Wages

[truthmatters]

4

[darin]

Half of Americans make less than 30,000 a year.



That's a worthless statistic. I'd bet Half of all Americans are too young or too old to be employed.

FWIW - you wouldn't know a good time if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.


Fact is, MORE americans seems to be EMPLOYED.

From the link you posted:


The combined income of all Americans in 2005 was slightly larger than it was in 2000, but because more people were dividing up the national income pie, the average remained smaller. Total adjusted gross income in 2005 was $7.43 trillion, up 3.1 percent from 2000 and 5.8 percent from 2004.


OH! And the VERY poor, are making MORE money, too


The I.R.S. data showed that the number of Americans making less than $25,000 a year shrank, down by 3.2 million, or 5.5 percent.


OH! And "reported Income" doesn't usually relate to one's earnings. ;)

[truthmatters]

4

[darin]

50% make less than 30,000 and nothing you have said here shows this to be untrue.


So what's your problem with this report? It shows MANY more jobs created, and Lots of saving-what-we-earn-instead-of-giving-it-to-the-gov. The report shows a DECREASE in those only making $25k or less. That's good news.



Nothing you have shown here refutes that incomes have gone down for the first time since 1945 with the exception of one year.

Of course nothing I wrote refutes your claim incomes have gone down for the first time since 1945 with the exception of one year because I wasn't TRYING to refute that bullshit claim. :)

MY income is 165% of what it was just seven years ago. That refutes your claim, I suppose.

[avatar4321]

50% make less than 30,000 and nothing you have said here shows this to be untrue.

Nothing you have shown here refutes that incomes have gone down for the first time since 1945 with the exception of one year.

and of course you are forgetting to factor in that a large part of that "50%" is here illegally and not entitled to be here let alone to work here.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[typomaniac]

I often think that the people responding to posts like these don't even bother to read the article first.

[darin]

You are one person and effect the numbers none in the least


So the only person in the country who matters is you?


No - I'm saying Your wild claim about "Wages" and "Earning" is NOT applicable. At least not to ME nor anybody I know. I was refuting your claim - which is what you seemed to want.



I often think that the people responding to posts like these don't even bother to read the article first.

I often think some of the people posting this stuff on the board don't even bother to read the article.

[Mr. P]

http://tinyurl.com/2ldfpa


wages seem to be having a low since 1945, a five year trend of being down not seen since then.

Total income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001, making the five-year period of lower average incomes and four years of lower total incomes a new experience for the majority of Americans born since 1945.


Half of Americans make less than 30,000 a year.

Ahhhhh but HALF make more than 30,000. They didn't tell ya that. :slap:

There is nothing here but another mindless transparent attack by the NYTs on the Bush administration via tax cuts. More of the same, create class warfare.

I wonder when they will start reporting news instead of pushing agenda?

[Dilloduck]

Ahhhhh but HALF make more than 30,000. They didn't tell ya that. :slap:

There is nothing here but another mindless transparent attack by the NYTs on the Bush administration via tax cuts. More of the same, create class warfare.

I wonder when they will start reporting news instead of pushing agenda?

Never---the hottest war that's going on right now is the ideological one in the US and its spreading rapidly. The resources that are being wasted is phenomenal. Oh the poor hearts and minds needless wasted.

[Trigg]

50% make less than 30,000 and nothing you have said here shows this to be untrue.

How many people do you know who work part-time by choice???????

50% of people making less than 30,000 isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are millions of part-time workers young and old out there, semi-retired (my father) and parents (myself included).

[Kathianne]

http://tinyurl.com/2ldfpa


wages seem to be having a low since 1945, a five year trend of being down not seen since then.

Total income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001, making the five-year period of lower average incomes and four years of lower total incomes a new experience for the majority of Americans born since 1945.


Half of Americans make less than 30,000 a year.

Do you think it has anything to do with all the illegals, willing to work for 'less than Americans, for jobs they won't do?"

[Kathianne]

These numbers do not include illegals.

