Workers’ share of national income plummets to record low

[kiwiman127]

...clearly shows a drop in wages....

We hear that a lot from the left. Labor uses it as a bargaining tool and party hacks use it as a populist chant and what I said is it doesn't matter because a drop in wages ignores benefits and other income which we now know is up.

...benefits have been dropping. Gone are the days of profit sharing, great medical benefits and employer matching participation in 401Ks...

We hear that a lot from the left too and although the numbers are there to prove the wage complaint they're gone when benefits are panned. It still doesn't matter because there's a lot of income people enjoy besides wages and benefits, and total after tax real income per person is three times what it was in 1960.

It's more than good, it's amazing.

"We hear that a lot from the left" I just proved my point using the CPI, Real Dollars and government statistics and I'm not a lefty, I'm Main Street America!

 

[expat_panama]

...I just proved my point using the CPI, Real Dollars and government statistics and I'm not a lefty, I'm Main Street America!

Absolutely, we've been in agreement on all that from the beginning. FWIW, here are the latest numbers for wages adjusted for cpi:
2005 276.17 -0.50%
2006 278.86 0.97%
2007 281.69 1.01%
2008 279.91 -0.63%
2009 284.98 1.81%
2010 289.63 1.63%
2011 288.61 -0.35%

If we say that real wages are what matters in an economy, then we're saying that the economy was best in the Carter years, went down hill with Reagan, and was at it's worse with Clinton. Bush improved on Clinton, and Obama's giving us a better economy than either Clinton or Bush.

Not everyone would agree.

 

[uscitizen]

A bit more to a good economy as far as the workers go than just wages.
ie $4 gas hurts a lot on the little guys.
Not so bad if you make 150K though.

 

[Wiseacre]

In real dollars ( constant dollar) wages have been dropping since have fallen greatly since 1978.

REAL WAGES
1964-2004
Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars)
For all private nonfarm workers
Year Real $ Change
1964 302.52
1965 310.46 2.62%
1966 312.83 0.76%
1967 311.30 -0.49%
1968 315.37 1.31%
1969 316.93 0.49%
1970 312.94 -1.26%
1971 318.05 1.63%
1972 331.59 4.26%
1973 331.39 -0.06%
1974 314.94 -4.96%
1975 305.16 -3.11%
1976 309.61 1.46%
1977 310.99 0.45%
1978 310.41 -0.19%
1979 298.87 -3.72%
1980 281.27 -5.89%
1981 277.35 -1.39%
1982 272.74 -1.66%
1983 277.50 1.75%
1984 279.22 0.62%
1985 276.23 -1.07%
1986 276.11 -0.04%
1987 272.88 -1.17%
1988 270.32 -0.94%
1989 267.27 -1.13%
1990 262.43 -1.81%
1991 258.34 -1.56%
1992 257.95 -0.15%
1993 258.12 0.07%
1994 259.97 0.72%
1995 258.43 -0.59%
1996 259.58 0.44%
1997 265.22 2.17%
1998 271.87 2.51%
1999 274.64 1.02%
2000 275.62 0.36%
2001 275.38 -0.09%
2002 278.91 1.28%
2003 279.94 0.37%
2004 277.57 -0.84%



Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)

For those who aren't aware of the what Real Dollars are, go to this link:
How to convert Nominal Dollars to Real Dollars

Those numbers are real wages, adjusted for inflation, correct? It's not like their standard of living has dropped over that timespan. So why is a regular wage earner today worth more to an employer than he/she was 30 years ago? When you've got 4 or 5 guys looking for every one of these jobs, employers are not going to pay more than they have to. That's not immoral, certainly not illegal.

The message is clear enough - if you want to make more money you better make yourself worth more to an employer. Some higher skillset, education/training, some ability that makes you more valuable. If you don't do this, IMHO you got nothing to complain about in 30 years when the real wage numbers still haven't changed.

 

[Nemo]

The way to increase the richness of our way of life as Americans is to raise the standard of living for all - not a divided class society between the “haves and have-nots.” It is the ordinary working people that get up every day and do the jobs upon which everyone depends and that everyone takes for granted. They are neglected and ignored for all their worth and the importance of their work. Never before in our country has there been a greater disparity between the income levels of wage-earners and the salaried executives of “Corporate America.” Still we live in a world that would deny ordinary working people even the most basic of human rights and benefits of life. After a decade of voting itself an annual cost-of-living increase, the Congress finally voted to raise the minimum wage by a niggardly $2.10 an hour! Have we learned nothing from history? In every age there has been unrest, revolution or war for the suppression of the masses to satisfy the greed and ambitions of the ruling classes. Apparently, nothing has changed; and so long as such inequities exist, it never will.

