Bill O'Reilly got it wrong this time. Way wrong.

[Care4all]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

I would almost be willing to elect Bernie Sanders, (the entertainment value would be priceless alone) as he is the only one on either side who just actually might do something for our benefit.
The right would go insane at the mere suggestion of this, but I would do it just so that something DIFFERENT happens.
Obama ran on "hope and change" but as far as government collusion with super corporations/industries and the financial markets - nothing changed, in fact it is worse now than before he was elected.
We need real change. Which immediately dismisses Hillary Clinton. And there is no one on the right that I see would change a damn thing in this regard either. I had hopes for Ben Carson. But those hopes were quickly obliterated.

I do know what you mean....But even with Bernie, what could he really do about any of it if he has a congress that is dead set against doing something... almost nothing got accomplished by Obama of what he wanted, primarily because of the congress, and as much as they didn't "like" Obama, they will hate Bernie moreso, coming at him from the Dem side and the Repub side...their money masters won't let them work with him...

Actually, "they" won't let Bernie win.... and unless there is a huge and overwhelming "Bernie Sanders" movement from the bottom up, we won't be able to overcome the money that will be put in the game to make certain he will be defeated...honest to goodness, I think it is even worse than we may think with who truly runs the show....

Bernie seems to be the only one that is honest about all of this, to his very core...

One thing is for sure if Hillary wins - the game will be taken to another level just like her husband did.
Bill Clinton would make any deal if he could get what he wanted out of it.
Hillary IMO is even worse. She just wants to be a member of the elitist of the elite. Nothing would please her more than the richest most powerful people in the world setting in front of her asking for favors. Americas Godmother.

You mean America's power elite Godmother

She is the best friend of the top .01%....but then most of the R candidates are too. She is just the most known quantity as a lying corrupt elitist.

She is the best friend with the top 1% but so is everyone else in the race and in both houses of Congress, and any and all top level positions, with the exception of maybe Trey Gowdy if the interview I read with and about him was not skewed.

I differ with the both of you on Hillary and on Bill Clinton...who was the best President we have had in the last 25 years. He found a way to manage the Presidency, even with one ''whatever'' Gate, after another slammed at him and his wife, AND he had his infidelity as headline news for quite a while as well, yet through all of this he managed with a Republican Congress willing to compromise, along with having to compromise on what he wanted, overcame all of the partisan ranter that has virtually frozen Obama.

Yes, maybe he is in a way many of those things you claim, but his cockiness and downright confidence in believing he was going to help this country, so help me God attitude....the ''failure is not an option'' attitude was part of his success and if it were not there during his Presidency and during the real (and made up) scandals, if he was just a nice Bernie Sanders, he would have been crushed.

Sadly, Bernie won't make it anywhere, he's too nice... Nice, doesn't make a President in this crazy global/world we live in...Actually, I don't think we have ever had a ''nice'' president, at least that I know of....?

Hillary, along with those other R candidates running will fit right in with precedence.

I'll be honest, I DO NOT, in any way, shape, or form, want to live through a Republican majority in the House and Republican Senate majority with a Republican President.... I can't live through that hell on earth again, 6 years of that with President Bush was enough to kill me... and this Nation.... yes, this is just my measly opinion, but trust me, I've been scarred for a lifetime from it, and I don't think it will ever pass....

I'm certain many of you felt the same way when it was a Dem, House, Senate and Presidency, (and Obamacare passed)....but you had at most only 2 years of it... try 6!

As far as the disparity in incomes and who is going backwards and who is not...we truly need to figure out why, and what are all the changes govt took during this time of the 93% losing ground, that lead to this and where we are today....I would guess there are 30 years of changes gvt made, one right after the other, that ALL lead to this... getting to the root of the problem is the key to reversing this trend that's killing the middle class...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... getting to the root of the problem is the key to reversing this trend that's killing the middle class...

dear we know the root. We have become more and more liberal,i.e., the govt has grown and grown while a huge country like China has switched to capitalism.

Do you understand??

 

[Care4all]

... getting to the root of the problem is the key to reversing this trend that's killing the middle class...

dear we know the root. We have become more and more liberal,i.e., the govt has grown and grown while a huge country like China has switched to capitalism.