Whether 'included' or not, the impact is real, especially among those with less education. If "illegal" will do landscaping for $6 an hour, those that do not hire illegals only have to go to $8 or $9 an hour. Wages are surpressed from the bottom up.

It's the same function unions served in the past, they could win an increase for 'sanitation engineers' to $14 an hour. Then everyone above them made more. Then industries that considered their place higher, raised their salaries.

[actsnoblemartin]

I think some of you are being unfair and going off topic with tm.

half of All Legal americans making less then 30,000 would not be a good thing, even if we have no unemployment. However, Any illegal, should not have the right to live or work here, because they have to steal housing to live and social seucirity numbers to work.

But, I mean, lets be fair to tm, we may not agree with him, but he is a nice guy

[diuretic]

Whether 'included' or not, the impact is real, especially among those with less education. If "illegal" will do landscaping for $6 an hour, those that do not hire illegals only have to go to $8 or $9 an hour. Wages are surpressed from the bottom up.

It's the same function unions served in the past, they could win an increase for 'sanitation engineers' to $14 an hour. Then everyone above them made more. Then industries that considered their place higher, raised their salaries.


It's not wage suppression from the bottom up, it's market forces. Illegals will work for less, the lowest bidder wins. That being so they set the going rate, they effectively pull wages down.

Unions bargain with employers on a one to one basis don't they? So how come there's a flow-on effect? Do all "sanitation engineers" working for all companies or organisations get the same wage rate? We used to have a centralised form of wage fixation which meant that there was a flow-on effect to other industries. That was dismantled and replaced with a form of collective bargaining that we call "enterprise bargaining". It was specifically put in place to stop flow-on effects. There was a tactic used by unions here called "pattern bargaining" which for a while saw a flow-on but that was outlawed. Again, the idea is for the union to collectively bargain on behalf of its members working for a particular employer so that productivity arrangements could be negotiated for better wage outcomes.

[LiberalNation]

I make way less than 30,000 a year but then I'm not working for pay right now either. Doubt I could swing it if I was.

[Kathianne]

It's not wage suppression from the bottom up, it's market forces. Illegals will work for less, the lowest bidder wins. That being so they set the going rate, they effectively pull wages down.

Unions bargain with employers on a one to one basis don't they? So how come there's a flow-on effect? Do all "sanitation engineers" working for all companies or organisations get the same wage rate? We used to have a centralised form of wage fixation which meant that there was a flow-on effect to other industries. That was dismantled and replaced with a form of collective bargaining that we call "enterprise bargaining". It was specifically put in place to stop flow-on effects. There was a tactic used by unions here called "pattern bargaining" which for a while saw a flow-on but that was outlawed. Again, the idea is for the union to collectively bargain on behalf of its members working for a particular employer so that productivity arrangements could be negotiated for better wage outcomes.

I'll say upfront, I hate the teacher's unions. I do. With that said, illegals should not be ALLOWED to drag the wages down, but that is what the government in their protection of them is doing.

As far was what you are speaking of, that is the reason that there are union 'locals.' A sanitation worker in Chicago is 'likely' to make more than one in Annie Green Springs.

[Nukeman]

I make way less than 30,000 a year but then I'm not working for pay right now either. Doubt I could swing it if I was.

Hey dipshit don't you work PART-TIME, how many others in this study do you think that also applies to????????????????????????????????

[LiberalNation]

So, part-time, full-time, I'd still like to make more than 30 gs a year.

[Nukeman]

So, part-time, full-time, I'd still like to make more than 30 gs a year.


The point is they are taking into consideration ALL wage earners. That includes part-time, semi-retired, teenagers still in highschool, EVERYONE. The numbers are misleading.

Now if they counted ONLY adult full-time workers the numbers would be different.

BUT THAT WOULDN'T MAKE A GOOD ARTICLE.......NOW WOULD IT??

On another note, why should you make more than that working part-time taking tickets at a race track????????? Because if I remember right all you do is listen to your iPod all day long.

