Union Dock Workers in Long Beach, CA went on strike 8 months ago and brought a multi-billion dollar operation to a halt. Clogging the ports for weeks at a time- The reason was they didn't want to be forced to CO-PAY $10 dollars for their prescription pharmacy [current co-pay $0]. This is a cadre of high school educated people who make over $165,000 per year and have lifetime pensions. They refuse to modernize their workforce during collective bargaining, and this multi-billion dollar enterprise is computer free and runs off in triplicate paper copies.. you know ..The Pink-The Green-The White Copy. This is what Unions do- They stymie modernization and create an artificial middle class- One big business is all to happy to dismantle and move overseas. If American Union labor refuses to modernize and streamline its' workforce, then no wonder their ownership will continue to move outside the United States to pay next to nothing salaries appropriate to operating in triplicate color copies.
18
No mystery here - our corporate oligarchy has worked hard to transition America from a consumer to an investor-driven economy, and has been amply rewarded with ALEC style legislation by a government indifferent to the needs of the American working and middle classes.
Gilens and Page nailed it a couple years ago: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
Indeed, wage increases are anathema to our corporate overlords and their legislative water carriers.
Gilens and Page nailed it a couple years ago: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
Indeed, wage increases are anathema to our corporate overlords and their legislative water carriers.
28
–All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery. During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4% — or, 95% of the total gain — while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%.
26
Interestingly, the author did not mention perhaps the greatest contributor to wage depression and that is the ever increasing health care costs. The greater the amount that employers pay for health insurance then the lesser amount can be used for wage growth. The more that employers have to pay for benefits and overhead the less that is available for wages.
The new health legislation has increased health care costs for employers which further depresses wage growth.
The new health legislation has increased health care costs for employers which further depresses wage growth.
27
I'd like someone to explain to me just WHY it is that American workers don't see the obvious benefit of organizing themselves to bargain collectively for wages and other terms of employment.
36
The Wood River Valley of Idaho is an interesting place to observe. Originally with an economy based on mines and sheep raising, in the 1930s it became a ski resort owned by a railroad which ran a special line to bring in the tourists. For many years it was a place for movie stars and the rich and 'ski bums." Gradually, as the American economy grew in the 50s and 60s it became a place where families could afford to vacation in winter and summer. New owners developed the land, building schools, condos and small homes and new ski lifts were added to the point where it became quite crowded. Eventually it was bought by a wealthy Mormon family who own Sinclair Oil, hotels, etc. as a tax write-off. They built fancy day lodges, brought in workers from other countries , mostly France and Peru, displacing the college kids who had worked there for several generations. The houses got bigger or smaller and down Valley. Even ski instructors only get $10.00 and hour for teaching those $100 an hour private lessons or $40.00 per person half-day class lessons, and if they are teaching little kids, don't even get a lunch break because they have to supervise the "all-day" kids and see that they are fed. (Vail is discussing raising the top Certified instructors to $18.00 an hour, but it hasn't been agreed to last I heard). And lift tickets are now so expensive, there are no lift lines, even at Christmas. Good for the wealthy, but not so much for families!
17
In 1975, our graduate studies classroom, students of political economy, were given a peek at what was coming out of the "Chicago School," and it looked very "threatening" to the political status quo - labor in particular.
Great Gaia, they were proposing that everyone's savings could be wielded to force political states, whole regions, to accept modification of laws so that capital would be assured a healthy return on investment. Failure to comply would see that investment travel on until it found "fertile ground."
Finance capital is still in the Cat Bird's seat.
Great Gaia, they were proposing that everyone's savings could be wielded to force political states, whole regions, to accept modification of laws so that capital would be assured a healthy return on investment. Failure to comply would see that investment travel on until it found "fertile ground."
Finance capital is still in the Cat Bird's seat.
7
Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote.
Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote.
Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote.
Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote.
Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote.
51
Bring back the unions. Does no one see the relationship between low-paid workers and loss of union representation?
30
Under-employment may also be big factor in the wage equation. There are many smart graduates working in low skill jobs (think 2008-2011 grads working retail etc) actively looking for better opportunities. These people are not reflected in the unemployment numbers but still represent significant slack in the labor markets.
20
Businesses exist to provide a return their owners (shareholders, partners or sole proprietors), not to provide jobs, health care or social cohesion. If Apple, Ford, Goldman Sachs, Safeway, a farm in Iowa, or the local bodega could make the same profit with less employees, they would. Labor is an expense, and no government policy or labor union is going to change that fact. A key fact the author ignores is increasing productivity. As technology and human knowledge improve, fewer but more skilled people are required to assemble a car, build a phone, trade bonds, stock shelves or harvest an acre of wheat. People with knowledge and skills will reap an increasing share of national income since they produce an increasing and disproportionate amount of economic value, and people without knowledge and skills will reap a diminishing amount of national income. The question then becomes a social one: Do we proved help and assistance those left behind or struggling, or do we leave them to fend for themselves?
13
The real mystery is why the Fed does not publicize the shrunken labor force but instead extols a low unemployment rate. But I guess it is not the medias job to question political choices, even when public officials are clearly dressing public reports to excuse payouts to big banks which hold their retirements.
10
There are about 180 million more Americans than in 1951 even as tech & globalization have dramatically reduced the need for US-based human labor. Supply and demand...
14
It is folly to expect corporations to redistribute income. That is the role of the government. Raise the corporate tax and use the proceeds to subsidize workers. Is that too simple a solution to a complex problem?
21
Actually, while take-home pay has stayed flat, employers and workers have been adding ~$100 Billion annually to health care spending. Chances are if the graph showing wages from '09 to '15 were to show how much the employers paid out in benefits it would show a completely different picture.
17
The self-serving performance of corporate boards and the executives who report to them has degenerated into a gluttonous orgy of stuffing each others' pockets while patting each others' backs, facilitated by lackey politicians who grovel and growl over which of them gets to lick up the most leavings.
We need legislation from the stockholders and the public to tie the executive compensation to that of the lower third of workers. "Trickle down" is not ever going to happen voluntarily, nor will the market somehow force it to occur.
The only way that corporate leaders will consider the well being of their workers is if their own money is tied to them.
We need legislation from the stockholders and the public to tie the executive compensation to that of the lower third of workers. "Trickle down" is not ever going to happen voluntarily, nor will the market somehow force it to occur.
The only way that corporate leaders will consider the well being of their workers is if their own money is tied to them.
15
interesting ad placement next to the opinion piece; "The ultimate global address 88 condominium residences immediate delivery 50 United Nations Plaza" am I supposed to afford this on my recent pay raise (after a perfect evaluation mind you) of 2%? my raise is .34 cents an hour. woohoo
16
It's not just corporations, it's governments too. State government workers in my department didn't get COL raises for four years even as health insurance premiums increased every year. We were told, "Just be glad you still have a job." Of course, we live in a red state run by Republicans who won't raise income taxes, just sales tax on working people.
22
The closer we get to the top of a business enterprise, the more extreme becomes the greed and inequality. When the CEO of Del Monte, Rick Wolford, who was 67 at the time, decided that he would rather sell the company to private equity than retire, he received a $70 million payoff. The private equity buyers then laid off hundreds of employees, many of whom had been with the company for years, split the company in two and sold the pieces to other buyers.
24
Why give the people who actually work for a living a raise? There's solid gold toilets to buy and yachts to buy. And other more expendable commodities, like pliable Republican "legislators."
17
While not a global explanation, three letters do go a long way in explaining wage suppression in many professions and industries --> h1b. Why hire and pay for middle class American works (of all races and nation backgrounds) when you can bring in slaves from India (and to a lesser extent China and Russia).
32
Where my husband has worked for twenty years, managers rate people based on how little they can give out in raises. Actual performance doesn't matter. If an employee works hard and does an excellent job, they are not given a raise based on that. My husband has worked hard and done things well beyond what his job requires, but gets tiny raises (like most the people there) that often don't even cover the increase in health insurance costs, though he works for a health care system. But the CEO is the highest paid head of a health care organization in Wisconsin. Even people who do a superior job don't necessarily get decent wages.
35
It is very simple, the government is running up the costs of business through the roof with regulations, health care, high corporate taxes, while at the same time pouring money into their favorite causes (like green jobs that don't exist) while neglecting roads, bridges, ports and other infrastructure.
Then there are extra benefits being mandated for federal workers, that don't affect pay for work but increase costs for not doing any work. Folks there is only so much money to go around and it is all being funneled into the Federal Government. The Federal Government is not the 1%, they are the top one/one hundredth thousand of one percent.
So keep voting for the people who want bigger government if you don't want a raise.
Then there are extra benefits being mandated for federal workers, that don't affect pay for work but increase costs for not doing any work. Folks there is only so much money to go around and it is all being funneled into the Federal Government. The Federal Government is not the 1%, they are the top one/one hundredth thousand of one percent.
So keep voting for the people who want bigger government if you don't want a raise.
11
Mr. Greenhouse, how can you use so many words to describe the problem at hand without using the glaringly obvious word "greed"? The motive is as serious a threat as the economics are.
45
It is simple. The market does not work. If those who own the means of production do not want to give raises, they know there is someone in the world who will do the job for less. If you starve the peasants they will obey. Pure Capitalism is incompatible with democracy. Employers were also fed a couple generations of propaganda that the one thing the cannot afford is to hire an American. The only way we get rid of our under employment problem is the way we are solving it; by making the USA a low wage country. Or we could embrace a more socialistic economy where the captains of finance do not call the shots
47
Part of the reason is the supply of workers; the official unemployment statistics understate reality we all experience. Those who haven't looked for work for months are no longer counted. Millions of workers are no longer in the workforce, any many millions more feel underemployed compared to their skills and labor. We as a society need to adjust our understanding and expectations, in this global world. We are importing cheap goods from other places, built and served by workers willing to work for less. Equilibrium will be reached, it's the way of nature and jobs are flowing downhill naturally to lower cost places.
8
Supply and demand.
Yet our immigration policies, which are set by the rich, make sure that there will always be a surplus of workers, so wages will never rise for anyone but the 1%...if only there was a real difference between the political parties when it came to immigration.
Yet our immigration policies, which are set by the rich, make sure that there will always be a surplus of workers, so wages will never rise for anyone but the 1%...if only there was a real difference between the political parties when it came to immigration.
15
At the large non-profit university where I work, over the past decade, our wages have been frozen for two years and the other eight years we get 1.5-2% raises. (This comes to about $60 a month after taxes...whoopee.) Every worker bee is poorer than they were a decade ago, as inflation has exceeded income, while the workload has increased exponentially, as there has been a hiring freeze for the past 10 years.
The university president received at 25% raise in 2013, bringing his salary to $1.5 million.
He also lives rent free in a huge apartment overlooking Washington Square Park. The university gave him a 1.9% $800,000 mortgage to renovate his summer home. That mortgage was forgiven at 20% a year, at which point he will retire on his $800,000 pension.
No need ask if the rest of us have pensions, is there?
The university president received at 25% raise in 2013, bringing his salary to $1.5 million.
He also lives rent free in a huge apartment overlooking Washington Square Park. The university gave him a 1.9% $800,000 mortgage to renovate his summer home. That mortgage was forgiven at 20% a year, at which point he will retire on his $800,000 pension.
No need ask if the rest of us have pensions, is there?
70
Given an increasing population, outsourcing to low wage countries, advancing automation, and the profit motive, there is an ever increasing number of folks wanting good paying jobs relative to the number of good paying jobs available. Relatively speaking. Wages will never significantly rise again for most people. Why should they? We will have an ever increasing poorer underclass getting entitlements (payoffs) from a much smaller wealthier upper class until the upper class decides not to pay. It's crony capitalism folks. Corporations are in business to maximize profits, not provide jobs. So that's what they do. America is well on its way to becoming a third world country. The worsening level of income inequality is a sure sign of this. The pitchforks are coming and the end game won't be pretty.
27
Our country is too big, geographically and popularly, for a pitchfork rebellion to work.
$3 an hour and a biscuit will be looking good to the grandkids of people reading this today. As grandkids compete with 13 billion other earthlings to scratch out an existence.
7
The role of automation replacing unskilled labor is overlooked or understated. A CEO will always choose automation over labor if all else is equal. Companies exist to provide returns to their shareholders, not to create jobs, and robots are less hassle once the technology is mastered.
We talk about inequality in terms of productivity vs wages, but what if labor has no part in productivity growth? How much should a truck driver earn if he has been replaced by an unmanned autonomous vehicle carrying freight between warehouses? How much should a Blockbuster store manager make when the video rental store was replaced by a Redbox kiosk or an on-demand service?
I see so many jobs that any high-school kid could do being replaced by fancy software and a few skilled technicians. McDonalds is next - at $15/hour there will be half as many people behind the counter keeping the automated burger builder loaded and the automatic fryer feed.
We talk about inequality in terms of productivity vs wages, but what if labor has no part in productivity growth? How much should a truck driver earn if he has been replaced by an unmanned autonomous vehicle carrying freight between warehouses? How much should a Blockbuster store manager make when the video rental store was replaced by a Redbox kiosk or an on-demand service?
