No, wages are not stagnant, lefties

[NYcarbineer]

Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage peaked in 1969. That's quite awhile ago.

 

[DiamondDave]

Why?

The US has relatively low taxation and doesn't spend much on social welfare.

Couple that with the US spends an historically high amount of money on it's military. It's unprecedented really. And economically..the military is a money pit..and a black hole.

It's a recipe for disaster.

How many lies can you put in one post??

Granted, we don't have Sweden level taxation, but we are hardly LOW on taxation... many MANY adult citizens are paying 40+% of their income in taxes

And we don't spend much on social welfare?? Just at the federal level it is the largest expense of the governmental system

You want a recipe for disaster?? It is the welfare state.. and you're seeing it first hand right here in this country

There's no lies.

You contradicted yourself too.

And the largest Federal expense..is the military.

That's just the "military" we know about.

There are other expenses that are military in nature that are classified.

Yes.. you lied.. flat out

No.. the largest federal expense is ENTITLEMENTS... but nice try

And lest we forget... the fed is actually constitutionally charged to defend the country and have a military... it is not constitutionally charged to make sure you have cheese, snacks while you sit at home playing video games on your flat screen

 

[ZimothyTahn]

How many lies can you put in one post??

Granted, we don't have Sweden level taxation, but we are hardly LOW on taxation... many MANY adult citizens are paying 40+% of their income in taxes

And we don't spend much on social welfare?? Just at the federal level it is the largest expense of the governmental system

You want a recipe for disaster?? It is the welfare state.. and you're seeing it first hand right here in this country

There's no lies.

You contradicted yourself too.

And the largest Federal expense..is the military.

That's just the "military" we know about.

There are other expenses that are military in nature that are classified.

Yes.. you lied.. flat out

No.. the largest federal expense is ENTITLEMENTS... but nice try

And lest we forget... the fed is actually constitutionally charged to defend the country and have a military... it is not constitutionally charged to make sure you have cheese, snacks while you sit at home playing video games on your flat screen

social security is not an entitlement, fucknut. and we spend double on corporate welfare than we do on social welfare programs. so you should be getting really mad at your corporate overlords.

i know that's too tough for you to understand so instead, just hop on one foot and yell "i hate obama because he's black" and that'll get you all the results you're looking for, dick-nipples.

 

[The Rabbi]

One of the cries of the progressives is that the system is unfair because wages for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10/15/20 years (take your pick).
Turns out not to be true in any meaningful sense. Another liberal myth shot to hell.

Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class - WSJ.com

A favorite "progressive" trope is that America's middle class has stagnated economically since the 1970s. One version of this claim, made by Robert Reich, President Clinton's labor secretary, is typical: "After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top," he wrote in 2010, "the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going."

This trope is spectacularly wrong.

It is true enough that, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers in America has remained about the same. But not just for three decades. The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it.

I just wanna make sure I get the argument straight. The argument that the middle class is stagnant is a "myth" because wages have been stagnant since 1964 - not since the 70's ?

No, that is not the argumnent.

Go back and review the article.

 

[DiamondDave]

There's no lies.

You contradicted yourself too.

And the largest Federal expense..is the military.

That's just the "military" we know about.

There are other expenses that are military in nature that are classified.

Yes.. you lied.. flat out

No.. the largest federal expense is ENTITLEMENTS... but nice try

And lest we forget... the fed is actually constitutionally charged to defend the country and have a military... it is not constitutionally charged to make sure you have cheese, snacks while you sit at home playing video games on your flat screen

social security is not an entitlement, fucknut. and we spend double on corporate welfare than we do on social welfare programs. so you should be getting really mad at your corporate overlords.

i know that's too tough for you to understand so instead, just hop on one foot and yell "i hate obama because he's black" and that'll get you all the results you're looking for, dick-nipples.

Listen, fucknut.. even if you EXCLUDE the forced participation and subsequent HANDOUT of social security, entitlement spending is STILL the top expense of the government...

