more important than the argument and I am not a cult of personality kind of guy. Have fun with it if that's your thing though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:26AM
That actually got a chuckle. But, your comment is already overrated, so I'm not modding you funny.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:28AM
Stealing that for my sig.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by tekk on Friday August 03 2018, @12:08PM (3 children)
They're as good as they were *in 1978* *with respect to inflation. A lot of things have outpaced inflation, such as the cost of education, housing, and healthcare.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Nuke on Friday August 03 2018, @12:55PM (1 child)
Oh, but computers are much cheaper. Myself, I live in a secondhand mainframe I picked up cheap, and I eat Android tablets. Much cheaper than they were in 1978. Stop whinging you people and adapt to the times.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Friday August 03 2018, @02:15PM
How did you got adjusted to the fan noise? I needed to sell mine because of it - I ended buying the casing of a jet engine to make meself sort of an igloo.
Nutritions indeed, but are they getting me a heartburn or what? Especially the earlier cheap models with resistive screens.
I long for the time I could snack on iPods - crunchy, tasty but didn't last long - fancy food, see?
But one mustn't complain, could have been worse; luckily, the Windows phones didn't stick - a proper shit their are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 03 2018, @02:33PM
Yeah, I have that beef with how inflation is calculated as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @10:41AM (11 children)
Remember this horseshit?:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2003-07-27/welcome-to-the-amazing-jobless-recovery [bloomberg.com]
Seems like every time a Republican president fixes a Democrat's economic fuckup, our betters in the media come out to trumpet "It's not a real recovery!" But who are you gonna believe, these assholes or the cash in your wallet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @11:53AM (5 children)
Best Ramones reference in this whole discussion.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 03 2018, @02:35PM (3 children)
Yeah, shit like this story just make me think how much I wanna be sedated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Snow on Friday August 03 2018, @06:09PM (2 children)
Wow, I've never realized how much I also want you sedated until you mentioned it!
:P
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:34AM (1 child)
Was that your way of saying you want to buy me a beer? Well, free is my favorite type of beer but if you have anything further in mind, you're going to be disappointed. I am now and most likely always will be all about the boobies.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Snow on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:39AM
I'd buy anyone on SN a beer. I'd buy you a couple.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @01:28AM
Except Herman's Hermits used this lyric first...
(Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Friday August 03 2018, @03:11PM (3 children)
Ahh, yes, I remember the Democratic President we had during the biggest downturn in recent decades: in 2008.
Wait, what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:37PM (2 children)
But after a few years of being in office, everything was well and truly fucked up. I know I'm not the only one who was on unemployment for damn near 2 years. I voted for Obama, but he was a liar, and everything sucked during those years, and it's still pretty shitty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:51PM
Welcome to the consequences of 2000-2008 with the war profiteering and insane debt we heaped on just so we could blow up Iraq for no reason. I feel safer already!!! /s
Obama was a liar and deserves scorn, but don't pile the blame on the wrong administration.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday August 03 2018, @07:22PM
> I know I'm not the only one who was on unemployment for damn near 2 years.
> I voted for Obama, but he was a liar, and everything sucked during those years, and it's still pretty shitty.
I see you spent all your spare time learning about the Great Depression, and how long it took to get out of it.
Only 2 years, given the clusterfuck left by W, is a pretty good score.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:59PM
Precisely when has a Republican ever fixed an economy that a Democrat messed up? It's been a bare minimum of 50 years since that happened. Nixon fucked up the economy that Carter subsequently got blamed for. I suppose you could argue that Clinton caused the dot com bust, but W didn't really fix that, the damage still hasn't been fixed and his incompetent fiscal policies led to the largest recession in nearly a century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)
Fuck you, I got mine!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:36AM
No you don't, I took it and distributed it among the homeless. Now they have more than you. Enjoy socialism.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @05:29PM (1 child)
The more I read about the US, the more I'm reminded of the Ferengi. It seems like the US health 'industry' has been very diligent in their studies of the Rules of Acquisition. These few in particular seem to apply pretty consistently:
5 Always exaggerate your estimates.
6 Never allow (the patients') family to stand in the way of opportunity.
13 Anything worth doing is worth doing for money.
19 Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
23 Nothing is more important than your health... except for your money.
82 The flimsier the product, the higher the price.
87 Learn the customer's weaknesses, so that you can better take advantage of him.
141 Only fools pay retail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:28PM
Ever try to get a refund for preventable complications, such as many of the deaths and injuries in the other article? We can cite another rule:
I'll bet none of those mothers (the ones who are still alive and doing science...) who were injured by incompetence ever got a refund of any kind.