I see so many jobs that any high-school kid could do being replaced by fancy software and a few skilled technicians. McDonalds is next - at $15/hour there will be half as many people behind the counter keeping the automated burger builder loaded and the automatic fryer feed.
15
As I read articles like this I feel real fear. Fear for the people of this country. I am retired and still it scares me. Amazon is the most frightening of all. So the people are corporate slaves. The corporations reward the meanest and most viciously competitive so what does the future look like? Not good for the vast majority of us.
30
I looked in vain for a discussion of labor budgets, corporate profits and stock price, which certainly has had a role in depressing wages. Since the early 1980s and the increase in share values, corporations have tended to place shareholder interests above the interests of their workers. Doing so juices the value of stock, which in turn benefits the executive because so many of them receive much of their compensation in deferred stock options. Another rigged game that shuts out the bottom 99% for the benefit of the top 1%.
19
Something this article didn't mention was the impact of the Great Recession on compensation. For people who lost jobs during that period and were finally able to find employment, many - if not most - of them had to take pay cuts. For every job loss it can take several years to get back to the salary you were making at the time of your last layoff.
The other huge factor I think is keeping wages down is healthcare costs. At least in the case of employers who do offer healthcare for their employees, the costs rise so much that rather than offer salary increases, those increases go towards insurance premiums. While we're all glad to at least have insurance coverage, it's a rare plan now that has an individual deductible below $1000. To go along with the stagnating wages, now we're faced with healthcare we can't even afford to use - but that's a topic for another article.
The other huge factor I think is keeping wages down is healthcare costs. At least in the case of employers who do offer healthcare for their employees, the costs rise so much that rather than offer salary increases, those increases go towards insurance premiums. While we're all glad to at least have insurance coverage, it's a rare plan now that has an individual deductible below $1000. To go along with the stagnating wages, now we're faced with healthcare we can't even afford to use - but that's a topic for another article.
15
Well, this is why we shall vote for Bernie Sanders. We need strong unions back. And a general strike to bring the economy to a standstill until the investor class agrees to a more equitable distribution of the economic growth between those who invested their money in that growth, and those who invested their labor.
20
Exactly. If every one of those lower tier workers, and all workers whose salaries have stagnated while the work load has increased, walked off the job and stayed off intil changes were made this country would grind to a halt.
8
Here's another perspective. Trump screams that jobs are being sent overseas....well, yes, Corporations are shifting factories and jobs overseas. But we are not as powerless as they love to remind us. Consumers do hold 'the power of the purse'. Did we all have to run to buy those expensive new iPhones and IWatches that are made with an underpaid and poorly treated overseas work force? Do we really need another TV set for Christmas.....one whose manufacturing plant is overseas? As consumers we must stop and think and use our collective purchasing might to solve some of the problems that we are faced with.
12
I worked as a manager for a major corporation for six years, leaving last year. I wouldn't call myself a "top performer." I was middle of the road. While my wage increases were in the 1% to 2% range, I was able to take advantage of profit sharing, and one year, in which the company did very well, I received a bonus worth 28% of my salary.
The "high performers" weren't always the smartest or best, but they were willing to dedicate their entire lives to the corporation, meaning they made themselves available 24/7 and put their families second. I wasn't willing to do that, and my performance reviews reflected it.
Throughout my time there, management placed a huge emphasis on cost cutting even while the top executives, especially the CEO, received compensation packages that typically included stock options and other awards that were three or four times their salaries. During the recession, the company fired thousands of workers and replaced them with contract labor; farmed out the IT department to India and made petty cost-savings decisions like forcing employees to take out their own garbage and not vacuuming our offices. This, along with the low pay raises for the average employee and huge rewards for executives didn't do much for employee morale.
Then the company was sold and the CEO, who'd been there just three years, walked off with $80 million. And the company paid his taxes for him.
The "high performers" weren't always the smartest or best, but they were willing to dedicate their entire lives to the corporation, meaning they made themselves available 24/7 and put their families second. I wasn't willing to do that, and my performance reviews reflected it.
Throughout my time there, management placed a huge emphasis on cost cutting even while the top executives, especially the CEO, received compensation packages that typically included stock options and other awards that were three or four times their salaries. During the recession, the company fired thousands of workers and replaced them with contract labor; farmed out the IT department to India and made petty cost-savings decisions like forcing employees to take out their own garbage and not vacuuming our offices. This, along with the low pay raises for the average employee and huge rewards for executives didn't do much for employee morale.
Then the company was sold and the CEO, who'd been there just three years, walked off with $80 million. And the company paid his taxes for him.
44
And the increase in mandatory arbitration clauses for employment (see the NYT series, started yesterday) makes it impossible for lower wage earners to negotiate for more fair pay and equal treatment ...
8
This article is puzzling. It is as though we don't know managers have been rewarded for undermining labor since the 1980's. And our government has cooperated with antilabor laws. When Walmart fires employees for union organizing Walmart's fines are insignificant-- it's worth spying on employees trying to organize. And union efforts for justice languish in the courts discourages employees rights. A number of countries like England simply told Walmart to pay union wage scale or not enter their national market. Walmart paid-up but not for Americans in the American market.
My Congressman claims jobs in places like MacDonald's must retain low wages to give young people job experience. And yet the cost of going to college has skyrocketed, how exactly is an industrious high school student suppose to make enough to pay tuition and books? When I was in college it cost $900 a year for books and tuition, today, it's $18,000.
Unions kept wages growing with the national economy after WWII until Reagan sold us what would become free market economics. Unions represented 40% of our population declined to nearly 9%. Wages have been largely flat since. If the minimum wage had growth with the economy it would be $18 an hour. That's $20,000 a year that is withheld from the minimum wage worker, and the middle class has lost a lot more. And money doesn't trickle. The reason we don't have more people working is the people don't have any money to spend. We've succeed in what we have chosen to do.
My Congressman claims jobs in places like MacDonald's must retain low wages to give young people job experience. And yet the cost of going to college has skyrocketed, how exactly is an industrious high school student suppose to make enough to pay tuition and books? When I was in college it cost $900 a year for books and tuition, today, it's $18,000.
Unions kept wages growing with the national economy after WWII until Reagan sold us what would become free market economics. Unions represented 40% of our population declined to nearly 9%. Wages have been largely flat since. If the minimum wage had growth with the economy it would be $18 an hour. That's $20,000 a year that is withheld from the minimum wage worker, and the middle class has lost a lot more. And money doesn't trickle. The reason we don't have more people working is the people don't have any money to spend. We've succeed in what we have chosen to do.
23
Absolutely right. This article, including its headline with the word "mystery," is indeed puzzling. Hasn't the author been following the economic news of the past 5 years? Is he unaware of the persuasive work of Stieglitz, Piketty, Reich, and others? Goodness, there really is no longer any "mystery" in the year 2015. We've had decades of unalloyed greed and wealth concentration, a stubborn opposition to minimum wage increases, Republican intransigence in the face of slack aggregate demand, open season on labor unions, and upward distribution of wealth to the 0.1%. Senators Sanders, Warren, and other progressive leaders have been SHOUTING for years that the system is rigged against the middle class. Hey, Mr. Greenhouse: open your eyes! There is hardly any "mystery" here.
11
Some European countries require a certain percent of their public firm's boards to represent the workers.
This forces the management to align themselves with labor. Otherwise, management and labor have more animosity towards each other. This means less gets done and workers (as well as some management) suffers.
It is time for a change.
This forces the management to align themselves with labor. Otherwise, management and labor have more animosity towards each other. This means less gets done and workers (as well as some management) suffers.
It is time for a change.
17
There's another factor suppressing wages and salaries: companies no longer value experience and corresponding higher salaries/wages. The draconian corporate layoffs over the past 20 years have largely swept away employees with 7-10 years experience. Jobs that need filling go to those with no or little experience. Over time, and cumulatively, we have an inexperienced, but also a less costly, workforce. Corporate leaders -- and investors-- think this is a good trade off.
10
I have moved to the US in 1999, since then healthcare costs multiplied, rent in my area in best cases doubled if you are willing to spend long hours commuting, otherwise quadrupled is more accurate, same for property values. Public Schools for instate students tripled. Meanwhile entry/mid level jobs that paid in the 25k to 50k range seem to pay the same 16 years later.
How is inflation measured exactly?
How is inflation measured exactly?
22
Workers should be happy to support the lifestyle their bosses and owners are accustomed to by just being thankful they have jobs. So there!
9
The future will bring not only the absence of pay raises but, in fact, the absence of jobs. The new economic model is that of a solitary entrepreneur managing a billion dollar business from a laptop with hired accountants, lawyers, shipping companies, manufacturers, etc.
9
Automation and computers are largely to blame for the hollowing out of our good-paying factory jobs.
When I was a tool & diemaker in the 1970s, along came a computer numerically controlled (CNC) wave of machine tools that eliminated hundreds of thousands of machinist and machine operator jobs. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, I decided to pursue the technology of electrical discharge machining; a process by which tens of thousands of highly-skilled, highly-paid toolmaker jobs were eliminated. At this time, the Chicagoland area was the tool-making and metal stamping capital of the globe. There were thousands of mom-and-pop job shops around. You could walk down the block and get a 2 or $3 and hour raise by changing jobs.
We had a saying, "That's why they put handles on toolboxes."
About this time, the offshoring of tool building began, and the CNC machines became smarter; and where I used to be considered a wizard running one machine, I could now run up to 10 at a time. There go all the EDM jobs!
Now, most of those manufacturing jobs are gone, hundreds of tool shops closed up, and anybody can run a CNC machine. The job for which I used to earn $35.00 an hour now pays $11. Cripes, we even used to get vacation and free healthcare insurance.
All gone.
When I was a tool & diemaker in the 1970s, along came a computer numerically controlled (CNC) wave of machine tools that eliminated hundreds of thousands of machinist and machine operator jobs. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, I decided to pursue the technology of electrical discharge machining; a process by which tens of thousands of highly-skilled, highly-paid toolmaker jobs were eliminated. At this time, the Chicagoland area was the tool-making and metal stamping capital of the globe. There were thousands of mom-and-pop job shops around. You could walk down the block and get a 2 or $3 and hour raise by changing jobs.
We had a saying, "That's why they put handles on toolboxes."
About this time, the offshoring of tool building began, and the CNC machines became smarter; and where I used to be considered a wizard running one machine, I could now run up to 10 at a time. There go all the EDM jobs!
Now, most of those manufacturing jobs are gone, hundreds of tool shops closed up, and anybody can run a CNC machine. The job for which I used to earn $35.00 an hour now pays $11. Cripes, we even used to get vacation and free healthcare insurance.
All gone.
34
As long as labor is treated as a commodity remuneration for labor will be based on supply and demand. Don't like your job? There's someone else who will take it in a heartbeat - at least in most instances - and because the supply far exceeds demands that replacement is likely to be willing to cost even less.
So what's the answer? How does labor go from being a commodity to being a valued resource? Corporate profits have been riding all time highs. The money is there, so that's not the problem. The only way it can happen without a drastic reduction in population, something that would require more than one generation, is for labor to stand up to the existing corporate structure. That means organizing labor, which in the past has resulted in unions. I don't know if unions are the only way to organize labor, but they worked in the past. But then unions - at least some of them - abused the power they had in a variety of ways and their overreach resulted in a sometimes well earned demise. Maybe it's simply time for re-organized labor to start from scratch and somehow band together in re-formulated unions.
So what's the answer? How does labor go from being a commodity to being a valued resource? Corporate profits have been riding all time highs. The money is there, so that's not the problem. The only way it can happen without a drastic reduction in population, something that would require more than one generation, is for labor to stand up to the existing corporate structure. That means organizing labor, which in the past has resulted in unions. I don't know if unions are the only way to organize labor, but they worked in the past. But then unions - at least some of them - abused the power they had in a variety of ways and their overreach resulted in a sometimes well earned demise. Maybe it's simply time for re-organized labor to start from scratch and somehow band together in re-formulated unions.
3
We cannot have a 'drastic reduction in population' as long as we continue to import one million immigrants every year, not including the 125,000 H1B visa workers.
Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.
12
Self-indulgent, short-term thinking has combined with the failure of most people--including most employer decision-makers--to understand who are the true "star employees" and what work habits, skills, talents and character traits actually contribute to building a healthy business or getting the work of an organization accomplished. Failing to understand the role that secure wages play in motivating the actual employees who contribute to the organization's success, long term growth and profit often results in high pay unfairly distributed.
Most employers and their expensive consultants are missing opportunities to recognize the value of employees who need the security of living wages and an equal opportunity to be recognized for their contributions. The transient "star performer" may not be the one needed to out-perform the competition while she/he waits to move on to that competition with skills learned from their current job.
Most employers and their expensive consultants are missing opportunities to recognize the value of employees who need the security of living wages and an equal opportunity to be recognized for their contributions. The transient "star performer" may not be the one needed to out-perform the competition while she/he waits to move on to that competition with skills learned from their current job.
8
In most large corporations the emphasis is on CEO income and dividends to shareholders. Planning is short-range to maximize immediate profits. Workers are simply one of many line items on the budget sheet. The Republican Party is succeeding in busting the labor movement; just look at Wisconsin as one example. Sadly, the Democratic Party has also not fought for labor the way it should; maybe it's starting to do so now. The life quality of working people will not improve in America so long as all the income gains and political power are going to the wealthiest citizens.