[manu1959]

http://tinyurl.com/2ldfpa


wages seem to be having a low since 1945, a five year trend of being down not seen since then.

Total income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001, making the five-year period of lower average incomes and four years of lower total incomes a new experience for the majority of Americans born since 1945.


Half of Americans make less than 30,000 a year.

wonder if it has anything to do with the 6 million illegals..............

[Kathianne]

So, part-time, full-time, I'd still like to make more than 30 gs a year.

Shoot, I'd be happy making $50k per year. I still would not be close to the average in my area. However, we all deal with the negatives we have and the choices we make.

[LiberalNation]

BUT THAT WOULDN'T MAKE A GOOD ARTICLE.......NOW WOULD IT??
Exactly.


On another note, why should you make more than that working part-time taking tickets at a race track????????? Because if I remember right all you do is listen to your iPod all day long.
That was a summer job dude, don't work there anymore. Why should I make more, cuz I like money and if I had a choice would choose the highest wage possible.

[Kathianne]

wonder if it has anything to do with the 6 million illegals..............

Eh, I already did that point! :laugh2:

[Black Lance]

You are all misreading the report.

First, this report is based on tax returns, so unless illegals have suddenly decided to start paying taxes, they are not included in these statistics.

Second, unfortunately, illegal immigration has been a problem for much more than six years, so unless there has been a recent and substantial upswing in the number of illegals entering the country relative to past years, the decline in wages probably has additional causes.

Third, unless there has been a very large increase in the number of part-time jobs being created, it is also unlikely that this accounts for the decline in wages. Even if this is true, it is not good news that full-time manufacturing jobs are being replaced by low-wage and part-time positions.

The statistics Truthmatters posted highlight a squeeze on the middle class that is being caused not just by illegal immigration driving wages down from the bottom, but also by job outsourcing driving wages down from the middle, and by the slow but inevitable resulting decline in Union power enabling business managers to further push down wages from the top in order to maximize profits at the expense of workers. It's a nasty combo effect, and a real problem, regardless of whether or not you personally know someone who is affected by it.

[manu1959]

You are all misreading the report.

First, this report is based on tax returns, so unless illegals have suddenly decided to start paying taxes, they are not included in these statistics.

Second, unfortunately, illegal immigration has been a problem for much more than six years, so unless there has been a recent and substantial upswing in the number of illegals entering the country relative to past years, the decline in wages probably has additional causes.

Third, unless there has been a very large increase in the number of part-time jobs being created, it is also unlikely that this accounts for the decline in wages. Even if this is true, it is not good news that full-time manufacturing jobs are being replaced by low-wage and part-time positions.

The statistics Truthmatters posted highlight a squeeze on the middle class that is being caused not just by illegal immigration driving wages down from the bottom, but also by job outsourcing driving wages down from the middle, and by the slow but inevitable resulting decline in Union power enabling business managers to further push down wages from the top in order to maximize profits at the expense of workers. It's a nasty combo effect, and a real problem, regardless of whether or not you personally know someone who is affected by it.

well said.....but but but the rich are getting richer.....wouldn't that drag the median up

[Mr. P]

well said.....but but but the rich are getting richer.....wouldn't that drag the median up

Not if they don't wanna go. Sooooooooo many are happy with 30k or less. The left needs to mind their own business an leave them alone. :)

[manu1959]

Not if they don't wanna go. Sooooooooo many are happy with 30k or less. The left needs to mind their own business an leave them alone. :)

true maybe this is the generation casting off materialism.....each according to the needs and all that........

[Black Lance]

well said.....but but but the rich are getting richer.....wouldn't that drag the median up

Perhaps, but not by much, because the rich people who are getting richer make up only a small fraction of the total number of people handing in tax returns.

[diuretic]

I'll say upfront, I hate the teacher's unions. I do. With that said, illegals should not be ALLOWED to drag the wages down, but that is what the government in their protection of them is doing.

True enough on the illegals.