 

[Wiseacre]

The way to increase the richness of our way of life as Americans is to raise the standard of living for all - not a divided class society between the “haves and have-nots.” It is the ordinary working people that get up every day and do the jobs upon which everyone depends and that everyone takes for granted. They are neglected and ignored for all their worth and the importance of their work. Never before in our country has there been a greater disparity between the income levels of wage-earners and the salaried executives of “Corporate America.” Still we live in a world that would deny ordinary working people even the most basic of human rights and benefits of life. After a decade of voting itself an annual cost-of-living increase, the Congress finally voted to raise the minimum wage by a niggardly $2.10 an hour! Have we learned nothing from history? In every age there has been unrest, revolution or war for the suppression of the masses to satisfy the greed and ambitions of the ruling classes. Apparently, nothing has changed; and so long as such inequities exist, it never will.

Income inequality has always existed, and no doubt always will unless we end up with universal communism.

I do not think ordinary working people are being denied basic human rights in this country, nor the benefits of life.

You want to raise the minimum wage, you better be preared for 20% UE.

 

[Truthmatters]

Fewer and fewer Americans trust caplitalism anymore.

This trend will kill caplitalism

 

[Nemo]

"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living - a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Excerpt from the Address by Theodore Roosevelt before the Convention of the National Progressive Party in Chicago (August, 1912)

. . .

A business that can’t afford to pay its employees a living wage, health insurance, employment taxes, workers compensation and unemployment insurance, and comply with regulatory provisions for the protection of the public and the environment has no business being in business.

 

[midcan5]

One of the oddest things about these ideological debates on how the American worker is doing is the constant bad news on media, especially since Obama won in 08. So is it bad or is it good? For me I have done extremely well in life and have no complaints, but I don't judge the world by my luck and hard work. So which is it? Proof please. News tells me bad, stats from repub and Fox say bad, some say improving. Even in the great depression some still worked and did well, how can we judge life for all when we presume to be honest moral people? See equality piece in my sig.

 

[Wiseacre]

"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living - a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Excerpt from the Address by Theodore Roosevelt before the Convention of the National Progressive Party in Chicago (August, 1912)

. . .

A business that can’t afford to pay its employees a living wage, health insurance, employment taxes, workers compensation and unemployment insurance, and comply with regulatory provisions for the protection of the public and the environment has no business being in business.

Nice speech by Roosevelt. Politicians make speeches all the time, they generally don't mean squat.


Good thing you're not in office, we'd be in a depression in no time. You do realize we live in a global economy, and money will flow to the places where it can provide the greatest return on investment. To place the level of burden you're talking about would guarantee economic disaster, nobody would invest here and existing businesses would migrate offshore or quit. But look on the bright side - income inequality will be drastically reduced. Everyone will be living on peanuts.

 

[midcan5]

Good thing you're not in office, we'd be in a depression in no time. You do realize we live in a global economy, and money will flow to the places where it can provide the greatest return on investment. To place the level of burden you're talking about would guarantee economic disaster, nobody would invest here and existing businesses would migrate offshore or quit. But look on the bright side - income inequality will be drastically reduced. Everyone will be living on peanuts.

Why would we be in a depression? Seems the great depression and the recent great recession had little to do with a living wage. Speculative nonsense and greed, sans regulation was the cause of both. A living wage had nothing to do with them.


"Over the past two decades, income inequality in the United States has massively increased. This jump owes to the unprecedentedly abysmal earnings experience of low-paid Americans, income stagnation covering about 80 percent of all families, and an increase in upper-end incomes. The rise in inequality-greater than in most other developed countries-has reversed the equalization in income and wealth we experienced between 1945 and 1970. The United States has now cemented its traditional position as the leader in inequality among advanced countries." Boston Review: Richard Freeman on The New Inequality, and What to Do About It

 

[expat_panama]

A business that can’t afford to pay its employees a living wage, health insurance...

Everyone has to obey laws but this is something so different that I can't believe anyone here would seriously comply. OK, with words maybe but never with actions. Like, nobody buys food at the grocer only after first checking whether all the employees are getting what they'd be willing to call a "living wage". Nobody checks with the health insurance of the station attendant before filling a tank with gasoline.