6
This uneven distribution of rewards also plays out geographically. The guys earning the big raises are disproportionately in big cities on the coasts. People ask why people in the red states are not more outraged about wealth distribution. They ask why people vote against their interests. But they fail to realize that you can live your entire life in the Southeast and Midwest and never once meet a real one-percenter. The richest guy in your county is maybe in the 96th percentile. His standard of living seems achievable. You never see the guys whose Paris pied-a-terre is in a building where your manager's manager's manager could cash in her life savings and not afford a broom closet. You never see their useless kids wearing a different pair of designer shoes to class every day of the month, each of which cost what you make in fifteen weeks of hard work. You never see the Napa restaurants where a single course for one costs what a Walmart worker makes in a week. The media works hard to keep the real extent of these people's wealth invisible.
So people in red counties genuinely thought that Occupy was taking on the call-center manager with a boat and a four-bedroom house in the suburbs. They know that guy, and he works pretty hard. Why would we take his money and give it to people who don't work? In reality, that guy is maybe getting a 4% raise, if he's lucky, and our oligarchs have no more use for him than they do you.
So people in red counties genuinely thought that Occupy was taking on the call-center manager with a boat and a four-bedroom house in the suburbs. They know that guy, and he works pretty hard. Why would we take his money and give it to people who don't work? In reality, that guy is maybe getting a 4% raise, if he's lucky, and our oligarchs have no more use for him than they do you.
50
Koch brothers live in the Midwest as do many of the big money people associated with the energy business. You might not see them but they are there.
3
No mystery. The 0.1%, who actually steer economies- decided several years back that the world economy is going to crash, big-time, and there is nothing they can do about it. Except grab every penny they can as fast as they can; and buy your house/factory/farm when you are foreclosed. No, not paranoid conspiracy stuff; pure, solid history.
10
I am convinced now more than ever that we need to stop putting so much faith in big multinational corporations and start looking to small and mid-sized businesses to do the right thing. The small business owner can set his on pay, or course within the parameters of his business' income and expenses. And it's different, too, at mid-sized companies, with 100 or so employees in one location, and a boss who sees every one of his employees at least once a month.
.
We should stop waiting for for the generosity of corporate executives sitting in boardrooms 1600 miles away from us. the generosity will never come. They were taug not to be generous in business school!
.
We should stop waiting for for the generosity of corporate executives sitting in boardrooms 1600 miles away from us. the generosity will never come. They were taug not to be generous in business school!
9
Apparently the only productive workers in this country are upper level management - everyone else is a slacker.
9
It is the bosses who insist that 'no one is irreplaceable', when every worker knows the only one who is easily replaceable and not really needed is the boss.
Ask yourself how things go when the boss is on vacation for a week...yes, there is some goofing off, but so much more work gets done, as there are no more useless meetings and no boss interrupting constantly, so the workers know to work hard and fast and, yes, leave a bit early.
Ask yourself how things go when the boss is on vacation for a week...yes, there is some goofing off, but so much more work gets done, as there are no more useless meetings and no boss interrupting constantly, so the workers know to work hard and fast and, yes, leave a bit early.
7
This is part and parcel of "St. Ronnie the Deceiver's" trickle down idiocy. Destroy the leverage of working people, export jobs that once provided decent wages and demagoguery.
10
I have been trying to solve the mystery for the last 7 yrs! I have'nt had a cent raise for the last seven years. Of course, my perks had gone before that like malpractice insurance, health insurance and paid vacation time. Meanwhile, all these perks which I have to pay for myself, have sky-rocketed. My performance has been praised, without any shortcomings but that's about it. The irony is that my company is hiring as they are expanding because the company's expertise is at the forefront of changing demographics and changing requirements. You maybe wondering, why don't I just leave? The answer - I am 58 years old, cannot adjust to change and most important - there is NO job for a 58yr. old!
20
Flat pay? I'd kill for flat pay. In my organization pay has been falling for years. Those who are freshly promoted into my position now are paid less than what their predecessors were paid in 2007 - in 2007 dollars, not 2015 dollars. This is the new reality of the university professor. And possibly many other professions as well.
9
Hillary keeps inviting me to a party at Christina's house. I would much rather hear her position on wage stagnation as documented in this excellent article. How long will we have to wait for Hillary's position to become formulated?
8
Every employee is a latent liability. A business needs to set aside some money associated with each hire it does, for the possibility of a new government healthcare mandate, or a disparate-impact discrimination lawsuit (if you hired Sue, you didn't hire Bob. if you hired Bob, you didn't hire Sue. if you hired Martha, you didn't hire LaKeesha. etc). Healthcare costs continue to rise faster than inflation. That's just how it is.
7
Sounds like you approve of this situation. Sorry, it is not government regulation that is killing employment. It is pure greed. All a regulations is reaction to the egregious atrocities that business has visited on workers in order to squeeze another penny. Remember the Triangle Shirt waist fire? Business titans have not changed. The only reason teenage girls do not die in mass numbers working is government regulation. LIke days off? Regulation, even if based on the ten commandments, is responsible.
7
Secular stagnation is the end-state equilibrium of the socialist super-state. All parties bear some of the blame. Start with the iron triangle: Big Government, Bit Business, and Big Labor.
Government takes too much of output for itself, and wastes it. And does poorly at all the things we expect government to do, such as education, national defense, and public safety. Then it monopolizes industries where it lacks any distinctive competence, such as banking, health care, energy and automobile manufacturing. It picks winners & losers, and dishes out favors to its crony-capitalist friends.
Big business is only out for the quick buck. IT lives quarter-to-quarter. It dis-employs useful employees, steals their pension benefits, and uses health care as profit centers and employee retention tools. It brings in indentured H1-b workers and lays off useful workers; then it mistreats the H1-B workers. It lobbies for vast legal and illegal immigration schemes just to keep labor cheap and abundant.
Big labor overplayed its hand in the 1970's and opposed the introduction of new technology. It failed to keep its rank-and-file members relevant and competitive. Employers rationally substituted capital for costly and obstreperous labor, and restructured in ways that made organized labor less relevant.
Others bear a share of the blame. Voters are apathetic and fail to do their homework on candidates. Politicians are instantly corrupted by power and money as soon as they are elected.
Government takes too much of output for itself, and wastes it. And does poorly at all the things we expect government to do, such as education, national defense, and public safety. Then it monopolizes industries where it lacks any distinctive competence, such as banking, health care, energy and automobile manufacturing. It picks winners & losers, and dishes out favors to its crony-capitalist friends.
Big business is only out for the quick buck. IT lives quarter-to-quarter. It dis-employs useful employees, steals their pension benefits, and uses health care as profit centers and employee retention tools. It brings in indentured H1-b workers and lays off useful workers; then it mistreats the H1-B workers. It lobbies for vast legal and illegal immigration schemes just to keep labor cheap and abundant.
Big labor overplayed its hand in the 1970's and opposed the introduction of new technology. It failed to keep its rank-and-file members relevant and competitive. Employers rationally substituted capital for costly and obstreperous labor, and restructured in ways that made organized labor less relevant.
Others bear a share of the blame. Voters are apathetic and fail to do their homework on candidates. Politicians are instantly corrupted by power and money as soon as they are elected.
14
Why do you limit governments role to education, defense and public safety? Is it because you think you might benefit from these? I say Health care is a better role for government than defense. We could merely hire Blackwater ( or Xe or what ever they are called now). POlice protection could be privatized. Only if you subscribe to POlice Inc do you get this service. What is so special about the functions you mention? It is not obvious, or common sense. Just your prejudice. I agree with much of you analysis but the idea that defense is a better use for Government than Health Care is spoken by a wealthy, healthy person.
3
When I left corporate America 20 years ago these trends were beginning, and have accelerated greatly. It's a simple result of greed.
There's nothing wrong with pay for performance if it also applied to executives, but poor company performance doesn't result in executive job loss, and when it's accompanied by a golden parachute. The examples are numerous of CEOs who left a company in ruins and escaped with a bag full of money.
Executives bring in compensation consultants who design plans that reward them if profits and stock price increase, but there's no downside punishment. Boards in the pocket of senior management applaud cost cutting, which is most conveniently done and easily measured by firing people. There's never a look at loss in efficiency and expertise when the employees go, and no one every does a retrospective study five years later to measure the real return on these cuts.
It's a very comfortable life these men (and it's mostly men) lead. Why should they change?
There's nothing wrong with pay for performance if it also applied to executives, but poor company performance doesn't result in executive job loss, and when it's accompanied by a golden parachute. The examples are numerous of CEOs who left a company in ruins and escaped with a bag full of money.
Executives bring in compensation consultants who design plans that reward them if profits and stock price increase, but there's no downside punishment. Boards in the pocket of senior management applaud cost cutting, which is most conveniently done and easily measured by firing people. There's never a look at loss in efficiency and expertise when the employees go, and no one every does a retrospective study five years later to measure the real return on these cuts.
It's a very comfortable life these men (and it's mostly men) lead. Why should they change?
155
"The only time in the past four decades when after-inflation wages bounded upward was from 1998 to 2001, when the jobless rate fell below 4.5 percent."
This should give ample proof that the "trickle down" economics created under Reagan, and continued ever since under both RepCons and Dems alike, is a big lie. Allowing businesses to offshore manufacturing and labor, and import their foreign products as if they were produced in the U.S., has tilted the playing field severely against American workers. This all came as a result of changes in tax, accounting, and tariff laws and policies, and these need to be rolled back to the way they were pre-Reagan before we'll see an actual sharing of prosperity across all income levels. Sanders is the only one talking about doing this, and until the MSM starts telling the truth about what has happened for four decades, he'll likely be the only public voice on this.
This should give ample proof that the "trickle down" economics created under Reagan, and continued ever since under both RepCons and Dems alike, is a big lie. Allowing businesses to offshore manufacturing and labor, and import their foreign products as if they were produced in the U.S., has tilted the playing field severely against American workers. This all came as a result of changes in tax, accounting, and tariff laws and policies, and these need to be rolled back to the way they were pre-Reagan before we'll see an actual sharing of prosperity across all income levels. Sanders is the only one talking about doing this, and until the MSM starts telling the truth about what has happened for four decades, he'll likely be the only public voice on this.
30
What is extraordinary about this article is that it completely ignores the neutering of labor unions.
Capitalism is a system for maximizing profit but in a social democratic society there have to be countervailing structures for minimizing the detrimental effects of unfettered capitalism on the the weak and poorly paid.
Unions used to have this role.
Capitalism is a system for maximizing profit but in a social democratic society there have to be countervailing structures for minimizing the detrimental effects of unfettered capitalism on the the weak and poorly paid.
Unions used to have this role.
37
Let's try something different; stop paying your mortgage, stop buying everything, start bartering everything, read at the library, grow your own food, share your internet with your neighbors. If we stop giving the corporations our meager wages they will collapse. Then we can start anew.
28
No matter the business or endeavor- the goal is to maximize profits. How those profits are shared falls on the judgment of the company shareholders or owner. The past 40 years we have seen a long list of debilitating and conflicting issues: Unions, Rising Insurance Costs, Payroll Taxes, State and Local Taxes, Federal Regulations.. the list goes on.. The big question is how do we encourage domestic growth, remain profitable and return a "living wage" to our workforce? As small to medium businesses in this country get crushed, larger conglomerates take over and the balance of power is marginalized to a select few at the sake of many. The hedge fund billionaire Singer is now backing Marco Rubio, that alone should tell you where this country is [continually] headed regardless of Rubio's youth and optimistic talk of a new future for a America- The more things change, the more they remain the same- Amen... and we're all doomed!
8
There is no Mystery. Consider the ever expanding Big Government imposing ever more suffocating regulations that are forcing more small business to close than to open. Big government and big business work hand in hand to the detriment of small business. From health care regulations, to the minimum wage nonsense small business simply don't have the resources and are failing at an alarming rate. This increases unemployment and decreases competition for workers.
Our "progressives" in government are working very hard to create that oligarchy "progressives" are all whining about.
Our "progressives" in government are working very hard to create that oligarchy "progressives" are all whining about.
6
Could you please provide specific examples of "big government imposing ever more suffocating regulations" on small companies?
What has been happening is that government has been corrrupted by big company lobbyists so that the big companies can unfairly compete with small companies and put them out of business. This has been done through a very successful campaign of DEREGULATION of the big companies.
What has been happening is that government has been corrrupted by big company lobbyists so that the big companies can unfairly compete with small companies and put them out of business. This has been done through a very successful campaign of DEREGULATION of the big companies.
9
Right wing talking points do not make a cogent argument. Paying workers less money and eliminating crucially important environmental safeguards, as you suggest, will do nothing but accelerate our decline as a society and as a laboratory for real democracy.