Do you understand??

No Edward, that's just gobbledygook, so I don't understand it nor do I think it is truly getting to the root of the problems or actions that have moved us in to the state of affairs we are in with the middle class losing ground while only the handful of the elite are moving ahead....

Lop sided Free Trade agreements, perks and loopholes in place for businesses going overseas to manufacture their products, Bailing out of Wall Street, the Fed... keeping the minimum wage low could be lowering the tide for all, and lowering the taxes on the wealthiest over and over and over and over again....Unions falling apart, all of these things could have contributed to the situation of....putting more in the hands of the 7% and less in the hands of the 93%.

But more than likely it is that we are competing globally now, for many jobs, we can't compete with such low salaries as those in a China, or India, or Brazil for shoes etc etc The Market is saturated with workers now, all over the world....and the govt, practically pays our corporations to go there...

And these are just a handful of things that could just be the tip of the iceberg....heaven knows there are many more things that could be part of the problem I didn't even think of....

 

[Pksimon2007]

Wage stagnation is a HUGE problem for 93% of working Americans. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings

Obamanomics......not good for working Americans.

Rooted in Reaganomics and the plutocracy that control America.

That is going to change and soon.

Rooted in Reaganomics

Obamanonics is rooted in Reaganomics?

Whatever he's doing, it isn't working.

- if you disaggregate the numbers behind those charts you'll see the same thing the OP says. Top earners have done extremely well, everyone else's compensation is stagnant or in decline.

What your charts also don't show is that some of the income decline for the middle class is a delayed effect from the Reagan years: the reduction in defined benefit pension and conversion to other forms of retirement plans is beginning to have its effects now. That's a headwind.

 

[Pksimon2007]

. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings while the top 7% have basked in a whopping 33% INCREASE.
This is anti-American.

its true that liberals are anti-American to drive down wages by shipping 30 million jobs offshore with liberal unions, taxes, and deficits. And this is not to mention inviting 20 million illegals in to take and drive down the wages of the remaining jobs.

Why not make liberalism illegal because it is Anti-i American and 100% stupid?

- You should be thanking the conservative desire for international fee trade and free flow of capital for that.

 

[Pksimon2007]

... getting to the root of the problem is the key to reversing this trend that's killing the middle class...

dear we know the root. We have become more and more liberal,i.e., the govt has grown and grown while a huge country like China has switched to capitalism.

Do you understand??

- Tax cuts for the rich, foreign wars, deregulation, and breaking down the barriers to the international flow of capital are liberal ideas?

Who knew?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wage stagnation is a HUGE problem for 93% of working Americans. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings

Obamanomics......not good for working Americans.

Man, Here I thought Obama hated the rich and gave away stuff to the poor but here we see the opposite...

And still being called a rich hating liberal LOL

Figure that one out

 

[DGS49]

The libs on this board reveal an astounding lack of understanding of even the most basic economic principles.

Give everybody a $10/hr raise? Where will the money come from? The largest employment sector (aside from GOVERNMENT!) is small businesses, MOST of which would be bankrupted by this silly proposal.

What do you suppose determines wages? Hopes and dreams? Needs? Or would it be the market value of the skills possessed by the potential employee?

You have no fucking idea.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DGS49, put aside your ideology and go back and read the posts on this page. Then look up terms such as "liberal", "progressivism", "conservative."

 

[peach174]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

If everyone was to be given a $10 an hour increase across the board the economy would boom and the problem would resolve itself.

The Wall Street Casino Bosses are demanding that pay raises be held down to the bare minimum in order to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of hardworking Americans. They punish any corporation that fails to meet their expectations. Since the corporate executives make the bulk of their income from share price increases in their stock grants they have no incentive to tell the Wall Street Casino Bosses where to shove it.

Where do you think that extra money comes from, in order for workers to get a 10.00 increase and hour?

 

[Pksimon2007]

The libs on this board reveal an astounding lack of understanding of even the most basic economic principles.