(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?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 03 2018, @07:05PM (2 children)
First, obviously a lot of these trends have to do with the top 10% or 1% or 0.1% or whatever taking a much larger piece of economic gains in the past half-century. Obviously.
But the "paycheck to paycheck" thing is absolutely not a "poor person" phenomenon exclusively. I've had friends and colleagues who earn middle class salaries (or even upper middle class) with little family to support and live "paycheck to paycheck" because they simply don't know how to save. They spend until money in their account goes down to zero, and then they start the process over again. (I had a friend who actually taught high-school physics and clearly understood math on an advanced level, who also did this.)
For many folks, they also make a lot of stupid financial decisions because they don't understand basic math. They don't understand loan terms and how significant their effects may be. They don't understand compound interest and how significant its effects may be. Without such basic math knowledge, they can't evaluate financial decisions or the impact that savings (or spending or loans) may have.
Someone above pointed out that most Americans are financially illiterate. Then a link to a survey was posted, and everyone was critiquing the questions there, which do seem to be a bit stupid. But that doesn't mean the broader point isn't true -- most Americans ARE financially illiterate.
I may have told this anecdote before, but when I was younger, I taught high school math for a few years. In my very first year, I was teaching Algebra II (among other things) at a mostly minority lower-class school. I was the last math teacher almost all these kids would ever see in their lives. And one day as we were talking about exponents in expressions, I happened to mention compound interest. And I realized that out of the ~150 students I had in my 6 sections of math that year, only 2 students knew what I meant by that or even understood the basic concept.
So, despite what the required state curriculum said, I threw out my lesson plans for the next few weeks and gave the students a crash course in basic financial math, so they wouldn't leave high school not understanding what an interest rate was or the power of compound interest or what basic loan/mortgage terms were or what a return on an investment means. I didn't advise them how to spend money -- I just wanted them to be able to make a reasonable decision when some loan shark offers them a "too good to be true" option, or to realize how money grows with compound interest over time.
I don't know if it stuck. I hope that maybe some percentage of students got something out of that. They certainly were more interested in that than putting conic section equations in standard form (which the state mandated curriculum recommended we spend quite a few weeks on).
People get worried about kids who can't add or multiple or make change. Meanwhile, math curricula keep pushing huge amounts of students through years of algebra, pre-calc, and even calculus in high school, when those students don't understand practical math AT ALL. Mental math can be useful, but I'm more concerned about how we can output students who took math for 12 years or more and can't make a reasonable mathematical decision on a mortgage -- perhaps the BIGGEST numerical decision they will likely make in their entire lives.
That's a serious issue, and it was a huge contributor to the housing crisis a decade ago that led to an economic crash. Yes, we can blame bad regulators and bad banks and bad lenders for easy credit -- but how about an educational system that graduates huge numbers of young people who don't have the basic numeracy to do incredibly simple financial planning for themselves??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:35AM
Why you bother? The loan shark will explain it all quite simply when you're late with the first payment.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:48AM
The education system fails even before it reaches the compound interest level. The most simple, the most basic skill of "value" is neglected. Somewhere in my education history, there were attempts to make us understand value.
An item costs twenty dollars, and has a life expectancy of twenty uses. A similar item costs forty dollars, and has a life expectancy of hundreds of uses. Which has the greater value?
We all witness decisions every day, in which the buy purchases the less valuable item. Sometimes, the item with greater value is actually priced LESS than the item with lesser value.
Someone is dying for an example. Walk into your local hardware store or farmer's coop. Walk into the gardening tools section. The price range can be surprising. Hickory handled tools are expensive, while wooden handled tools using pine are less expensive. Most of the time, the fiberglass or plastic handled tools are considerably cheaper than either. I have found that those fiberglass handles last, and last, and last, even in the hands of people who abuse their tools, and even in the hands of people who leave tools out in the weather. Hickory handles suffer abuse pretty nicely, but they don't like being left out in the elements. Plastic handles suck in all respects. But those cheap wooden handles are the worst. They will readily break even in the hands of a skilled worker who never abuses his tools.
Figuring the value and the quality of an item is a lost art. It is simply not taught, because it would interfere with our whole mass marketing philosophy in the US.
Economists would have heart attacks if people started to demand only high quality items, with high value. The junk tools market would dry up overnight. That would be bad enough, but those shoppers would soon begin applying those demands to other markets. Imagine how it would affect business when homes and automibiles were subjected to the same scrutiny.