I do NOT support corporate welfare, but nice try, fucknut

And your attempt at the race bait is feeble, fucknut

Now.. back to mommy's basement to your bong and cheetos

 

[The Rabbi]

This is not a liquidity trap. This is an inequality trap, and wealth inequality in America has shifted spectaculary to the top 1% since Ronald Reagan upended the taxation structure in the early 80's. This wouldn't happen if the wage structure hadn't tipped as well.

HINT: As union membership declines relative to percentages, general wage levels decline as well. That's a fact, and that's why the Republican Party has always hated unions. They want to lower wages to workers--they hate workers.

Didnt bother to read the article, I see.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well if you had left off the last sentence you might have deserved a rational and reasoned reply, especially since it appears you're lumping me in with the far left loonies. I know what situation the country is in, I know what is painfully obvious to a large percentage of us, former, middle class earners despite what some would have us believe, on both ends of the loony spectrum. Try getting out of your red bubble from time to time.

Translation: I cannot refute anything said here but I just know it isn't so, dammit.

I'm lumping you in with the loony left because that's where you belong, Wookie-boy.

Given that statement you've just confirmed the obvious. As far as you're concerned anyone to the left of Michele Bachmann is a socialist or communist.......
Keep up the good work sparky....... Put's you on a par with TM and rdean..........

You post no proof of any kind and make the same assertion over and over and I'm the one like RDean? Go fuck yourself, clown.

 

[uscitizen]

Was inflation figured into that?

If wages go up 3% and inflation goes up 6% what do you have?

 

[The Rabbi]

Was inflation figured into that?

If wages go up 3% and inflation goes up 6% what do you have?

Didnt bother to read the article, didja?

 

[Freemason9]

This is not a liquidity trap. This is an inequality trap, and wealth inequality in America has shifted spectaculary to the top 1% since Ronald Reagan upended the taxation structure in the early 80's. This wouldn't happen if the wage structure hadn't tipped as well.

HINT: As union membership declines relative to percentages, general wage levels decline as well. That's a fact, and that's why the Republican Party has always hated unions. They want to lower wages to workers--they hate workers.

Didnt bother to read the article, I see.

I read the article, Rabbi, but it engaged in some rather robust cherry-picking there. You know that as well as I do. There are many, many other stats that can be brought to bear that affect middle class "real" incomes. As one example--what % of incomes in 1962 went for health care costs, as compared with 2012? Is it a coincidence, then, that the health care profession has seen giant leaps in accrued wealth and income when compared with the general population? Let's also examine energy costs--police forces--shareholder share of corporate profits, etc., etc.

Things have changed drastically since 1962.

 

[Sallow]

How many lies can you put in one post??

Granted, we don't have Sweden level taxation, but we are hardly LOW on taxation... many MANY adult citizens are paying 40+% of their income in taxes

And we don't spend much on social welfare?? Just at the federal level it is the largest expense of the governmental system

You want a recipe for disaster?? It is the welfare state.. and you're seeing it first hand right here in this country

There's no lies.

You contradicted yourself too.

And the largest Federal expense..is the military.

That's just the "military" we know about.

There are other expenses that are military in nature that are classified.

Yes.. you lied.. flat out

No.. the largest federal expense is ENTITLEMENTS... but nice try

And lest we forget... the fed is actually constitutionally charged to defend the country and have a military... it is not constitutionally charged to make sure you have cheese, snacks while you sit at home playing video games on your flat screen

No..I didn't lie. The military is the LARGEST expense in the budget. And again..that's just what we are privvy too. There are a vast number of expenditures the public has no idea about.

And yep..it is charged to DEFEND the country.

DEFEND.

NOT ATTACK other COUNTRIES.

 

[Ringel05]

Translation: I cannot refute anything said here but I just know it isn't so, dammit.

I'm lumping you in with the loony left because that's where you belong, Wookie-boy.

Given that statement you've just confirmed the obvious. As far as you're concerned anyone to the left of Michele Bachmann is a socialist or communist.......
Keep up the good work sparky....... Put's you on a par with TM and rdean..........