6
Nonsense. Titans of business used to say they could not make a profit if they could not use child labor, if they worked people less than 18 hours a day, if they had to pay a living wage. David Ricardo, a the prototype of an economist masquerading as a hitman for the elite, claimed in his 'Iron law of wages' that if you paid people more than not quite enough to feed a family on everything would collapse. Same situation. Without government regulation you would be taking your own life in your hands everytime you bought food. I ask the anti regulation zealots 'which part of the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906 would you repeal first? Slavery was only abolished by the US government. THose who say it would have disappeared by itself are deluded
7
One wonders about all the small and medium sized manufacturers in places like North Carolina, that closed their factories down and sometimes literally moved the machines to China or Mexico -- sometimes having their US employees actually training their replacements. Did they have to do that to compete on price, or did the owners simply pocket the rewards due to lower wages? And I can't help getting political about it. How many of those company owners are the very same Republicans who now blame Obama for the sluggish labor and wage rates? I'd love to seen an analysis in the NYT's about these observations... thanks.
33
At some point in the not-too-distant past, the element that became the center of all foci was the stockholder. Not the customer, not the employee, but the shareholder. You can retain a consumer base pretty much on price, and you can retain a workforce pretty much out of fear of downsizing, outsourcing, or other forms of unemployment. But you've got to keep those investment dollars coming.
6
It is worse than that. The focus is not on the shareholder, but the share price.
For the most part, companies are no longer getting the investment dollars. They are creating two products: whatever they sell, and the market price of their stock. The company gets the customer revenue. Investors get the stock revenue.
The problem for a company is that if the stock is "underperforming" an investor buys up enough to break up the company and sell it for parts. The company management acts on very short term outlook to keep he price boosted, to keep out activist investors and vulture capitalists. They have strong inclination to keep the short term looking good; and they have strong incentive to work with a takeover team if they hold enough stock and options. But there is little incentive for management to look a the long term, or worry about traditional management challenges like keeping an experienced and talented workforce happy.
For the most part, companies are no longer getting the investment dollars. They are creating two products: whatever they sell, and the market price of their stock. The company gets the customer revenue. Investors get the stock revenue.
The problem for a company is that if the stock is "underperforming" an investor buys up enough to break up the company and sell it for parts. The company management acts on very short term outlook to keep he price boosted, to keep out activist investors and vulture capitalists. They have strong inclination to keep the short term looking good; and they have strong incentive to work with a takeover team if they hold enough stock and options. But there is little incentive for management to look a the long term, or worry about traditional management challenges like keeping an experienced and talented workforce happy.
4
Why are we acting surprised about this? You can't blame business for putting profit above everything else, any more than you can blame a dog for wanting a bone. Hasn't our own US history proved this to us, over and over again? American business was happy to use slaves until it was outlawed. Then American business was happy to work little children all day in factories till it was outlawed. There has to be a countervailing influence to unfettered employer control of labor, and we have lost that balance in this country.
Unions used to be one countervailing influence to unfettered employer control over labor, but we have pretty much killed off unions. That leaves the government, but we want to drown government in the bathtub, remember? Government now does the bidding of the corporations. The courts? Case dismissed.
The American worker has nobody in his corner.
Unions used to be one countervailing influence to unfettered employer control over labor, but we have pretty much killed off unions. That leaves the government, but we want to drown government in the bathtub, remember? Government now does the bidding of the corporations. The courts? Case dismissed.
The American worker has nobody in his corner.
268
When Reagan, and subsequent Presidents and Congresses, changed the tax, accounting, and trade policies to allow offshoring, and no-cost importing of foreign goods, American labor was issued a death sentence. Until we roll these policies back to pre-Reagan states, we won't have a recovery. And trying to "micro-manage" this problem by attacking it piecemeal will only result in unintended consequences that will likely make things worse.
8
Sadly, I have to agree. It came to my mind today reading the article on arbitration that we are slowly becoming the slaves we 'freed'. History? HA, If you always do etc., but either we never learn, or do not pay enough attention to the sly bills being passed that will shackle us. Only those of us who have lived long enough to see the pattern here can appreciate the slide to corporate power over fair share. Once this all gets out of balance, there will be consequences, and not at all to keep America the Land of the Free.
5
We could restrict Corporations to the public purposes they were originally chartered for. Only a footnote, by a anti worker clerk made the 1876 Pacific railroad case granted Corporations personhood. Eliminate this, regulate Corporate personhood, do not allow business criminals to hide behind corporations to escape prosecution. Funny we jail those who expect to be imprisoned and pride themselves on being able to do time and fail to jail those who would mess their underwear if even presented with real prison time in a real prison.
4
Why not tighten the labor supply by simultaneously curbing annual immigration numbers to less than half a million per year and fining businesses 10k per day for every job they outsource?
26
If the economy was suffering from accumulated chronic underinvestment, shifting income from the non-rich to the rich would make sense. Underinvestment would mean there was a shortage of shopping centers, hotels, housing and factories were operating at 100% of capacity but still not able to produce as many cars and other goods as people needed. It might not seem fair, but the quickest way to build up capital is to take income away from the middle class who have a high propensity to consume and give to the rich who have a propensity to save (and invest). Except for periods in the 1950s and 1960s and possibly the 1990’s when tax rates on the rich just happened to be high enough to prevent overinvestment, the economy has generally suffered from periodic overinvestment cycles.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
9
So, basically, the bosses give bonuses and wage increases to themselves while increasing production pressure on working people--always telling us to work harder--come early and leave late for no extra pay, no bonuses, no raises.
21
Corporate/owner's greed - look no further. And the GOP trumpets tax cuts for the wealthy. Do you really think that translates into higher wages? No way - greedy owners remain greedy owners - whatever crumbs the masters of the universe allow come with the thought that not even the crumbs are deserved. They have successfully waged class warfare since St Reagan was president.
27
Here's a concept: People voted away their bargaining power, and they wonder why they have no bargaining power. Ah, mystery of mysteries!
36
True, most Americans are really, really stupid. Proof = George Bush got elected twice. Stupid loves stupid.
7
No mystery. Propaganda works. Reagan was no hero. The government is not the problem, a government corrupted by political donations and lobbying is the problem (your voice isn't heard and your vote doesn't count if the few politicians in your corner are marginalized).
3
jbk:
George W Bush got elected once.
He was 'appointed' by SCOTUS the first time.
George W Bush got elected once.
He was 'appointed' by SCOTUS the first time.
2
The first thing a business owner learns is to grow revenue, cut costs and increase profits. I have been a senior manager in global companies for 20 years and that principle has held true in every country in the world. Payroll and benefits (P+B) are a cost (and note that the total cost of employment on average in the US is $31.39 per hour of which $21.82 is wage). All managers in all businesses look to control those costs by hiring only the absolute minimum number of people you need to run your business, and paying them the absolute minimum you can while still attracting and retaining great employees.
In every company I have worked for – in every country we operate in – we increase P+B depending on the economic conditions in each country. Some European countries dictate how much P+B will increase (based upon the CPI), and in China (for example) P+B goes up much more than the US given the rate of inflation and fierce competition for talent. In the US, average pay increases at about the rate of the increase in the CPI, which has been quite low over the past 5-6 years. Very few people are leaving the company, and hence management feels no pressure to increase wages or benefits.
I advocate profit sharing schemes for all employees. As profits increase, employee compensation (not wages) increase – realizing that the reverse is also true.
Finally, this article only talks about wages, not total compensation. Would be good to see the inflation adjusted trend in total compensation
In every company I have worked for – in every country we operate in – we increase P+B depending on the economic conditions in each country. Some European countries dictate how much P+B will increase (based upon the CPI), and in China (for example) P+B goes up much more than the US given the rate of inflation and fierce competition for talent. In the US, average pay increases at about the rate of the increase in the CPI, which has been quite low over the past 5-6 years. Very few people are leaving the company, and hence management feels no pressure to increase wages or benefits.
I advocate profit sharing schemes for all employees. As profits increase, employee compensation (not wages) increase – realizing that the reverse is also true.
Finally, this article only talks about wages, not total compensation. Would be good to see the inflation adjusted trend in total compensation
7
Anybody who has fallen through the cracks because of layoffs or personal problems for longer than 6 months is not counted in this statistics. It is almost impossible for long-term employed to get a job even if they train themselves through online/offline courses. No employer gives them a chance. Concept of training has been lost after the last recession and nobody wants give any training to newly-hired but willing and able to be trained. If there is any possibility of getting an employment, it is through your network if its good and supportive.
Any job opening gets hundreds if not thousands of resumes from these willing, mostly qualified but desperate unemployed, almost all of these are rejected by the employers.
So, how do I know this? I am one of them. And I know at least 25 others in San Francisco bay area (where unemployment is 3.2% as per some) who have been unemployed for longer than 1 year and are so desperate that they are driving Uber if you call that employment. Lies that we tell ourselves is going to bite us in the long run.
Any job opening gets hundreds if not thousands of resumes from these willing, mostly qualified but desperate unemployed, almost all of these are rejected by the employers.
So, how do I know this? I am one of them. And I know at least 25 others in San Francisco bay area (where unemployment is 3.2% as per some) who have been unemployed for longer than 1 year and are so desperate that they are driving Uber if you call that employment. Lies that we tell ourselves is going to bite us in the long run.
18
"Why is there this assumption that wages are only going to rise faster than inflation at very low unemployment?” he asked. “Where does that come from?”"
Perhaps because with low unemployment there is more competition for workers? No one would mistake "progressive" economists as geniuses.
Perhaps because with low unemployment there is more competition for workers? No one would mistake "progressive" economists as geniuses.
1
Working class pay is low, and getting lower, because it can be. The working class has no meaningful support, power or influence. It's that simple.
Historians, economists and sociologists will point to the period from 1945 to 1980 as being the high water mark of the American middle and working classes as well as being an aberration in America's social and economic history.
Sic transit...
Historians, economists and sociologists will point to the period from 1945 to 1980 as being the high water mark of the American middle and working classes as well as being an aberration in America's social and economic history.
Sic transit...
21
So we need to return our tax, accounting, and trade policies to those states, no?
1
There is no mystery to it. The money goes to the top executive officers whose pay keeps rising. I am an in-network provider for insurance companies. I get paid the same amount that was paid in the late 1970's. Think of that, no increase since approximately 1978. Medicare payments to me have gone DOWN every year since approximately 2007.
So all the increases in your insurance premiums are going to administrative people, not the actual healthcare providers doing the actual work of healthcare. Pretty sad...
So all the increases in your insurance premiums are going to administrative people, not the actual healthcare providers doing the actual work of healthcare. Pretty sad...
51
It's not so much that workers aren't getting wage increases; it's just that they aren't seeing the cash. Healthcare costs have been eating away at cash compensation at rates higher than the rate of inflation for quite a long time. In the meantime, the price of food has continued to increase and housing prices have begun to rise yet again.
Now you might think that the so-called star performers who get nice bonuses would be happy, but even that is a labor-cost-saving measure, in a way. If Mr. or Ms. Star Performer fails to meet targets, then he or she needn't be paid that bonus. A few years of that, and he/she will move on, so the company has rid itself of a once-stellar performer who is now regarded as mediocre. In addition, although bonuses are included in the Social Security Taxable Wage Base, they are generally not included in the compensation considered for the calculation of either defined-benefit or defined-contribution pension benefits. In other words, the pension earned by such a person is based upon base salary only, so it will likely not reflect the person's outstanding contribution to the company. The employee is free to contribute that additional income to his/her 401(k), however.
Now you might think that the so-called star performers who get nice bonuses would be happy, but even that is a labor-cost-saving measure, in a way. If Mr. or Ms. Star Performer fails to meet targets, then he or she needn't be paid that bonus. A few years of that, and he/she will move on, so the company has rid itself of a once-stellar performer who is now regarded as mediocre. In addition, although bonuses are included in the Social Security Taxable Wage Base, they are generally not included in the compensation considered for the calculation of either defined-benefit or defined-contribution pension benefits. In other words, the pension earned by such a person is based upon base salary only, so it will likely not reflect the person's outstanding contribution to the company. The employee is free to contribute that additional income to his/her 401(k), however.
10
Why do reporters and economists continue to use the U3 definition of unemployment, which defines a person living in poverty with only part-time employment as employed, even if that person is looking for work?
The main intuitive connection between unemployment and wages is that wages will go up only in a sellers' market, where comparatively few people are looking for work, and so, employees can typically find better work elsewhere, and employers can't easily replace employees dissatisfied with their pay or working conditions. But the U3 unemployment rate doesn't measure whether we have a sellers market. It only measures the proportion of people who have some employment, however meager, however abusive, however below that person's skill level, and so, regardless of whether they are looking for work or motivated to look for it. Under the U3 measure, everyone could be employed, but dissatisfied and not making enough to cover their needs, and looking for employment. That characterizes the kind of buyers' market that we have now.
We need different measures. And we need reporters to use those measures while downplaying the highly misleading U3 definition of unemployment.
The main intuitive connection between unemployment and wages is that wages will go up only in a sellers' market, where comparatively few people are looking for work, and so, employees can typically find better work elsewhere, and employers can't easily replace employees dissatisfied with their pay or working conditions. But the U3 unemployment rate doesn't measure whether we have a sellers market. It only measures the proportion of people who have some employment, however meager, however abusive, however below that person's skill level, and so, regardless of whether they are looking for work or motivated to look for it. Under the U3 measure, everyone could be employed, but dissatisfied and not making enough to cover their needs, and looking for employment. That characterizes the kind of buyers' market that we have now.