As far was what you are speaking of, that is the reason that there are union 'locals.' A sanitation worker in Chicago is 'likely' to make more than one in Annie Green Springs.

It's probably got more to do with the fact that the Chicago sanitation workers and the Annie Green Springs (btw sounds like a nice place) sanitation workers will both have their own labour/labor contracts negotiated for them by their union with the employer. I attended a collective bargaining course in Austin, Tx a few years ago and the instructors made the point about negotiation with the employer on a transparent financial basis. Here we call it "capacity to pay" when it's applied to the employer. It's in no-one's interest to bankrupt the employer.

[diuretic]

The point is they are taking into consideration ALL wage earners. That includes part-time, semi-retired, teenagers still in highschool, EVERYONE. The numbers are misleading.

Now if they counted ONLY adult full-time workers the numbers would be different.

BUT THAT WOULDN'T MAKE A GOOD ARTICLE.......NOW WOULD IT??

On another note, why should you make more than that working part-time taking tickets at a race track????????? Because if I remember right all you do is listen to your iPod all day long.

Why would they only take into account adult full-time workers? If they only examined one part of the workforce then there wouldn't be a full picture woudl there? I'm sure you'd object if a study of part-time juniors was represented as valid and to be generalised across the entire workforce. So they counted the WHOLE workforce and you're not happy? I don't get it.

[diuretic]

well said.....but but but the rich are getting richer.....wouldn't that drag the median up

Yes but only because it extends the range. The median by itself is meaningless.

[Mr. P]

Why would they only take into account adult full-time workers? If they only examined one part of the workforce then there wouldn't be a full picture woudl there? I'm sure you'd object if a study of part-time juniors was represented as valid and to be generalised across the entire workforce. So they counted the WHOLE workforce and you're not happy? I don't get it.

Because it would be more accurate.

My daughter is in college she works and files a tax return. She makes way less than 30k. She is a dependent. She like thousands of others would be in this calculation. Is including her just because she files a tax return a realistic reflection of wages?

[diuretic]

Because it would be more accurate.

My daughter is in college she works and files a tax return. She makes way less than 30k. She is a dependent. She like thousands of others would be in this calculation. Is including her just because she files a tax return a realistic reflection of wages?

I have to disagree. Accuracy is a qualitative concept. I think you mean validity. But I'm not mathematician or statistician so take that with a grain of salt.


But to your daughter. If we wanted to measure all college students who also worked we'd count her in. If we were measuring only full-time workers, we wouldn't count her in. If we were measuring all employed individuals (impossible but let's assume it's theoretically possible) we'd count her in. It depends on what you're trying to measure. But it would be completely wrong to count only college students who were working part time and then generalise those results to the total workforce.

[Black Lance]

Because it would be more accurate.

My daughter is in college she works and files a tax return. She makes way less than 30k. She is a dependent. She like thousands of others would be in this calculation. Is including her just because she files a tax return a realistic reflection of wages?

Yes, because any accurate reflection of wages in the economy has to include all segments of wage earners within the economy. You can examine more isolated segments, such as non-dependants or full-time workers separately if you wish, but the article is about the overall direction of wages in the economy, and therefore must consider all wage earners to produce accurate results.

[Mr. P]

I have to disagree. Accuracy is a qualitative concept. I think you mean validity. But I'm not mathematician or statistician so take that with a grain of salt.


But to your daughter. If we wanted to measure all college students who also worked we'd count her in. If we were measuring only full-time workers, we wouldn't count her in. If we were measuring all employed individuals (impossible but let's assume it's theoretically possible) we'd count her in. It depends on what you're trying to measure. But it would be completely wrong to count only college students who were working part time and then generalise those results to the total workforce.

Yes as wrong as it is to include them in the 50% that make less than 30K when attempting to give a realistic picture. It's intentionally misleading IMO.

[diuretic]

Yes as wrong as it is to include them in the 50% that make less than 30K when attempting to give a realistic picture. It's intentionally misleading IMO.