Give everybody a $10/hr raise? Where will the money come from? The largest employment sector (aside from GOVERNMENT!) is small businesses, MOST of which would be bankrupted by this silly proposal.

What do you suppose determines wages? Hopes and dreams? Needs? Or would it be the market value of the skills possessed by the potential employee?

You have no fucking idea.

- Market power determines wages. If there is a surplus of labor, wages fall, profits rise. That results in a reduction of consumption, as workers have less to spend, which results in layoffs, which results in a larger surplus of labor, which means wages fall again - and profits still rise.

That's been going on for 40 years, thanks to conservative stupidity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conservatives would like to seal the border to increase American wages.
Obama doesn't want low skilled Americans to increase their wages.

 

[Care4all]

Conservatives would like to seal the border to increase American wages.
Obama doesn't want low skilled Americans to increase their wages.

No they don't, the Republicans in Congress want to OPEN THE BORDER to even more Mexicans, to come here and work and go as they please with temporary visas, as long as they never get citizenship.... and that does NOTHING but bring even more foreigners here to work in the place of American citizens....

 

[Derideo_Te]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

If everyone was to be given a $10 an hour increase across the board the economy would boom and the problem would resolve itself.

The Wall Street Casino Bosses are demanding that pay raises be held down to the bare minimum in order to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of hardworking Americans. They punish any corporation that fails to meet their expectations. Since the corporate executives make the bulk of their income from share price increases in their stock grants they have no incentive to tell the Wall Street Casino Bosses where to shove it.

Where do you think that extra money comes from, in order for workers to get a 10.00 increase and hour?

How about out of the bonuses of the 1%?

They will make it all back as soon as the economy booms and way more besides.

It worked for Henry Ford and it still works today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatives would like to seal the border to increase American wages.
Obama doesn't want low skilled Americans to increase their wages.

yes 20 million illegals to take out jobs gets Obama votes so he does it as a great great man!!!! Fortunately for Barry, liberals are too stupid to grasp this 1+1=2 level problem so they vote for him anyway!! Its unbelievable, but thats how purely stupid liberalism is.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If there is a surplus of labor,
That's been going on for 40 years, thanks to conservative stupidity.

like when liberals invite 20 million illegals in ???

 

[peach174]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

If everyone was to be given a $10 an hour increase across the board the economy would boom and the problem would resolve itself.

The Wall Street Casino Bosses are demanding that pay raises be held down to the bare minimum in order to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of hardworking Americans. They punish any corporation that fails to meet their expectations. Since the corporate executives make the bulk of their income from share price increases in their stock grants they have no incentive to tell the Wall Street Casino Bosses where to shove it.

Where do you think that extra money comes from, in order for workers to get a 10.00 increase and hour?

How about out of the bonuses of the 1%?

They will make it all back as soon as the economy booms and way more besides.

It worked for Henry Ford and it still works today.

It doesn't work that way.
The Story of Henry Ford s 5 a Day Wages It s Not What You Think - Forbes

There’s an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford’s decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realised that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could expand the market for his products.

It should be obvious that this story doesn’t work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It’s also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that’s very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords.

So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn’t why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?

Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford’s turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.

That level of turnover is hugely expensive: not just the downtime of the production line but obviously also the training costs: even the search costs to find them. It can indeed be cheaper to pay workers more but to reduce the turnover of them and those associated training costs.

The reason for the pay rise was not as some of our contemporaries seem to think it was. It was nothing at all to do with creating a workforce that could afford to buy the products. It was to cut the turnover and training time of the labour force: for, yes, in certain circumstances, raising wages can reduce total labour costs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, the Republicans in Congress want to OPEN THE BORDER

dear, it's the Democrats who want open borders and amnesty. Want to bet $10,000? You seem slow not to know that and not to check it out before you wrote it.

 

[Pksimon2007]

If there is a surplus of labor,
That's been going on for 40 years, thanks to conservative stupidity.

like when liberals invite 20 million illegals in ???

- Invited them in?

lol!!

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives wish they could wish away reality.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

- Invited them in?

yes dear open borders and amnesty is tantamount to inviting them in. Does the liberal have the IQ to understand?