40% of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage

[Petunia 100]

Except that for many it is not even an option. To get a job many of my friends have relocated to metropolitan areas. Many have expressed the wish that they could find a decent paying middle of the road job if it meant they could work a reasonable amount 8-9 hours a day, and be able to enjoy some time with their family, even if it meant a smaller house and less stuff. But in order to afford housing in their areas, they need to tack on at least 1 hour commute to be able to afford a small home or rent an apartment in a decent neighborhood.

I think more people would eat at home, take time to cook if they had more time at home -- but when you are running around, leaving home at 6 am, working 10-12 hours, and then getting home late in the evening, cooking is not an easy option.

For many, even if they are responsible, the middle class dream is slipping away not just due to poor spending habits and investments, but due to a combination of circumstances one of which is written about in this article.

My family does not live in the US anymore because we prefer the lifestyle where we live, as opposed to the rat race of where we are from. We may make a smaller income, pay more tax, and have a smaller house -- but we have time to spend as a family, money to spend on travel and the family we remember having as kids.

I live in an area where the majority do commute out of town (to the SF bay area). I work locally and am able to support my family just fine on local wages. However, I do not own a mcmansion, have a smart phone, or have cable. That's ok with me. As you say, commuting is very expensive when it comes to quality of life.

May I ask which country you are living in now?

[Petunia 100]

When the gap between rich and poor becomes so great that the poor can no longer survive under these conditions they revolt and establish a system of wealth redistribution. Once the wealth has been redistributed the poor are happy again and eventually grow apathetic, then the rich begin their quiet revolution of taking the wealth back and continue to do so until the disparity between the have's and the have not's becomes so great that the poor can no longer....

The 1% got organized in the early 70's and started taking more and more of the wealth.

When the poor take from the rich, it's called class warfare. When the rich take from the poor, it's called an economic plan.

When I think of "the poor", I do not think of people in America who can eat, receive medical care, and receive an education all courtesy of the tax-payer. Instead, I think of people in third world countries who, through no fault of their own, are unable to meet their basic needs and have no opportunity to improve their lives.

[JoeP]

When I think of "the poor", I do not think of people in America who can eat, receive medical care, and receive an education all courtesy of the tax-payer. Instead, I think of people in third world countries who, through no fault of their own, are unable to meet their basic needs and have no opportunity to improve their lives.

Does "poor" mean income below a certain level? I know quite a few low income people who are doing quite well: low or no debt, happy outlook on life, wholesome values, friendly, etc...everything I hope to be someday. I know people comfortably in 6-digit income territory who go through money so fast you'd think its their last day on earth.

[Wino]

You do realize that there are countries that have a higher quality of living than the States, yes?

As judged by what index? Or is it a socially engineered definition where they use "universal healthcare" as one of the major factors? Not to mention "violent crime?" I've seen the studies you are mistakenly using for your basis. I think I am a better judge of my personal quality of life than some study where the author uses his own presumptions to determine the factors that compose "quality of life."

But to your specific "refutation" that I quoted above: Perhaps you've missed my blog posts where I recently stated that I've been to 72 different countries (many of them several or even dozens of times). Did I mention that I presently live in Dubai? How about the secondary facts that I've lived in Spain and Italy, as well? Let's go whole-hog and throw in the fact that I've spent more than one year in an 18 month period in Belgium, as well as about 14 months out of 18 in South Korea, as well. So, in all, only counting very-long term stays, I've spent about 16 years of my life living outside the borders of the US.

So, at least anecdotally, I'm pretty well qualified to make at least an experienced comment on your unsupported statement that the US doesn't have the highest "quality of life."

If you take "freedom" into account, then the USA has the highest quality of life in the world. If you like to live like a sheep under government control, then there are places that are better, just so you don't get out of line with the authorities. And if you take inner-city crime out of the picture, and throw in a factor for "homogeneity of population," then you'll find that the places with supposedly higher quality of life are all cookie-cutter duplicates of one-another.