If you want to know the average wage for the population, who should you count?

[Angel Heart]

MY income is 165% of what it was just seven years ago. That refutes your claim, I suppose.


Our household income is up way more than that. In 2000 we some how made it on less than $10,000 that year. In 2006 we did $39,000. That's not even figuring in the child tax credit money we have once a year. Then you figure in our medical and dental... We make well over $50,000 a year.

[JohnDoe]

so, if everyone's income is wayyyyyy up on this board, then SOME people really took a HIT in their income, for this article to be true, no?

Just an fyi....

my husband and I are making less than half of what we made in 2000, closer to 1/3 of the income we had in 2000.

Not everyone is doing soooooo grand... every person has their own individual story..... but on the WHOLE, income is down comparitively and this is what is being reported.

[JohnDoe]

our dealings with China has brought wages down.... the influx of mexican workers at this faster rate than EVER is due to importing goods from slave wage countries.

How?

It's a race to the bottom now.... in order for companies to stay in business here, they need the cheapest labor possible....

it is no longer a free market on goods, it is now a free market on HUMAN TRAFFICING mentality....the lowest wage earner, wins the job, no matter what country they come from.... :( mexicans now for blue collar work and soon to come programers, nurses, doctors, and accountants from India, Vietnam, China is next.... Trade of humans, slavery, of sorts....we all will have to move to the Country that has a job for us instead of the somewhere within the states.... open borders for all.... the New, World Order, (of none)!

[diuretic]

our dealings with China has brought wages down.... the influx of mexican workers at this faster rate than EVER is due to importing goods from slave wage countries.

How?

It's a race to the bottom now.... in order for companies to stay in business here, they need the cheapest labor possible....

it is no longer a free market on goods, it is now a free market on HUMAN TRAFFICING mentality....the lowest wage earner, wins the job, no matter what country they come from.... :( mexicans now for blue collar work and soon to come programers, nurses, doctors, and accountants from India, Vietnam, China is next.... Trade of humans, slavery, of sorts....we all will have to move to the Country that has a job for us instead of the somewhere within the states.... open borders for all.... the New, World Order, (of none)!

It's called globalisation and it's been happening for years. But you know, the alternative is a world with economies that are overly protected. That could be even worse.

[Nukeman]

Why would they only take into account adult full-time workers? If they only examined one part of the workforce then there wouldn't be a full picture woudl there? I'm sure you'd object if a study of part-time juniors was represented as valid and to be generalised across the entire workforce. So they counted the WHOLE workforce and you're not happy? I don't get it.

I know your smarter than this!!! You know as well as I do she was attempting to portray the poor A,erican worker as making less than they did in previous years.

A more acurate look at this would have been to break down the amount FULL-TIME vs PART-TIME workers earn as well as how many are working part time by choice and how many are working 2 part time jobs for less than 30 grand a year but combined is a total of more.

It is a very misleading commentary/study. You can make statistics say whatever you want, the key is finding a middle ground that acturately portrays the facts.. COMPLETELY...

[diuretic]

I know your smarter than this!!! You know as well as I do she was attempting to portray the poor A,erican worker as making less than they did in previous years.

A more acurate look at this would have been to break down the amount FULL-TIME vs PART-TIME workers earn as well as how many are working part time by choice and how many are working 2 part time jobs for less than 30 grand a year but combined is a total of more.

It is a very misleading commentary/study. You can make statistics say whatever you want, the key is finding a middle ground that acturately portrays the facts.. COMPLETELY...

Two dangerous assumptions there. 1. "I'm smarter than this...". You don't know that but I appreciate the thought. But truth is when it comes to statistics and anything to do with numeracy I am as dumb as a pumpkin. I have to work at anything numerate. 2. "You know as well as I do..." probably not, but again it's appreciated.

And no I am not being facetious for one moment.