We need different measures. And we need reporters to use those measures while downplaying the highly misleading U3 definition of unemployment.
24
The effects of the 2007 depression are much less severe than the 1929-41 depression because of safety-net benefits now provided. Consider the horrendous, though not uncommon situation of a household in 1932 comprised of elderly grandparents being supported by their working-age children with young children of their own, when the breadwinners became unemployed. The 1932 family would be destitute. Today the grandparents would have social security and Medicare benefits. Their working-age children could now collect unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks. Additionally, the entire family could also be eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, rent subsidies, heating fuel subsidies, free school lunches and other benefits. The 1932 family might also have had a bank account in one of the many banks that failed and lost their savings. Today, Federal Deposit Insurance protects such bank accounts. You might say we are now in a depression with benefits.
Equally unhelpful in terms of addressing the income and wealth inequality which results in the overinvestment cycle that caused the depression are those who emphasize various non-tax factors. Issues such a globalization, unionization, minimum wage laws can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich. It is the compounding effect of the shift away from taxes on capital which is the generator of inequality..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
Equally unhelpful in terms of addressing the income and wealth inequality which results in the overinvestment cycle that caused the depression are those who emphasize various non-tax factors. Issues such a globalization, unionization, minimum wage laws can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich. It is the compounding effect of the shift away from taxes on capital which is the generator of inequality..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
6
Mergers, monopolies, extreme CEO pay, low wages, job loss, jobs sent out of the country, break up of the unions. We are in dire straits. And it will get worse. The working person doesn't have a hope.
43
Yes, twenty year ago I belonged to CWA and when A.T.&T downsized and was allowed to start a two wage pay system and started to outsource our jobs to other countries for cheaper wages, we were told the increase of technologies and better paying jobs in America would more than offset the outsourcing of menial jobs many Americans no longer wanted to do. That was the start of the down fall of the American Dream. Add to that the number of illegals coming to America looking for jobs Americans did not want to do, and that is where this disaster of economic has led up. There are no jobs Americans won't do, there are just jobs Americans cannot work and keep a decent life style. Illegals have no life style and can be bullied by corporations and paid cheap wages. Our government officials not only encourage this type of economics, it makes sure this happens by allowing big businesses to run this country by writing their own laws that benefit them, not the American worker. Our politicians are robbing us blind and we are not pushing back. WHY NOT?
15
The problem is that those so-called big performers are in many instances nothing of the kind. They are well educated, good at internal politics, and at the "right place at the right time".
A hundred or a thousand others with the same education would do just as well in that position at the same instant that particular company's trajectory.
A lot of these folks have come to believe their own hype.
A hundred or a thousand others with the same education would do just as well in that position at the same instant that particular company's trajectory.
A lot of these folks have come to believe their own hype.
37
NYT: a third chart, illustrating how corporate profits are at their highest point since the 1920s would help to complete this picture.
The money is there.
It is simply not trickling down as the GOP likes to promise it will, by giving all of those tax breaks to corporations and the 1%.
We are in another gilded age.
The money is there.
It is simply not trickling down as the GOP likes to promise it will, by giving all of those tax breaks to corporations and the 1%.
We are in another gilded age.
87
How have government employees fared compared with the civilian work force?
8
THAT is a great question I'd like to have an accurate answer to. I think I know based on anecdotal stories, but an accurate analysis would be terrific.
1
We must remember the middle class in America wasn't wasn't built cooperatively. It was built by unions in a life and death struggle with management. Since the orchestrated demise of the labor movement we have returned to a state where the average worker has no recourse but to accept what is offered, or the next guy will. Ownership will never willingly share profits with the rank and file.
115
A few thoughts:
Most workers in the US work for small businesses, not big corporations. Most new regulations adversely affect small businesses because they can't afford to pay fees to government agencies, or pay lawyers to fight government regulations.
True unemployment rate should include people who can't find a job in their chosen career path, those who have stopped looking, and those who could work - but lack the skills for the available jobs in their geographical area.
The true unemployment rate should also include those who are under-employed - meaning working part-time, or those whose skills are easily replaced by others or machines, or those whose skills should justify higher wage, but would cost the struggling business too much. Contractors fit this last category.
If you believe, as cheerfully reported in the media, that the economy is improving, count the number of empty storefronts in your area. Those empties are where there are no jobs.
Most workers in the US work for small businesses, not big corporations. Most new regulations adversely affect small businesses because they can't afford to pay fees to government agencies, or pay lawyers to fight government regulations.
True unemployment rate should include people who can't find a job in their chosen career path, those who have stopped looking, and those who could work - but lack the skills for the available jobs in their geographical area.
The true unemployment rate should also include those who are under-employed - meaning working part-time, or those whose skills are easily replaced by others or machines, or those whose skills should justify higher wage, but would cost the struggling business too much. Contractors fit this last category.
If you believe, as cheerfully reported in the media, that the economy is improving, count the number of empty storefronts in your area. Those empties are where there are no jobs.
2
What are these new regulations that are adversely affecting small businesses? What are those fees that small businesses can't afford?
Small companies can't compete with the big corporations and can't afford to pay lobbyists to corrupt government in their favor.
Small companies can't compete with the big corporations and can't afford to pay lobbyists to corrupt government in their favor.
6
As the manager of a large medical practice, the disappearance in pay raises, at least in the field of those who provide healthcare, as opposed to manage insurance, is what was expected and predicted. The President re-made healthcare in a way that diminished reimbursement across the board, increase mandates and regulation, and forced spending on a disastrous electronic medical records program. Did anyone think that the effects on wages would be any different? When any entity makes less money, they have less to distribute as wage increases. We had provided raises every year up until 2011, and have not been able to since. Redistribution is not a one-way street. Healthcare provides jobs for millions of employees, many of whom are low or average skilled, as office workers, schedulers, assistants, maintenance, etc. The top down approach by government often hurts those it wishes to help.
3
It's a shame that Obama went for Romneycare, a gift to insurance companies created by the Heritage Foundation. It's a hallmark of corporate-friendly policies that redistribution doesn't benefit ordinary workers. People need health care, not health insurance.
7
Thanks to those commenting that it's all about the lack of unions! That this article failed to mention how unions have been demonized and destroyed since President Reagan fired the air traffic controllers is a significant oversight.
During in the Gilded Age and until FDR stepped in, people were killed because they were part of a union, or dared to strike (e.g. the Ludlow Massacre), and the government sided with the murderers. Nowadays, working folks without a union are dying slow deaths of a thousand cuts - pensions stolen, no overtime pay, no pay raises. This won't change until we stand up as a group for our fair share.
During in the Gilded Age and until FDR stepped in, people were killed because they were part of a union, or dared to strike (e.g. the Ludlow Massacre), and the government sided with the murderers. Nowadays, working folks without a union are dying slow deaths of a thousand cuts - pensions stolen, no overtime pay, no pay raises. This won't change until we stand up as a group for our fair share.
27
Gallup published a great article about the unemployment rate being a big lie http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx. The statistic is almost meaningless. We have much better metrics for measuring the economic welfare of Americans--the labor participation rate, real wealth, and real wages. Any self-respecting news outlet would report on the more meaningful statistics, but the deceptive "unemployement rate" receives most of the attention. Could it be because the real metrics all reveal the failure of Obamanomics? If you look at a chart of the labor participation rate over the years, what you will see is a dramatic rise during the Reagan years, then a leveling off during most of the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II years, then a drop during the Obama years that is a almost a mirror image of the Reagan boom. That wouldn't fit the narrative being peddled in most of the media now would it?
3
Let's put it this way: labor costs decrease as a result of agressive cost cutting: outsourcing, off-shoring, staff and pay reductions, pushing employment costs such as insurance down to the employee.
Why does the bottom line improvement never result in lower consumer costs?
It appears the purpose of these companies now is simply to provide a revenue stream and the business of producing something is just a side effect.
Why does the bottom line improvement never result in lower consumer costs?
It appears the purpose of these companies now is simply to provide a revenue stream and the business of producing something is just a side effect.
9
The economist's analysis of 'more workers for fewer jobs leads to less pay' and the work force experts view that off shoring, outsourcing and imports have hurt wages both ignore a simple fact. GDP has continued to grow. The money is being created in our economy. It just isn't being shared as it once was.
I have a simpler theory - the attitude of unity that followed WWII (band of brothers) helped both management and labor grow individual incomes. (It didn't hurt that the industrial plant for most of the rest of the world was in pieces.) AND an all volunteer army has diminished management's fear that applicants in the job pool have been trained to kill with their hands. Yeah...I know that sounds glib but fear of retribution can pass for respect.
For 50 years, CPI has trailed GDP by 2%. That's not good. For the last 20 years, GDP has tripled while median family income has added $2,000. ($49.8K to $52K). If this continues for another 20 years, U.S. will (somehow) hit $65T, while MFI will be less than $56K.
I have a simpler theory - the attitude of unity that followed WWII (band of brothers) helped both management and labor grow individual incomes. (It didn't hurt that the industrial plant for most of the rest of the world was in pieces.) AND an all volunteer army has diminished management's fear that applicants in the job pool have been trained to kill with their hands. Yeah...I know that sounds glib but fear of retribution can pass for respect.
For 50 years, CPI has trailed GDP by 2%. That's not good. For the last 20 years, GDP has tripled while median family income has added $2,000. ($49.8K to $52K). If this continues for another 20 years, U.S. will (somehow) hit $65T, while MFI will be less than $56K.
5
What mystery? The guys at the top are keeping it for themselves. They're the ones who tell the public, "We need these multimillion-dollar compensation packages because that motivates us to work hard and to attract the best people." Then they turn around and tell the people who do the real work of the company, whether in the manufacturing plant or face-to-face with customers, "What raise? Times are tough. You should be glad just to have a job. And by the way, here are some extra duties."
It's shameless cronyism, and it has infected not only the business world but also academia (administrators versus classroom instructors) and health care (hospital executives versus nurses).
It's shameless cronyism, and it has infected not only the business world but also academia (administrators versus classroom instructors) and health care (hospital executives versus nurses).
83
The name for this is the War on Workers. Employees are not regarded as assets, but expenses. The ideal is to do more with less - and that includes doing everything to minimize labor costs while extracting maximum value from the work force by any means possible, including fair or foul. (As in making employees work off the clock, shorting hours, etc.)
There are two other things going here that need to be factored in as well. The absence of pay raises has forced people to go increasingly into debt. For those entering the work force with student loans hanging over them, the debt is now front-loaded. Workers desperate to keep up with payments are not workers who are going to rock the boat, organize to demand better pay, or be politically active, especially with unions having been decimated and workers convinced they don't get anything for union dues by years of corporate propaganda. From the viewpoint of business and the politicians they've bought, this is all good.
The other thing is this. To paraphrase Paul Krugman, your customers are someone else's employees, and your employees are someone else's customers. But... people without money are no one's customers. While an individual business might profit from holding down wages, if they all do the end result is they all suppress each other's business. And so the economy keeps stumbling along.
There are two other things going here that need to be factored in as well. The absence of pay raises has forced people to go increasingly into debt. For those entering the work force with student loans hanging over them, the debt is now front-loaded. Workers desperate to keep up with payments are not workers who are going to rock the boat, organize to demand better pay, or be politically active, especially with unions having been decimated and workers convinced they don't get anything for union dues by years of corporate propaganda. From the viewpoint of business and the politicians they've bought, this is all good.
The other thing is this. To paraphrase Paul Krugman, your customers are someone else's employees, and your employees are someone else's customers. But... people without money are no one's customers. While an individual business might profit from holding down wages, if they all do the end result is they all suppress each other's business. And so the economy keeps stumbling along.
42
The "mystery" of the vanishing pay raise? The "mystery" of stagnant and falling wages? Those aren't mysteries to anyone except some economists, and you'd think they'd know better. Their very failure to collectively recognize and admit the causes of this problem tells one how moribund economics is, and how it gets used (or misused, or not used at all) for political purposes. Willie Sutton was a better economist than they are. After all, he said, "Follow the money." Where is it going? And there's your reason for the bogus "mystery".
10
There are a huge numb of retirees whose income derives from investment income. Pensions, 401K, and IRA money all depend heavily on corporate profits and the stock market. As the number of retires increases, there will e more and more pressure for corporations to make money for the stockholders, direct and indirect. These people have a lot of influence, a lot of time on their hands, and a lot of votes.
12
Horse feathers! I am so sick of this desire of some to pit the old against the young. The policy making that has allowed big corporations to pay workers wages that can't support a family of 4 without food stamps aren't being supported by retirees they are being supported by multi million $$$ lobbyists who work for multi billion $$$$ corporations.
29
Several of the comments note one of the problematic issues here: what is considered "performance" worth "rewarding". Service-type work, labor in its classic sense, is not valued. The ability to extract value from others is what is rewarded: performance is not productivity, it is the ability to extract the productive labor of others. This is, of course, an insight shared by both Marx and Smith.
Sad.
Sad.
80
Wages are actually far worse than "flat" and have been for more than 20 years, if measured against real inflation. Real inflation must take into account the cost of food and energy as well and has averaged over 10 percent for many years. Real purchasing power for Americans has been on a decline since 1970 and an accelerating decline ever since free market dogma became gospel in the financial world.