The studies you're citing are taking a specific pre-defined set of data that the researcher claims will thereby determine "quality of life" and then leaves out things that are important to Americans. How about "ability to hunt wild game?" I know a lot of folks from Louisiana, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania who would think their "quality of life" went down at least one notch if they could not hunt or fish nearly universally as they now do. What about buying an SUV because you travel your distant friends and relatives a lot? Try to drive an SUV in Europe where (A) the distances are shorter, so comfortable driving isn't as critical and (B) a tank of gasoline costs about as much as your car payment. I love my Tahoe, and I like to drive. Can't do that in Europe. Having a tiny Eurocar would take many Americans "quality of life" down a few notches.

And isn't it great not being forced to vote? If you don't want to vote in an election, just stay home, but not in most other "democratic" countries. There, you are fined if you don't vote and don't have a doctor's note or similar. This is merely ONE example of the nanny-state intervention you must put up with in other countries. The government's intrusion into your life lowers your "quality of life" just by the prospect of having someone ask, "Your papers, please?"

No. I'll stay a US citizen, even with the government trying to become Europe. But they're wrong, and your statement is wrong, on oh-so-many levels. I've been there. I've done that. I know from whence I speak.

Since I'm on a rant, let me continue: The entire article from the OP was a biased attempt to "prove" that wages are stagnant as if they were still tied to productivity. Well, let me throw a wrench into that idea, as well.

Operators used to answer the phone when you dialed zero. Yep. A real, live person. Also, you never got a phone menu to "press one." What about nowadays? I'd say that the work that used to be done by those two professions (operator and receptionist) is now getting done by exponentially fewer people. Yet the "productivity" of handling phone calls has gone up. Wages down, productivity up. I wonder what happened around 1968 that caused this increase in productivity commensurate with the stagnation of wages? (I'll give you a hint: Starts with "comp" and ends with "uter.")

And assembly lines or production lines? Have you ever heard of a PLC? It used to take thousands of workers to now do what dozens can do. Productivity has certainly gone up there, without wage adjustments, either.

We've evolved our economy away from direct-effort for product, and into service and information with a dash of automation thrown in. I happen to work with energy and automation. There's no longer a guy with a shovel shoving coal into a boiler's furnace like in the old movies. Now we have crushers and aerators and conveyors and all sorts of fun things instead of the guy with a shovel. I guess his wages have stagnated as well. But productivity is up in power production.

I was going to stay out of the article and its obvious biases, but since you utopians want to think that "oh, it's not my fault that I'm so poor and downtrodden," I guess I couldn't help myself and not make any comment at all.

I can write an article such as the article from the OP with an opposite conclusion, but the article has so many logical flaws that the mind boggles. Its primary flaw is called "cum hoc fallacy." Just because productivity went up at the same time wages in relative terms stagnated, it does not follow that the two are related in any way, shape, or form.

I could go on and on, but since most of you reading this are already stoking your furnaces to rebut, I'll stop and let you vent at me.

[bUU]

When I think of "the poor", I do not think of people in America who can eat, receive medical care, and receive an education all courtesy of the tax-payer. Instead, I think of people in third world countries who, through no fault of their own, are unable to meet their basic needs and have no opportunity to improve their lives.

So are you saying that you want to make it so that those in this country with lower-class economic status are less able to meet their basic needs and have even less opportunity to improve their lives - just to satisfy some strangely perverse sense of purity about the word "poor"?

[humandraydel]

There was an article on CNNMoney recently that talked about the state of affairs in France. France has some of the most protective labor laws in the country. The court system literally says if a company can lay off workers. One tire factory is not profitable, but can't lay off workers to cut costs, so they are just going to close the factory instead.

I think that if wages and productivity were coupled, like the article suggests, productivity would not have gained nearly as much. In fact, maybe the productivity graph would come DOWN to the wage graph, instead of the opposite like the article hopes.