I took the time to read the article. "Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 then in 2000...." Is that such a horrific statement that it has to be disputed so vigorously? And in pointing out that the article is making a claim about the "average" income of Americans in 2005 rather than 2000 do I need to point out that full-time or part-time work is irrelevant? The fact is that it's "income" that's being examined, not "income gained through working 40 hours", or "income gained through working less than 40 hours".

Slice it how you like. The fact is that in America today the rich are getting richer and the rest are going backwards.

[JohnDoe]

It's called globalisation and it's been happening for years. But you know, the alternative is a world with economies that are overly protected. That could be even worse.If what we had, before we started to trade with countries that deal in bad working conditions and slave type labor was worse for the every day Joe in America than it is now, then maybe I could agree with you....but in my opinion, it wasn't that bad at all, we were better off on the whole imo....if this is what you are calling protectionism?

[darin]

so, if everyone's income is wayyyyyy up on this board, then SOME people really took a HIT in their income, for this article to be true, no?



No - My income has nothing to do with this report - this report is 'statistics'. There are three types of lies, it's been said. Lies. Damn Lies. And Statitstics.



Just an fyi....

my husband and I are making less than half of what we made in 2000, closer to 1/3 of the income we had in 2000.

Not everyone is doing soooooo grand... every person has their own individual story..... but on the WHOLE, income is down comparitively and this is what is being reported.

Perhaps you and your husband should work harder, if your income is down. OR...just be happy with what you have? (shrug).

[JohnDoe]

No - My income has nothing to do with this report - this report is 'statistics'. There are three types of lies, it's been said. Lies. Damn Lies. And Statitstics.



Perhaps you and your husband should work harder, if your income is down. OR...just be happy with what you have? (shrug).We paid cash for our new home, and we do not need much money to get by now, we are happier being poorer than what we were when we both were in the FAST LANE....

I don't work anymore, took an early retirement route, after I was downsized.

It was not hard at all to deal with less, we had TOO much for 2 people to handle responsibly at such a young age, at one point in our lives.....it is much easier now, not covetting our neighbor's goods, not having to have the newest and the latest....

Now granted, when we were in our 30's we thought differently and worked like dogs to make more and more money.....since 911, we are happy to just have eachother, and material things just don't matter much anymore....

we feel and know we have been blessed, even with alot less!

But this is us, and we aren't even a spoke in that wheel of statistics!

I don't understand why Christians on this board FIGHT the issue of those with less having even less and those with more, making and having even more?

This is PROPHESY come true....this is the movement of the antichrist at work in our midst.... greed, and those that follow him, prosper, while the average joe gets less and less and less of the piece of the pie, so to speak....

So why, argue against it and take the side that it is not happening, when it is?

And dmp, I am sorry for the negative rep....it was a knee jerk reaction, and not called for....I should have enticed you in to debating the issue instead of what I did....

jd

[truthmatters]

4

[diuretic]

If what we had, before we started to trade with countries that deal in bad working conditions and slave type labor was worse for the every day Joe in America than it is now, then maybe I could agree with you....but in my opinion, it wasn't that bad at all, we were better off on the whole imo....if this is what you are calling protectionism?

I'm not that knowledgeable about this stuff, just a general knowledge of it. But my country (Australia) used to have a lot of tariff barriers to protect local industries. We also had our pound (dollar after 1966) at a fixed rate, I think it was held on parity with the greenback. That meant that we had protected industries which frankly grew complacent. It worked while we enjoyed the post-WWII economic boom. In the sixties we had virtually no unemployment. If you didn't have a job it was because you didn't want one. In 1983 we voted in a Labor government that immediately set about opening up the economy. And damn good thing too, we would have been like Argentina if we hadn't.

We removed protectionism and replaced it with openness. It involved some pain but in the longer run it was beneficial for us. I'm not a free market ideologue, indeed my instincts run the other way but the world (apart from a few holdouts) runs on economic ideas that can be best be described as more or less free market approaches and it seems to be working. Having said that nothing's perfect. Excesses in capitalism are harmful and capitalism has to be regulated to avoid it becoming rampant.