Wake up Americans!
Wake up Americans!
81
And don't forget how rent has increased!
1
In my 40+ years as an engineer I have seen this replayed again and again. The executives get the gold while the rank and file get to grab their ankles. There is always some kind of excuse for not giving raises. I guess I am one of those "top performers" as my meager raises have usually been greater than those of my colleagues but never higher than inflation. Yet the executives get their inflation plus 10%. What a country where those that make a contribution get stiffed while the money shufflers get all of the rewards.
199
Sing it, kindred soul!
1
As someone lucky enough to have a pretty decent job, I'm supposed to be thrilled with a 1.5 or 2% raise. Been through several years with a 0% raise and an 8 - 12% increase in healthcare costs and told it could be worse. Staff shrinks, the workload increases. Do more for less. Did I mention I'm a respected employee with a lot of responsibility, the go-to person when it needs to be done right? Doesn't matter.
Meanwhile, profits are up. stock does well. The CEO is the 2nd highest paid in the business and gets over $40M in compensation. There is plenty of money, the company is not in dire straits. They just don't see any reason to compensate employees with a better wage. They used to, but that was 3 owners ago. Back when employees still had pensions. They were eliminated by the current owners. Too costly. A few older Union employees were able to keep them - I still have a small one. But all non-union employees lost theirs.
I could look for a different job, but after 29 years, I'd never be able to replace benefits & paid leave accrued. Likely would have a pay cut. So what real choice is there? Ride it out and hope the job lasts until retirement?
I'm pretty sure many other commenters are in the same position I'm in.
Meanwhile, profits are up. stock does well. The CEO is the 2nd highest paid in the business and gets over $40M in compensation. There is plenty of money, the company is not in dire straits. They just don't see any reason to compensate employees with a better wage. They used to, but that was 3 owners ago. Back when employees still had pensions. They were eliminated by the current owners. Too costly. A few older Union employees were able to keep them - I still have a small one. But all non-union employees lost theirs.
I could look for a different job, but after 29 years, I'd never be able to replace benefits & paid leave accrued. Likely would have a pay cut. So what real choice is there? Ride it out and hope the job lasts until retirement?
I'm pretty sure many other commenters are in the same position I'm in.
393
As long as the Republicans have the majority in the US Congress, the middle class will continue to shrink in America.
23
Pretty much that's exactly how my nearly-40 year career in an engineering field, has played out for me.
Good enough, and the go-to increasingly senior/experienced person who they want to keep around, despite multiple rounds of layoffs. Not, however, a technical star. Just someone who, y'know, puts in the effort to bring and keep everyone up to speed, and gets the job done.
Good enough, and the go-to increasingly senior/experienced person who they want to keep around, despite multiple rounds of layoffs. Not, however, a technical star. Just someone who, y'know, puts in the effort to bring and keep everyone up to speed, and gets the job done.
3
This sounds familiar.
1
Basic supply and demand. U6 unemployment rate remains over 10%. Illegal immigration increases labor supply while corporate drive for profits during a 7 year stagnent economy decreases demand. Outsourcing jobs is not as big a factor as many people believe. We are also importing good jobs from foreign companies such as Toyota, Siemans, Hyundai, etc. who have opened plants here. Employers, such as mine, have also started, generally through attrition, to replace full time positions with part time positions in anticipation of the ACA implementation of the employer mandate in 2016.
The key to increasing wages again is a strong growing economy. Government all all levels needs to vacate laws, policies and regulations that hinder economic growth.
The key to increasing wages again is a strong growing economy. Government all all levels needs to vacate laws, policies and regulations that hinder economic growth.
12
Your thinking ignores that corporate profits are at their highest point in 85 years.
Like the 1920s, we are in another gilded age which favors the top 1%. Look it up. Do some research. Regulation isn't the problem. It's lack of regulation that is the problem.
How on earth you can conclude that illegal immigration is even remotely the problem is astounding.
We will never, as a country, change what ails us until people take an honest look at the cause. Please put political ideology aside and look at what created this problem, not how this problem will fit into your personal political narrative.
Like the 1920s, we are in another gilded age which favors the top 1%. Look it up. Do some research. Regulation isn't the problem. It's lack of regulation that is the problem.
How on earth you can conclude that illegal immigration is even remotely the problem is astounding.
We will never, as a country, change what ails us until people take an honest look at the cause. Please put political ideology aside and look at what created this problem, not how this problem will fit into your personal political narrative.
19
There are a couple of other factors that drive companies to keep wages and salaries suppressed. One is the power of Republican gerrymandered districts comprising voters who time and again vote against their own economic interests in favor of candidates who stoke their immigration fears and racial prejudices. The other factor is the caveat in job number reports that the unemployed who have stopped seeking employment are not counted, lending the impression the unemployment rate is much larger than reports indicate. This alone enables employers to rationalize that their employees should "just be happy that they have a job" and keep them underpaid despite large profits while overpaying themselves.
30
The American worker has changed categories from "consumer" to "consumable." We might as well be cheap plastic goods from the third world: costing little, yet valued even less than our sticker price in the eyes of those who own us.
49
What does it mean to be a top performer? When you read about the culture of Amazon, whether or not it's completely accurate, you get a picture of a cut-throat culture where people undermine their coworkers to present themselves as top performers. If employers choose to promote that kind of culture as they give raises only to a few, any idea of teamwork and working toward common goals corrodes.
Raising minimum wages is a different issue. We've seen a lot of arguments that higher minimum wages will destroy low skill jobs. I think it's true that employers will destroy as many of those jobs as feasible and it's not just because of minimum wage laws. Whether it's robots or off-shoring, some jobs are doomed. I think a lot of people will be surprised to see how far the threat extends. What will we choose to do about that? It's a big question.
Raising minimum wages is a different issue. We've seen a lot of arguments that higher minimum wages will destroy low skill jobs. I think it's true that employers will destroy as many of those jobs as feasible and it's not just because of minimum wage laws. Whether it's robots or off-shoring, some jobs are doomed. I think a lot of people will be surprised to see how far the threat extends. What will we choose to do about that? It's a big question.
106
My firm has a business culture which is not cut-throat like Amazon; rather, good teamwork is the rule.
However, in my three decades of working in my engineering field, I've witnessed the pay-by-performance ethos increasingly turn into a situation where the rewards increasingly go to upper echelons of management, and a few technical stars. It is reasoned that these are the only truly irreplaceable employees.
In the meantime, the real message is what is heard - by far most who enter an engineering field will work long hours (50 to 60/week) for remuneration which will be, while "comfortable", will not usually reward by effort or intellect and will seldom approach that someone with similar intellectual/math ability in the fields of finance or law.
So, we have a shortage of engineers, with the companies that reward only the execs and a few technical stars, casting for H1B's and others from abroad, to staff the positions that perform 99% of the actual work.
However, in my three decades of working in my engineering field, I've witnessed the pay-by-performance ethos increasingly turn into a situation where the rewards increasingly go to upper echelons of management, and a few technical stars. It is reasoned that these are the only truly irreplaceable employees.
In the meantime, the real message is what is heard - by far most who enter an engineering field will work long hours (50 to 60/week) for remuneration which will be, while "comfortable", will not usually reward by effort or intellect and will seldom approach that someone with similar intellectual/math ability in the fields of finance or law.
So, we have a shortage of engineers, with the companies that reward only the execs and a few technical stars, casting for H1B's and others from abroad, to staff the positions that perform 99% of the actual work.
3
Many jobs are doomed, not some. How are huge non-working populations going to support themselves? Interesting times ahead, look out below.
2
“Why is there this assumption that wages are only going to rise faster than inflation at very low unemployment?” he asked. “Where does that come from?”
That's not the argument. The argument is that we do not know the unemployment rate that represents full employment. The metric for determining the full employment unemployment rate is through wage pressure. The idea is that until wages start rising, unemployment can continue to go down.
Given the asymmetric risk with inflation (i.e. we have tools if it goes up and we don't if it goes down), there is no reason not wait for either wage pressures to resume or for inflation to rise to 2 or 4%.
Conservatives often say things as if other people have said them, when in fact they have not. Will the media never catch on to this?
That's not the argument. The argument is that we do not know the unemployment rate that represents full employment. The metric for determining the full employment unemployment rate is through wage pressure. The idea is that until wages start rising, unemployment can continue to go down.
Given the asymmetric risk with inflation (i.e. we have tools if it goes up and we don't if it goes down), there is no reason not wait for either wage pressures to resume or for inflation to rise to 2 or 4%.
Conservatives often say things as if other people have said them, when in fact they have not. Will the media never catch on to this?
3
When I took economics in the 1970s, we were told that full employment meant 2% unemployment, since some people were always between jobs. Japan had actually achieved that figure at the time I lived there. The country as a whole seemed overstaffed, but the only homeless people were obvious late-stage alcoholics, and crime rates were astoundingly low.
Suddenly, once the Reaganites came onto the scene, newspaper reports were telling us that "full employment" meant 5% unemployment. I took that to mean that "trickle-down" economics was incapable of pushing unemployment any lower.
Even Japan has seen a rise in crime and social dysfunction, now that its business practices and unemployment levels are closer to "international" (i.e. U.S. corporate MBA) standards.
Suddenly, once the Reaganites came onto the scene, newspaper reports were telling us that "full employment" meant 5% unemployment. I took that to mean that "trickle-down" economics was incapable of pushing unemployment any lower.
Even Japan has seen a rise in crime and social dysfunction, now that its business practices and unemployment levels are closer to "international" (i.e. U.S. corporate MBA) standards.
4
This is wage theft and it ought to be a crime. And yet the Republican party wants to get rid of the only cop on the beat, our government, elected by the people, for the people, and of the people, who would mandate paying a living wage which would boost all wages, and outlaw all these practices that kick the working class into the ditch. Instead, Republicans and other "experts" insist that government IS the problem, or that "low-skilled" workers can't share in the benefits of automation their work helped make, or workers must wait until the magic market intervenes, or workers must wait until the economy grows (whatever that means), or wait until corporations develop a human conscience, or wait until we deport 11 million Latinos, or wait until unemployment drops yet another point. Meanwhile a whole new generation of Americans raise their children with half the wages in real terms that they used to make, while paying ten times the costs to the corporations, colleges and hospitals that are bleeding us dry. It is all deeply, thoroughly, and sickeningly wrong. I hope Republicans lose in this upcoming election, and I hope they lose big.
166
How can this be wage theft? The employees in question are not "chained" to their desks. They are receiving the salary agreed upon at hire with or without wage increase. There cannot be theft of wages that were never there to begin with.
It's not literally wage theft, it's redistribution of money upward from paying workers to profit. It also reduces demand. Why do you think cheap labor nations have to sell here or in Europe? As we become a cheap labor nation ordinary citizens will be valued less and less. Bad for a democracy.
2
The federal income tax code was written by the barbarians and pirates known as corporations, politicians, plutocrats and oligarchs. The code is a license to pillage and plunder by sending our jobs and their money overseas. The tax code provides deductions, credits, subsidies and lower tax rates. But only for certain select industries, sources of income, transactions, business entity structures, contracts and securities.
Those real persons who work for a living wage or salary are not among the chosen few to prosper. If you are not a corporation nor a plutocrat nor an oligarch nor a politician then you do not count for much more than consumer consumption ,labor and cannon fodder.
Those real persons who work for a living wage or salary are not among the chosen few to prosper. If you are not a corporation nor a plutocrat nor an oligarch nor a politician then you do not count for much more than consumer consumption ,labor and cannon fodder.
22
Maybe if both parties would stop importing labor, we could have a real labor shortage and see wages rise.
21
So you're ready for you and/or your children to go work in the fields, restaurant kitchens, and domestic service industries of America? Those are the jobs mostly filled by immigrants. America lost many middle management jobs not through immigration, but through NAFTA and the sending of American jobs overseas. Trump is a great example of this hypocrisy; he rails against immigration but produces his goods in China.
2
Demonizing honorable work is a tool for keeping Americans away from these jobs. It enables employers to employ immigrants who will work for less and not complain about bad conditions for fear of being deported.
I repeat: domestic service and restaurant work and farm work is honorable work. In my day lots of students worked these jobs part time and in summer.
I repeat: domestic service and restaurant work and farm work is honorable work. In my day lots of students worked these jobs part time and in summer.
9
This isn't going to get better until we establish a new paradigm driving the economy. The products and services available today have commoditized and high pay rates go with the emergence of new paradigms. This was easily seen in the original Industrial Revolution and in every one since. Workers are made redundant by improvements in technologies whether that means spinning jennies or chip fabrication and software coding. New paradigms are messy and labor intensive driving up everyone's pay. Think about infrastructure building for a new energy economy and a picture comes into view. Unfortunately such a new paradigm is being thwarted by investments in the conventional fossil fuel based status quo. Large investments in that infrastructure would need to be partially written off by powerful people for the new paradigm to emerge. So we wait.
6
Wages will remain stagnant as long as we keep allowing the corporatists and the Democrats to bring in cheap foreign labor. Open borders will kill America.