[thekid]

As judged by what index? Or is it a socially engineered definition where they use "universal healthcare" as one of the major factors? Not to mention "violent crime?" I've seen the studies you are mistakenly using for your basis. I think I am a better judge of my personal quality of life than some study where the author uses his own presumptions to determine the factors that compose "quality of life."

But to your specific "refutation" that I quoted above: Perhaps you've missed my blog posts where I recently stated that I've been to 72 different countries (many of them several or even dozens of times). Did I mention that I presently live in Dubai? How about the secondary facts that I've lived in Spain and Italy, as well? Let's go whole-hog and throw in the fact that I've spent more than one year in an 18 month period in Belgium, as well as about 14 months out of 18 in South Korea, as well. So, in all, only counting very-long term stays, I've spent about 16 years of my life living outside the borders of the US.

So, at least anecdotally, I'm pretty well qualified to make at least an experienced comment on your unsupported statement that the US doesn't have the highest "quality of life."

If you take "freedom" into account, then the USA has the highest quality of life in the world. If you like to live like a sheep under government control, then there are places that are better, just so you don't get out of line with the authorities. And if you take inner-city crime out of the picture, and throw in a factor for "homogeneity of population," then you'll find that the places with supposedly higher quality of life are all cookie-cutter duplicates of one-another.

The studies you're citing are taking a specific pre-defined set of data that the researcher claims will thereby determine "quality of life" and then leaves out things that are important to Americans. How about "ability to hunt wild game?" I know a lot of folks from Louisiana, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania who would think their "quality of life" went down at least one notch if they could not hunt or fish nearly universally as they now do. What about buying an SUV because you travel your distant friends and relatives a lot? Try to drive an SUV in Europe where (A) the distances are shorter, so comfortable driving isn't as critical and (B) a tank of gasoline costs about as much as your car payment. I love my Tahoe, and I like to drive. Can't do that in Europe. Having a tiny Eurocar would take many Americans "quality of life" down a few notches.

And isn't it great not being forced to vote? If you don't want to vote in an election, just stay home, but not in most other "democratic" countries. There, you are fined if you don't vote and don't have a doctor's note or similar. This is merely ONE example of the nanny-state intervention you must put up with in other countries. The government's intrusion into your life lowers your "quality of life" just by the prospect of having someone ask, "Your papers, please?"

No. I'll stay a US citizen, even with the government trying to become Europe. But they're wrong, and your statement is wrong, on oh-so-many levels. I've been there. I've done that. I know from whence I speak.

Since I'm on a rant, let me continue: The entire article from the OP was a biased attempt to "prove" that wages are stagnant as if they were still tied to productivity. Well, let me throw a wrench into that idea, as well.

Operators used to answer the phone when you dialed zero. Yep. A real, live person. Also, you never got a phone menu to "press one." What about nowadays? I'd say that the work that used to be done by those two professions (operator and receptionist) is now getting done by exponentially fewer people. Yet the "productivity" of handling phone calls has gone up. Wages down, productivity up. I wonder what happened around 1968 that caused this increase in productivity commensurate with the stagnation of wages? (I'll give you a hint: Starts with "comp" and ends with "uter.")

And assembly lines or production lines? Have you ever heard of a PLC? It used to take thousands of workers to now do what dozens can do. Productivity has certainly gone up there, without wage adjustments, either.

We've evolved our economy away from direct-effort for product, and into service and information with a dash of automation thrown in. I happen to work with energy and automation. There's no longer a guy with a shovel shoving coal into a boiler's furnace like in the old movies. Now we have crushers and aerators and conveyors and all sorts of fun things instead of the guy with a shovel. I guess his wages have stagnated as well. But productivity is up in power production.

I was going to stay out of the article and its obvious biases, but since you utopians want to think that "oh, it's not my fault that I'm so poor and downtrodden," I guess I couldn't help myself and not make any comment at all.