You post no proof of any kind and make the same assertion over and over and I'm the one like RDean? Go fuck yourself, clown.

Ooooooohhhh........ struck a nerve........
When you put on those blinders do you also cover the left eye? Eh, deanieright?

 

[Sallow]

Was inflation figured into that?

If wages go up 3% and inflation goes up 6% what do you have?

If it wasn't such a serious topic..it would be high comedy!

Despite assertions by progressives who complain about stagnant wages, inequality and the (always) disappearing middle class, middle-class Americans have more buying power than ever before. They live longer lives and have much greater access to the services and consumer products bought by billionaires.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is not a liquidity trap. This is an inequality trap, and wealth inequality in America has shifted spectaculary to the top 1% since Ronald Reagan upended the taxation structure in the early 80's. This wouldn't happen if the wage structure hadn't tipped as well.

HINT: As union membership declines relative to percentages, general wage levels decline as well. That's a fact, and that's why the Republican Party has always hated unions. They want to lower wages to workers--they hate workers.

Didnt bother to read the article, I see.

I read the article, Rabbi, but it engaged in some rather robust cherry-picking there. You know that as well as I do. There are many, many other stats that can be brought to bear that affect middle class "real" incomes. As one example--what % of incomes in 1962 went for health care costs, as compared with 2012? Is it a coincidence, then, that the health care profession has seen giant leaps in accrued wealth and income when compared with the general population? Let's also examine energy costs--police forces--shareholder share of corporate profits, etc., etc.

Things have changed drastically since 1962.

No you clearly didnt. Or else you suffer from tourette's of the keyboard and just post whatever the hell you think.
There was no 'cherry picking." And why dont you answer your own question?
Do you want to spend the same percentage as people did in 1962 and get the same kind of care as 1962? I doubt it. That was a point made in the article, one you ignore because you didnt read it.

 

[DiamondDave]

There's no lies.

You contradicted yourself too.

And the largest Federal expense..is the military.

That's just the "military" we know about.

There are other expenses that are military in nature that are classified.

Yes.. you lied.. flat out

No.. the largest federal expense is ENTITLEMENTS... but nice try

And lest we forget... the fed is actually constitutionally charged to defend the country and have a military... it is not constitutionally charged to make sure you have cheese, snacks while you sit at home playing video games on your flat screen

No..I didn't lie. The military is the LARGEST expense in the budget. And again..that's just what we are privvy too. There are a vast number of expenditures the public has no idea about.

And yep..it is charged to DEFEND the country.

DEFEND.

NOT ATTACK other COUNTRIES.

No.. it is not.. it is the SECOND LARGEST after ENTITLEMENTS

You are indeed thick headed

Defending the country does not always mean sitting back and waiting to be attacked.. but nice try to steer this away from the topic at hand

 

[ilia25]

One of the cries of the progressives is that the system is unfair because wages for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10/15/20 years (take your pick).
Turns out not to be true in any meaningful sense. Another liberal myth shot to hell.

Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class - WSJ.com

A favorite "progressive" trope is that America's middle class has stagnated economically since the 1970s. One version of this claim, made by Robert Reich, President Clinton's labor secretary, is typical: "After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top," he wrote in 2010, "the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going."

It is not about wages, it's about household incomes.

 

[healthmyths]

One of the cries of the progressives is that the system is unfair because wages for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10/15/20 years (take your pick).
Turns out not to be true in any meaningful sense. Another liberal myth shot to hell.

Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class - WSJ.com

A favorite "progressive" trope is that America's middle class has stagnated economically since the 1970s. One version of this claim, made by Robert Reich, President Clinton's labor secretary, is typical: "After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top," he wrote in 2010, "the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going."

This trope is spectacularly wrong.

It is true enough that, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers in America has remained about the same. But not just for three decades. The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it.

Moreover, there are several problems with this measurement of wages. First, the CPI overestimates inflation by underestimating the value of improvements in product quality and variety. Would you prefer 1980 medical care at 1980 prices, or 2013 care at 2013 prices? Most of us wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter.