I like that Trump just called out Disney to rehire the recently fired American workers who were replaced by H-1B visa foreigners. Employers who abuse the visa programs should be fined and or jailed. That'll put an end to that.
I like that Trump just called out Disney to rehire the recently fired American workers who were replaced by H-1B visa foreigners. Employers who abuse the visa programs should be fined and or jailed. That'll put an end to that.
32
Better yet, employers should not be allowed to use H1-B visas unless there is full employment in the job category that they seek.
11
Much of the immigrant labor in our country is employed in agricultural fields, restaurant kitchens,and domestic work. Most Americans don't want those jobs. As for Trump, what a hypocrite! He's one of the corporatists who exports those lost middle management American jobs by having his goods produced in China. Why anyone who cares about the plight of American workers would vote for him with that record is incomprehensible.
2
Corporate America's getting the unemployment level down is like the big puffy space in the potato chip bag less than one third full. It's all packaging, cheap corn sugars and unhealthy fats, not a nutritional food that sustains workers.
It's not unemployment but the quality of job that is keeping wages down. No one knows how many of the previously unemployed and from good jobs now work in retail, customer service and the like at near poverty wages and no benefits. That is not stopping Corporate America from crowing about what they are doing to boost the economy and demand a raise in interest rates instead.
I do not want to hear even one more story about the unemployment rate until that discussion talks frankly and honestly about the quality of those jobs are. You know it's there. Who do you think those workers their low level manager who is made to see their wages coming out of their pockets? That's just pushing down onto the lowest level the greed coming from the very top and shareholders.
Do this story again and get it right for a change.
It's not unemployment but the quality of job that is keeping wages down. No one knows how many of the previously unemployed and from good jobs now work in retail, customer service and the like at near poverty wages and no benefits. That is not stopping Corporate America from crowing about what they are doing to boost the economy and demand a raise in interest rates instead.
I do not want to hear even one more story about the unemployment rate until that discussion talks frankly and honestly about the quality of those jobs are. You know it's there. Who do you think those workers their low level manager who is made to see their wages coming out of their pockets? That's just pushing down onto the lowest level the greed coming from the very top and shareholders.
Do this story again and get it right for a change.
24
Only one Presidential candidate has shown real interest in this issue, and Bernie Sanders is that candidate. That is because he is the only candidate, who actually cares about people who must labor for a living- most Americans. He promotes much higher minimum wage and more protection for unions to do something to upset the ruthless control of corporate managers determined to maximize profits. And he is the one who has most talked about not rewarding companies for sending American jobs producing goods for Americans, overseas. But then he doesn't kiss babies, so hey. I'm a Grandfather now but the thought of any of the other candidates kissing my grandchild is repellant.
123
One fact that nobody acknowledges and one question nobody wants to answer. Fact - The superstars don't shine without the support of a whole team of people who get no praise or money. Those workers are not at the company because of charity. They were hired because their work was vital to the bottom line. Questions - if the pay doesn't start to rise, exactly who is going to buy all the products these companies produces? The few "superstars"?
74
The irony is that by controlling labor costs, the price of goods and services goes down and thus people can afford them. Why do you think Sam Walton was so successful -- he gave people great products at a lower cost than anyone else. So the employee may suffer but the customer benefits.
2
Well Gee you are not getting a pay raise until and unless you can get another job for more pay. Plenty of unemployed want jobs and some are very competent.
4
The majority of companies during the 1950's and beyond were run by engineers, excellent decision makers who understood that sharing the wealth was good for the overall economy. The majority of companies currently are run by accountants, poor decision makers who only understand how to compound interest on the savings from keeping the money for themselves.
Unfortunately our lawmakers have lowered the corporate tax rate so that this can continue unabated, to the detriment of those in the middle class. Apparently, dignity that results from performing honest work is not valued by the accountants as it was by the engineers.
Unfortunately our lawmakers have lowered the corporate tax rate so that this can continue unabated, to the detriment of those in the middle class. Apparently, dignity that results from performing honest work is not valued by the accountants as it was by the engineers.
58
With one word, "dignity," you've encapsulated the heart of the matter. If anyone wonders why people are not more jubilant about the improved unemployment rate, they should know the answer lies in the lack of pride most Americans are supposed to take in their contribution to America's prosperity. Their stagnant pay and lowered benefits, coupled with the message that they should just be happy to have a job at all, sends a message of contempt for them that translates into a nation of employees plagued by low morale.
12
>
Where is the "Mystery"?
Where is the "Mystery"?
9
Isn't it largely a problem of the decline of traditional business values? Too many corporate directors no longer reward workers adequately for their production -- i.e., for producing the products and services that create profits. Instead, they over-generously reward the executives who use the profits mainly to give more money to the shareholders.
20
To quote a song by the Climax Blues Band, "I kept on looking for a sign in the middle of the night, but I couldn't get it right..." Well there it is. Until we knuckle down and confess that hyperinflation is cooked into the books, cooked into the numbers we will never get a grasp on the problem. The billionaires aren't giving away their money because their money isn't worth what it used to be.
1
The problem with this op-ed is that it ignores and/or downplays what almost every article about economic inequality also ignores and/or downplays, namely, the fundamental causes of this huge problem: "free trade" and low taxes on the rich.
This is not rocket science. Just look at the trends over the past 50 years of reducing tariffs and lowering the marginal rates of federal income taxes. That is the evidence. But for anyone who understands a minimal amount about macroeconomics, think about this: how do those two policies play out?
Reducing tariffs caused the US to lose millions of jobs. Fewer jobs means a decline in worker leverage.
Lower taxes on the rich encourages them to increase their extraction from the rest. This means lower wages for most Americans, but higher wages for the top 1%.
Why do most Americans not understand this? Because they get their "news" from elites, who have benefitted from "free trade" and low taxes on the rich.
This is not rocket science. Just look at the trends over the past 50 years of reducing tariffs and lowering the marginal rates of federal income taxes. That is the evidence. But for anyone who understands a minimal amount about macroeconomics, think about this: how do those two policies play out?
Reducing tariffs caused the US to lose millions of jobs. Fewer jobs means a decline in worker leverage.
Lower taxes on the rich encourages them to increase their extraction from the rest. This means lower wages for most Americans, but higher wages for the top 1%.
Why do most Americans not understand this? Because they get their "news" from elites, who have benefitted from "free trade" and low taxes on the rich.
234
And this is why TPP is a huge mistake.
6
Not to mention the loss of bargaining power as the unions were destroyed.
3
"We want you to share the rewards more evenly.”
White collar workers in major corporations have absolutely no leverage. They have to take whatever the company gives them. With labor unions completely absent from the scene they are required by many companies to sign a "termination at will" contract. This contract states they can be terminated "at any time for any reason". It is basically an early message that they are under the complete dictates or whims of the corporation's current management. They are also told, in what is a toothless gesture, that if they have any complaints Human resources will assist them. The shallowness of this statement soon becomes obvious when they learn that this department is actually deep in the pocket of management. Their only recourse, if they feel they have been treated unfairly or discriminated agains, is to seek outside counsel. If they so choose, then they learn their final despairing lesson that our legal system is slanted and under the control of the major corporations. If they have the patience of Job and wait for years while under employed and blacklisted they may find some justice awaiting them from a jury (forget Judges). However, the odds of that happening are about as great as winning big at a casino.
White collar workers in major corporations have absolutely no leverage. They have to take whatever the company gives them. With labor unions completely absent from the scene they are required by many companies to sign a "termination at will" contract. This contract states they can be terminated "at any time for any reason". It is basically an early message that they are under the complete dictates or whims of the corporation's current management. They are also told, in what is a toothless gesture, that if they have any complaints Human resources will assist them. The shallowness of this statement soon becomes obvious when they learn that this department is actually deep in the pocket of management. Their only recourse, if they feel they have been treated unfairly or discriminated agains, is to seek outside counsel. If they so choose, then they learn their final despairing lesson that our legal system is slanted and under the control of the major corporations. If they have the patience of Job and wait for years while under employed and blacklisted they may find some justice awaiting them from a jury (forget Judges). However, the odds of that happening are about as great as winning big at a casino.
24
I'm astonished that immigration isn't mentioned here, even if only to rule it out.
The article mentions outsourcing, how is immigration different in effect?
The article mentions outsourcing, how is immigration different in effect?
7
There's no mystery here. The "vanishing pay raise" is a direct result of 35+ years of deliberate public policy designed to redistribute wealth from those who earn it to those who merely own things. It's a direct result of 35+ years of deliberate public policy designed to enrich the already rich by cannibalizing the living standards of everyone else.
No need to call Nancy Drew to solve the mystery. It's as plain as day; we already know whodunit. The only mystery is why the people most hurt by these policies (workers) keep voting for the designers of the policies that hurt them (the right).
No need to call Nancy Drew to solve the mystery. It's as plain as day; we already know whodunit. The only mystery is why the people most hurt by these policies (workers) keep voting for the designers of the policies that hurt them (the right).
276
The destruction of the American worker began under Rotten Ronnie with the attacks on unions and it has triumphantly continued ever since.
98
The wages won't go up because firms know they can set the pay rate at any level they want...
... with no consequences.
... with no consequences.
26
Don't forget the huge issue of bringing so-called skilled workers over on H1b, L1 and B1 visas - these workers do their best to remain in the US, converting the visa from a temporary use to an immigration route - accumulating over time far more than the 65,000 visas given out each year. In addition, Obama granted the spouses and family members of these the right to work in the US, with no actual justification based on NEED. Now Obama wants to double or triple the OPT program for recent grads - essentially these foreign students stay for lower pay. Do American STEM grads get considered for those jobs? Not at all, because they would need to be paid more.
Obama is not helping. To be fair, neither party is helping American STEM workers.
Every immigration-related piece of legislation in the past few years has presented big eyed children as the focus with increases in these harmful and little audited so-called skilled worker visa programs.
Obama is not helping. To be fair, neither party is helping American STEM workers.
Every immigration-related piece of legislation in the past few years has presented big eyed children as the focus with increases in these harmful and little audited so-called skilled worker visa programs.
17
The times they are a-changing. Robots and automation will do most of the work in the near future. Already, automobile factories employ one fifth as many workers as they did fifty years ago.
This trend means that soon there will be few jobs and many unemployed people. We will have a choice -- either pay the few who work a lot and let the others suffer, or put almost everyone on welfare. Just think of the unemployed bus drivers which will be the other face of self driving cars. Those cars are already here in Silicon Valley, and soon will be found everywhere.
To see what we should do, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). The only politician who has a clue is Bernie Sanders, so send him a buck. And invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
This trend means that soon there will be few jobs and many unemployed people. We will have a choice -- either pay the few who work a lot and let the others suffer, or put almost everyone on welfare. Just think of the unemployed bus drivers which will be the other face of self driving cars. Those cars are already here in Silicon Valley, and soon will be found everywhere.
To see what we should do, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). The only politician who has a clue is Bernie Sanders, so send him a buck. And invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
9
There is no mystery. The new business model is to cut labor costs to increase profit and the article explained how it's done. The technique of giving top dollar to star performers at the expense of the rest mirrors the huge difference in CEO and top management salaries and benefits and the salaries of ordinary workers. In the case of CEOs we know the rewards do not correlate well with performance. Maybe it's a casino type incentive: seeing a winner makes the rest hopeful and they try harder.
94
The corporations have been using all the fruits of the productivity improvement for dividends, stock-buybacks, M & A, off-shore cash holding and compensation increases for the management since early 1980's. According to various research, there is no evidence that corporations have increased wages of average workers in line with productivity growth since then. American workers have taken this corporate aggression as matter of fact because unions have been ostracized by the corporations and workers/white colors have been brain-washed by the conservative argument.
In this background, it is astonishing to see that Federal Reserve really think that inflation will pick up soon as they believe that corporations will increase wages in the current unemployment rate level. They are not realistic at all as they have condoned and have kept blind eyes to the aggressive corporate culture for a long time.
In this background, it is astonishing to see that Federal Reserve really think that inflation will pick up soon as they believe that corporations will increase wages in the current unemployment rate level. They are not realistic at all as they have condoned and have kept blind eyes to the aggressive corporate culture for a long time.
16
When fewer than seven percent of private sector workers are unionized, what else would you expect but wage stagnation? At this point only the public sector has anything like historic levels of union membership at just under 36 percent.
Non-unionized workers earn an average of 79 percent of what unionized employees make. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics correctly observes that other factors besides unionization contribute to that difference, my guess is that many of those factors are the same ones that have caused the decline of unions like the increase in part-time and temporary work. The transformation of the work force from an industrial to a service economy also played an enormous role, along with forty years of Republican dominance over appointments to the NLRB, the courts, and state governments.
I've said for years that office workers are the new proletariat. Industries like insurance with large numbers of office workers have abysmal rates of unionization, two percent in this case. While there have been efforts to expand unions into such industries they have clearly failed to take hold. "Nine to Five" made for an entertaining movie, but 9to5 itself has little public influence these days. The organization's Annual Report makes no mention of the size of its membership rolls, nor does a quick Google search reveal that figure. It's not hard to guess why.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/union2_01232015.pdf
Non-unionized workers earn an average of 79 percent of what unionized employees make. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics correctly observes that other factors besides unionization contribute to that difference, my guess is that many of those factors are the same ones that have caused the decline of unions like the increase in part-time and temporary work. The transformation of the work force from an industrial to a service economy also played an enormous role, along with forty years of Republican dominance over appointments to the NLRB, the courts, and state governments.