I can write an article such as the article from the OP with an opposite conclusion, but the article has so many logical flaws that the mind boggles. Its primary flaw is called "cum hoc fallacy." Just because productivity went up at the same time wages in relative terms stagnated, it does not follow that the two are related in any way, shape, or form.

I could go on and on, but since most of you reading this are already stoking your furnaces to rebut, I'll stop and let you vent at me.

It's not out of line to think that indeed some people may consider universal healthcare and lower crimes rates as bigger factors of "quality of life" than freedom to hunt and drive suvs without restriction. I'm not going to go into what country is best and whatnot as that will lead nowhere and will be specific to what one is looking for. Just pointing out that while you refer to bias, you yourself are showing extraordinary bias (and further your bias may well not be that of most folks).

As for wages not keeping up with productivity gains, that's the point......productivity gains disproportionately allocate gains to shareholders rather than to workers...leading to widening gaps in income.

For the record, i'm not a "poor utopian failing to take responsibility for oneselve". Your black and white worldview speaks much more of you than it does of the world. I'm very much a capitalist and make a very good living, still doesn't prevent me from trying to look at in issue on the merits, outside of ideology. That productivity gains profit owners more than workers seems self evident, at least for the individuals concerned and, in the short term, for society as a hole. Long term, it will depend largely on fiscal redistribution and social policy. Now, where i find the study misleading is that this is a measure of how growth gets distributed, not of spending power between periods. For the later, you have to look at wages vs inflation. It is indeed possible for all to get "richer" in absolute terms (ie. Income increases above inflation) even if they get poorer in relative terms (gains go disproportionately to one group over the other and the gap becomes wider).

[thekid]

There was an article on CNNMoney recently that talked about the state of affairs in France. France has some of the most protective labor laws in the country. The court system literally says if a company can lay off workers. One tire factory is not profitable, but can't lay off workers to cut costs, so they are just going to close the factory instead.

I think that if wages and productivity were coupled, like the article suggests, productivity would not have gained nearly as much. In fact, maybe the productivity graph would come DOWN to the wage graph, instead of the opposite like the article hopes.

France's labour laws are ridiculous, agreed.

[bUU]

It's not out of line to think that indeed some people may consider universal healthcare and lower crimes rates as bigger factors of "quality of life" than freedom to hunt and drive suvs without restriction. I'm not going to go into what country is best and whatnot as that will lead nowhere and will be specific to what one is looking for. Just pointing out that while you refer to bias, you yourself are showing extraordinary bias (and further your bias may well not be that of most folks).

Excellent points. And this points out the hazard of extreme perspectives ("no new taxes"; "line in the sand"; "no spending cuts"; etc.)

For the record, i'm not a "poor utopian failing to take responsibility for oneselve". Your black and white worldview speaks much more of you than it does of the world.

I think that kind of abject and irresponsible scurrilous view of others is a reflection of the hazard of extreme perspectives. The only way to rationalize such extreme perspectives, in the minds of anyone with any significant measure of reason and consideration of others, in a context where there are reasonable people who hold to a perspective that refutes the extreme perspective, is to seek to scurrilously and vacuously demonize the reasonable opposition. (What's worse, often the only way for opposition to such a thing to even register in the conversation is through mirroring - stating the opposition in parallel terms and parallel tone, demonizing the original perspective in proportional measure to how the original perspective sought to demonize reasonable opposition. When someone traffics in poisonous rhetoric generally the only thing that even registers in their consciousness in the context of an interchange is rhetoric that speaking in the same language. The unfortunate casualty in this is, of course, any hope of civility in the discussion.)

I'm very much a capitalist and make a very good living, still doesn't prevent me from trying to look at in issue on the merrits, outside of ideology.

And those merits can and should include moral considerations. We're not automatons, seeking only to bolster our own underpinnings without regard to impact on the broader world. As I get older I gain a strong appreciation for the obligation we all have to take a broader view, i.e., a view beyond the needs of ourselves and our own.