Seems like a prolonged return visit to Planet Earth is called for.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I just want to say...expat is kicking ass in this thread.

 

[Wiseacre]

Good thing you're not in office, we'd be in a depression in no time. You do realize we live in a global economy, and money will flow to the places where it can provide the greatest return on investment. To place the level of burden you're talking about would guarantee economic disaster, nobody would invest here and existing businesses would migrate offshore or quit. But look on the bright side - income inequality will be drastically reduced. Everyone will be living on peanuts.

Why would we be in a depression? Seems the great depression and the recent great recession had little to do with a living wage. Speculative nonsense and greed, sans regulation was the cause of both. A living wage had nothing to do with them.


I assume Nemo is advocating forcing a minimum wage hike that results in whatevr a "living wage" means, and healthcare on top of that. You would end up with extremely high unemployment and a lot of businesses leaving for foreign countries or just going out of business due to the unfair req't to pay somebody more than what the market will bear.

"Over the past two decades, income inequality in the United States has massively increased. This jump owes to the unprecedentedly abysmal earnings experience of low-paid Americans, income stagnation covering about 80 percent of all families, and an increase in upper-end incomes. The rise in inequality-greater than in most other developed countries-has reversed the equalization in income and wealth we experienced between 1945 and 1970. The United States has now cemented its traditional position as the leader in inequality among advanced countries." Boston Review: Richard Freeman on The New Inequality, and What to Do About It

One assumes Nemo and yourself would correct the inequality through tax rate hikes on the wealthy. Such hikes would only marginally address the inequality, but the economic impact could be quite severe. This ain't the 50s and 60s any more, where the US was basically the only game in town. If you get your way, investments would dry up here and that money would go elsewhere. New businesses require capital investment, without it any economic growth is muted or even revesered. If you can't see that, then there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Nemo]

Capitalism is nothing more than a license to steal - and at the public expense. I think it's time to end corporate welfare. The public just can't afford it. Keep in mind, that if the public can't afford to buy the product, the business should go out of business, and not be supported by the government. Such government is not representative of the public interest, but rather the special interests of business. It is the interests of the people that must come first.

 

[Wiseacre]

Capitalism is nothing more than a license to steal - and at the public expense. I think it's time to end corporate welfare. The public just can't afford it. Keep in mind, that if the public can't afford to buy the product, the business should go out of business, and not be supported by the government. Such government is not representative of the public interest, but rather the special interests of business. It is the interests of the people that must come first.

I'm good with ending corp welfare, couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the Dems in the Senate do not agree, 45 of them voted to keep the ethanol subisides to Big Farm.

Outside of your initial remark about capitalism being a license to steal, I agree with your position.

 

[boedicca]

Capitalism is nothing more than a license to steal - and at the public expense. I think it's time to end corporate welfare. The public just can't afford it. Keep in mind, that if the public can't afford to buy the product, the business should go out of business, and not be supported by the government. Such government is not representative of the public interest, but rather the special interests of business. It is the interests of the people that must come first.

Corporate Welfare is not Capitalism, bub.

 

[mike beev]

Between 1983 and 2004 only 10% of all wealth gains went to the bottom 80%. D'Ambrosio & Wolff--Recent Trends in Household Wealth. Does this statement seem right based on your personal life? Can we have a middle class with this kind of trend? An interesting book is"Winner Take All Politics..." by Hacker & Pierson.

Like it or not, we need a gov't to make the rules and hopefully to enforce a level playing field. Money for Wall Street and the bills for Main Street and forclosures for Elm Street does not seem very level to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

..... privatizing profit, underfunding regulators, rewarding near and off shoring with tax breaks:

Privatizing profit? Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
Regulations cost us more every year.
Please explain these supposed tax breaks for offshoring.

 

[Wiseacre]

Between 1983 and 2004 only 10% of all wealth gains went to the bottom 80%. D'Ambrosio & Wolff--Recent Trends in Household Wealth. Does this statement seem right based on your personal life? Can we have a middle class with this kind of trend? An interesting book is"Winner Take All Politics..." by Hacker & Pierson.

Like it or not, we need a gov't to make the rules and hopefully to enforce a level playing field. Money for Wall Street and the bills for Main Street and forclosures for Elm Street does not seem very level to me.

So what would you do to enforce a level playing field?