Second, this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS.

Third and most important, the average hourly wage is held down by the great increase of women and immigrants into the workforce over the past three decades. Precisely because the U.S. economy was flexible and strong, it created millions of jobs for the influx of many often lesser-skilled workers who sought employment during these years.

More at the source.

Maybe this is also the cause Payroll taxes payments are less!!!

NO one foresaw employers cutting employees hours to get below the 40 hour work week so they don't have to provide health insurance.
NO one foresaw then the loss of payroll taxes revenue.

SO I've projected the following and it's possible $50 billion a year in loss payroll taxes will occur ... ALL because of Obamacare and
this was NEVER considered in the ACA bill!

As of December 2012 there were 54,000,000 full time non agriculture workers.

Let's assume they all work 40 hours a week at average of $23.73 per hour or $949.20 per week.
Source for hourly wage: Employment Situation Summary

Now lets assume employers cut their hours to 30 because of Obamacare....
"Employers do not have to provide health-insurance coverage to part-time workers under ObamaCare as long as they work less than 30 hours a week, and one restaurant company has begun experimenting with changing over entire staffs to part-time work to avoid the ObamaCare mandates and fines.
ObamaCare transforming America into Part-Timer Nation? « Hot Air

Now Obamacare has told us over and over there would be NO changes in health plans, no changes right?? If you like you can keep it???

So how much tax revenue will be loss???

54 million employees and employers pay at 40 hours $407 billion a year in payroll taxes..
But with employers cutting back hours and say 50% of employers cut back to 30 hours...
27 million employees/employers pay at 30 hours ..$152 billion a year.
27 million working 40 hours employer/employees pay $203 billion a year..
Total revenue is $356 billion
subtract the above from $407 billion leaves ---Total loss in tax revenue per year...$50.9 billion in lost payroll taxes...

AGAIN something Obama promised would NOT happen!!!

Full time workers 115,868,000
54 million paid at hourly rate of $5.95
Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 7 cents to $23.73
http://bls.gov/opub/mlr/1986/02/art3full.pdf

 

[OKTexas]

To know the author is accurate you only need to look at the proliferation of the fast food industry and chain restaurants. They were pretty much nonexistent in the early 1960's and look at what we have today, they're on almost every block in every city and town in America. Most all of the jobs they created are for the most part low skilled, low wage and if you think the shear numbers don't effect the average wage in this country, then you have your head up you ass.

 

[uscitizen]

Was inflation figured into that?

If wages go up 3% and inflation goes up 6% what do you have?

Didnt bother to read the article, didja?

Yep some cherry picking going on ther but lets look at this from the article:



It is true enough that, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers in America has remained about the same. But not just for three decades. The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it.

Moreover, there are several problems with this measurement of wages. First, the CPI overestimates inflation by underestimating the value of improvements in product quality and variety. Would you prefer 1980 medical care at 1980 prices, or 2013 care at 2013 prices? Most of us wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter.

Second, this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS.

Improvements in quality? Does not really matter if you still HAVE to buy them and they cost a higher percentage of your wages.

also The fringe beneftis have been eroding at an increasing rate since 1980's.
Helath ins now costs lots more than it used to thru an employer for those that even provide health insurance.
More and more conpmny paid for retirement plans are gone, replaced with 401K's or the like or nothing.
A higher percentage of workers are now temporary or part time than in the past.

the inflation figures touted by industry and govt often do not include things like food and energy costs which consume a large part of the working classes income.

Yes this was a cherry picking article for sure just right for those like the Rabbi.

 

[uscitizen]

To know the author is accurate you only need to look at the proliferation of the fast food industry and chain restaurants. They were pretty much nonexistent in the early 1960's and look at what we have today, they're on almost every block in every city and town in America. Most all of the jobs they created are for the most part low skilled, low wage and if you think the shear numbers don't effect the average wage in this country, then you have your head up you ass.

Yeah and the parking lots at Wal mart are pretty full too, proving that the economy is roaring and people are just fine?