[Petunia 100]

So are you saying that you want to make it so that those in this country with lower-class economic status are less able to meet their basic needs and have even less opportunity to improve their lives - just to satisfy some strangely perverse sense of purity about the word "poor"?

Please don't try inserting words into my mouth. I did not say any such thing.

[Petunia 100]

As for wages not keeping up with productivity gains, that's the point......productivity gains disproportionately allocate gains to shareholders rather than to workers...leading to widening gaps in income.

For the record, i'm not a "poor utopian failing to take responsibility for oneselve". Your black and white worldview speaks much more of you than it does of the world. I'm very much a capitalist and make a very good living, still doesn't prevent me from trying to look at in issue on the merits, outside of ideology. That productivity gains profit owners more than workers seems self evident, at least for the individuals concerned and, in the short term, for society as a hole. Long term, it will depend largely on fiscal redistribution and social policy. Now, where i find the study misleading is that this is a measure of how growth gets distributed, not of spending power between periods. For the later, you have to look at wages vs inflation. It is indeed possible for all to get "richer" in absolute terms (ie. Income increases above inflation) even if they get poorer in relative terms (gains go disproportionately to one group over the other and the gap becomes wider).

So your take away is...what? Owners should be forced to share profits with workers? My take away is...it is potentially advantageous to be an owner. It is also potentially disastrous.

[bUU]

Please don't try inserting words into my mouth. I did not say any such thing.

Okay so let's go back, then: You were replying to Snodog's comment, "When the poor take from the rich, it's called class warfare. When the rich take from the poor, it's called an economic plan." You were challenging the use of the word "poor". What was the point of doing so, except to denigrate or otherwise marginalize the comparatively more difficult time poor people (referred to as such, whether you like it or not) in the United States have?

The point that seems to be glossed over, here, is that self-serving exploitation of power is wrong. Morally, the holding of power means the taking-on of obligation to apply that power responsibly in the public interest, not a right to exploit for personal gain. That's the difference between a civilized society in a republic (literally, power held by the body of citizens, i.e., the "public") versus a fascist (power held by individual citizens, often through force) or anarchic (holding of power follows no defined pattern) society. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any advantage stemming from affluence or good fortune (the absence of such advantage wouldn't be in the public interest, for various reasons), but rather than that advantage is naturally tempered by the obligation.

[Petunia 100]

Okay so let's go back, then: You were replying to Snodog's comment, "When the poor take from the rich, it's called class warfare. When the rich take from the poor, it's called an economic plan." You were challenging the use of the word "poor". What was the point of doing so, except to denigrate or otherwise marginalize the comparatively more difficult time poor people (referred to as such, whether you like it or not) in the United States have?

The point that seems to be glossed over, here, is that self-serving exploitation of power is wrong. Morally, the holding of power means the taking-on of obligation to apply that power responsibly in the public interest, not a right to exploit for personal gain. That's the difference between a civilized society in a republic (literally, power held by the body of citizens, i.e., the "public") versus a fascist (power held by individual citizens, often through force) or anarchic (holding of power follows no defined pattern) society. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any advantage stemming from affluence or good fortune (the absence of such advantage wouldn't be in the public interest, for various reasons), but rather than that advantage is naturally tempered by the obligation.

I didn't challenge the use of word "poor". I made a comment that I don't think of Americans as being "poor". It was a fairly straightforward comment.

[bUU]

Given that Snodog was referring to Americans, I don't know how to reconcile what you're writing now with what you wrote earlier. Perhaps that's the intention and I suppose that's okay.

[JoeP]

I didn't challenge the use of word "poor". I made a comment that I don't think of Americans as being "poor". It was a fairly straightforward comment.

I look at the word "poor" in the context of the society being examined. It absolutely has different meanings in different places. IMHO, a strong family unit is the best way to avoid being poor, and I'm not just referring to income or net worth.