I've said for years that office workers are the new proletariat. Industries like insurance with large numbers of office workers have abysmal rates of unionization, two percent in this case. While there have been efforts to expand unions into such industries they have clearly failed to take hold. "Nine to Five" made for an entertaining movie, but 9to5 itself has little public influence these days. The organization's Annual Report makes no mention of the size of its membership rolls, nor does a quick Google search reveal that figure. It's not hard to guess why.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/union2_01232015.pdf
11
Pay raises? Who's kidding who. Corporate America has geared it's entire structure towards NOT giving fair raises to it's workers. Regardless of how a particular company might be doing, when there's any downturn in the economy they tell their employees that they have to "hunker down" and reduce wages AND benefits accordingly. Who doesn't know someone who's had their company's matching contributions into a 401K cut back during a downturn and never seen it go up afterwards. Who doesn't know someone who's copay for a doctor visit or prescription refill hasn't increased? Not only are there no raises but benefits also drop. After all, the SHAREHOLDERS have expectations for high dividends and CEO's have high expectations for those sky-high bonuses so a raise for employees? Don't hold your breath.
139
As an employer I'm shocked that the words "health insurance" does not appear in this article. Health insurance premium increases have far outpaced inflation for several years.
Those premium increases are in effect "raises" that benefit employees. Of course their take home pay does not go up but nonetheless we employers are footing the bill.
Those premium increases are in effect "raises" that benefit employees. Of course their take home pay does not go up but nonetheless we employers are footing the bill.
12
As an employer, I agree. My company's employee health insurance premiums are the largest component of total cost of doing business other than wages. Health insurance premiums exceed rent, utilities and all other cost categories. I do not, however, expect a NYT editorial columnist to publicly recognize this as it would be contrary to their notion of evil capitalists oppressing down-trodden labor.
4
Your comment is why I'm puzzled that business owners aren't pushing hard and continuously for a Medicare-For-All insurance system. It would free you to be a business owner, rather than a health insurance provider.
16
Free, you say.
As I recall in Economics 1.1 in college:
'There is no such thing as a free lunch'
As I recall in Economics 1.1 in college:
'There is no such thing as a free lunch'
2
It's important to look at "voluntary turnover" to get the whole picture of "supply and demand". In Tech it's more likely that only the top 10% of performers get a raise. The rest accept this situation because it's difficult to find another job. If no one is leaving then there are few open positions.
Our company has 4 performance ratings and we have strict quotas dictated by HR and upper management for how many can fit in each rating. Only 10% of the engineers can get the top rating. The entire engineering management team has to sign off on this group; which favors people that are visible across organizations.
The engineers whose job is to "shut-up and code." get the token raise (if there is one) regardless of their performance.
Our company has 4 performance ratings and we have strict quotas dictated by HR and upper management for how many can fit in each rating. Only 10% of the engineers can get the top rating. The entire engineering management team has to sign off on this group; which favors people that are visible across organizations.
The engineers whose job is to "shut-up and code." get the token raise (if there is one) regardless of their performance.
11
No one in politics or the 1% in America seems to remember that Revolution comes when people have nothing left to lose.
Those comfortable out-of-touch greedsters seem to think they can grab anything, change any law and the people of America will put up with it forever.
The day of surprise is coming faster and faster.
Madame de Farge II keeps knotting
Those comfortable out-of-touch greedsters seem to think they can grab anything, change any law and the people of America will put up with it forever.
The day of surprise is coming faster and faster.
Madame de Farge II keeps knotting
25
I may be wrong in this, but I thought meritocracy was positive aspect of being an American. Opportunity for ALL children is of utmost importance such that every child can distinguish themselves by merit (and not a host of other factors outside their control). Now we are anti-pay for performance? The incentive to be a high performer has to exist. It is ridiculous build a business model based on people working hard only because they love their job. The trophy for every participant and A's for effort is a new phenomenon of the millennial generation. We rise and fall based on how much harder we work than our peers and how specialized our individual skill. The best ball players earn millions while the halfway decent plays on a rec team at the YMCA. At this point, all you can do as a parent is encourage your children to find their niche talent and drive it home. Above average in everything is not going to cut it anymore.
5
@B,
The problem with pay-for-performance, and the accompanying forced ranking system that "manages out" the under-performers (aka rank 'n' yank), is that at some point you have a team of "high performers" and you have to start throwing out the "low" high-performers. And in this day and age of do more with less, or fewer as this case may be, that "low" high-performer is not replaced, and the remaining "high-performers" now have to do even more, and look forward to being force ranked, and subsequently yanked...
- John
The problem with pay-for-performance, and the accompanying forced ranking system that "manages out" the under-performers (aka rank 'n' yank), is that at some point you have a team of "high performers" and you have to start throwing out the "low" high-performers. And in this day and age of do more with less, or fewer as this case may be, that "low" high-performer is not replaced, and the remaining "high-performers" now have to do even more, and look forward to being force ranked, and subsequently yanked...
- John
1
In spite of some serious flaws, Henry Ford had it right. If an employer wants his employees to be able to purchase whatever service or product they are providing, a living wage must be paid. Domestic consumption was and is the engine of the US economy.
Today--prices for just about everything are going up, but salaries are stagnant. In my case, extras and vacations are things of the past (I am a highly trained and accomplished professional). Obviously, that has limits. In the very near future, businesses will seriously feel the pinch of workers' collapsing buying power.
Today's employers better take another look at Henry Ford.
Today--prices for just about everything are going up, but salaries are stagnant. In my case, extras and vacations are things of the past (I am a highly trained and accomplished professional). Obviously, that has limits. In the very near future, businesses will seriously feel the pinch of workers' collapsing buying power.
Today's employers better take another look at Henry Ford.
68
As a middle class American I depend upon a healthy public estate to make my income adequate for my needs. Any politician or party that threatens my parks, libraries, schools, highways, etc., is my enemy.
Will the Democrats ever make an issue of this?
Will the Democrats ever make an issue of this?
30
Mystery? There is no mystery.
Since the Reagan administration government policy has been to break unions and tilt the power structure so far toward business that working people have little chance to get ahead no matter how hard they work.
Since the Reagan administration government policy has been to break unions and tilt the power structure so far toward business that working people have little chance to get ahead no matter how hard they work.
141
Marx spoke of how the army of the unemployed and how it would depress wages. It is time for Democrats to address immigration. H-1B visas are abused, and some of the largest offenders, fined by the US, continue to get more visas and donate funds to the Clinton foundation. They decrease wages of middle class IT people and accountants. Illegal immigrants depress wages of working class people. It seems only Trump cares (as much as it pains me to admit this).
13
The unions are not all they are made out to be. Great for initial negotiations across the board for the workers but the outstanding employee is a joke. He or she might as well be Jeb Bush. I had overall managers identify me as the only individual in my department that could sit back and analyze a problem. No good, the VP in change of personnel who would boast of his MBA and was a technical moron, wanted nothing more than to show his power and fire me for nonsense. The people that write these articles have been talking to titles and degrees that have nothing to do with even solving high school math.
5
When will my pay increase arrive?
Answer: When you get your mind off of trash media and start educating yourself in regards to UNIONS!
Without unions, you will NEVER get a raise. In fact, your income will continue to decrease, as well as your time off, while your working hours will increase.
Sound like a life worth living?
Answer: When you get your mind off of trash media and start educating yourself in regards to UNIONS!
Without unions, you will NEVER get a raise. In fact, your income will continue to decrease, as well as your time off, while your working hours will increase.
Sound like a life worth living?
30
Christine;
Maybe YOU will "never get a raise"...but I suspect a superior worker whose labor is more highly valued than yours will do just fine in that respect. In truth, unions usually hold DOWN such a worker's wages....to say nothing of increasing his chances for losing his job.
Maybe YOU will "never get a raise"...but I suspect a superior worker whose labor is more highly valued than yours will do just fine in that respect. In truth, unions usually hold DOWN such a worker's wages....to say nothing of increasing his chances for losing his job.
2
It may be time for the return of... dare I say it... Unions
236
This is all about the decrease in the percentage of the population which is unionized.
20
"In a minority view, the Heritage Foundation and some other conservative groups say the bureau has underestimated wage increases."
You include the reference but fail to tell us WHAT evidence Heritage provides?
The Heritage Foundation has a well deserved reputation as, not to put too fine a point on it, liars. You can find repeated evidence of this in your own paper from Paul Krugman.
Some examples: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/heritage-still-hackish/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/the-mystery-of-moore/
In "an op-ed from Stephen Moore, the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, attacking Obamacare: Not one alleged fact cited in the piece is right. And we’re not talking about matters of interpretation."
"the newly non-crazy Heritage will now have a chief economist who is the equivalent, for the dismal science, of having a chief scientist who denies climate change and evolution."
Stop the 'he said, she said' nonsense. Or, to use another Krugman example:
"If a presidential candidate were to declare that the earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the headline 'Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.' After all, the earth isn’t perfectly spherical."
And we don't even have to leave the Times site to get it.
You include the reference but fail to tell us WHAT evidence Heritage provides?
The Heritage Foundation has a well deserved reputation as, not to put too fine a point on it, liars. You can find repeated evidence of this in your own paper from Paul Krugman.
Some examples: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/heritage-still-hackish/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/the-mystery-of-moore/
In "an op-ed from Stephen Moore, the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, attacking Obamacare: Not one alleged fact cited in the piece is right. And we’re not talking about matters of interpretation."
"the newly non-crazy Heritage will now have a chief economist who is the equivalent, for the dismal science, of having a chief scientist who denies climate change and evolution."
Stop the 'he said, she said' nonsense. Or, to use another Krugman example:
"If a presidential candidate were to declare that the earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the headline 'Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.' After all, the earth isn’t perfectly spherical."
And we don't even have to leave the Times site to get it.
27
It's all about the decrease in the per centage of the of workforce that is unionized.
21
It's greed for profit rules the roost,
Reluctance to give pay a boost,
While billionaires batten
On low wages fatten,
Wage increases remain reduced.
Live high as a one tenth per center,
The worker's viewed as a low renter,
While Unions are harried
Too long they have tarried,
And hated as a wage augmenter!
Reluctance to give pay a boost,
While billionaires batten
On low wages fatten,
Wage increases remain reduced.
Live high as a one tenth per center,
The worker's viewed as a low renter,
While Unions are harried
Too long they have tarried,
And hated as a wage augmenter!
58
Well Gee if you are a manager in a corporation you have a duty to run the business to create profit especially in the long run. Just paying more for no reason other than you want to is not appropriate.
1
"This disappearance of several million workers — as labor force dropouts they are not factored into the jobless rate — has meant continued labor market weakness"
Shorter version -- The unemployment numbers are faked. So many have been unemployed for so long that we don't bother to count them. But they are there. They are real. They suffer.
Guess what? They also vote. And they are angry. We are seeing a lot of that in this election.
We'll see more of it too, unless something changes to produce jobs and income.
Ah 1951, it was a fine year, wasn't it? The last time the rich had so much of the wealth, when women and those others knew their place, and the returning WW2 veterans were still getting their educations and permanent jobs. Before the rich had to pay, or to share. WW2 was glorious profits too, never mind the Truman Committee and its investigations of how the country was robbed during wartime by the defense industry.
We are there again. Wars, defense spending, personal ruin and re-starting of lives. Our rich will look back on this as another golden time. Unless. Unless they can keep it going this time! They're trying, really making an effort.
Shorter version -- The unemployment numbers are faked. So many have been unemployed for so long that we don't bother to count them. But they are there. They are real. They suffer.
Guess what? They also vote. And they are angry. We are seeing a lot of that in this election.
We'll see more of it too, unless something changes to produce jobs and income.
Ah 1951, it was a fine year, wasn't it? The last time the rich had so much of the wealth, when women and those others knew their place, and the returning WW2 veterans were still getting their educations and permanent jobs. Before the rich had to pay, or to share. WW2 was glorious profits too, never mind the Truman Committee and its investigations of how the country was robbed during wartime by the defense industry.
We are there again. Wars, defense spending, personal ruin and re-starting of lives. Our rich will look back on this as another golden time. Unless. Unless they can keep it going this time! They're trying, really making an effort.
171
I wouldn't say "they are faked", exactly. Once your Unemployment benefits stop, there is no way to report your status. While payments continue, you send in forms to indicate you were actively looking for work, in order to receive a benefit check, and so your status is reported.
Once benefits are exhausted you are basically "ignored" for statistical purposes. This statistical measure has other problems as well. It can't measure part time employment, underemployment, or "structural unemployment".
Once benefits are exhausted you are basically "ignored" for statistical purposes. This statistical measure has other problems as well. It can't measure part time employment, underemployment, or "structural unemployment".
7
They will probably vote Republican.
1
Thanks for bringing up the Truman Committee, something left out of my American History and American Civics classes and not just in high school either. No doubt this is topic is just one of the many conservatives are angry about in the new history curriculum being fought over. I think I will enjoy reading up on this one!
16