12% less than their fathers: the new America

[Truthmatters]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3213731&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

 

[Truthmatters]

A new report finds that men in their 30s make less money than their fathers did at the same age, raising questions about deeply held notions of social mobility and the realities of the American Dream.

It's not just because they're typical Generation X slackers either.


In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s was $35,010, the study found. Adjusted for inflation, that's 12 percent less than what men the same age were making in 1974.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3213731&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Do you do ANYTHING other than paste? and then cut and paste the article in a second post? Remind me again how you hate RSR when he does it....

 

[Truthmatters]

this is a topic for disussion.

If you dont want to discuss curretn events then dont come here

 

[Care4all]

this is a topic for disussion.

If you dont want to discuss curretn events then dont come here

hahaha! i think you won that one TM, lol....

btw, making the 12% less sucks, i only read part of it earlier yesterday but got cut short.... did they go in to WHY 30 year olds of today were making less?

and corporations and businesses are taking in much higher profits than they did back then from all i've read, so the ''money'' is there to pay them at least the eqivilent of their fathers for the same position one would think?

care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

this is a topic for disussion.

If you dont want to discuss curretn events then dont come here

Shall I start a poll to have you censored? As I recall you loved the one about RSR.

 

[Truthmatters]

The study didnt cover that area.

They speculate in may be the slower growth in America, women working, people not working as hard.

In the end those are just speculation.

BTW gunny I never advocated for rsr to be banned.

 

[onedomino]

A new report finds that men in their 30s make less money than their fathers did at the same age, raising questions about deeply held notions of social mobility and the realities of the American Dream.

It's not just because they're typical Generation X slackers either.


In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s was $35,010, the study found. Adjusted for inflation, that's 12 percent less than what men the same age were making in 1974.

There are several reasons for this trend. Here's four:


1. There are at least 12 million illegal aliens working in the US that were not present in 1974 (maybe the number is closer to 20 million if you go all the way back to 1974). According to Bush, they are doing jobs that Americans do not want to perform. The reality is that they are doing jobs that Americans do not want to perform for $5 to $7 dollars per hour. Big difference. Illegal aliens suppress wages: labor supply and demand, simple economics.

2. We have shipped hundreds of thousands (over thirty years probably millions) of relatively high paying manufacturing jobs overseas to places like China and replaced them with low paying service jobs. Comparatively, we now suck at making steel, but we are terrific at flipping burgers.

3. Failure of certain industries to innovate and adapt. The US automobile industry is a good example. rather than reinvest profit from the 60s and 70s back into innovation, too high a percentage got paid in dividends due to a slavish desire to please Wall Street. Operating income became the name of the game; and the report card came every 90 days. Innovation got shoved way into the background. Why? Because innovation usually takes longer to deliver than 90 days. Thus it became easy for Japan, Inc. (i.e., Toyota, etc.) to pound GM and the others. Also, the health care system in the US placed such a great burden on manufacturers that operating costs became uncompetitive.

4. Mediocre (poor is closer to the truth) business management. For example, Eastman Kodak at one time was actually a giant city within the city of Rochester, NY. It dominated the film industry worldwide. It made enormous profits and paid tens of thousands of workers excellent wages. But due to amazingly bad business leadership, it was blind sided by the digital camera revolution. Now Kodak is a shadow of its former self. Xerox is another such example. Instead of plowing profits back into the business to innovate new products and manufacturing techniques, it sat on its success and almost folded as a result. Polaroid, is yet another example, and the list goes on and on. The best business schools in the world, Wharton, Harvard, etc., produced a generation of portfolio managers, not innovators.

 

[Truthmatters]

I agree with much of what you say although I dont think I would put illegal immigration first on that list.

These are all related to Corporations getting to fat and happy because of a lack of competition.

There are many benifits to be gained for Wisely regulating our industries.

If done correctly its good for the market.

 

[Gunny]

this is a topic for disussion.

If you dont want to discuss curretn events then dont come here

Unless you are just trying to run up your post count, your editorial can easily be included with the link.

He's as entitled to criticize your style of posting articles as you are RSR's. The street runs two ways, not just one in your favor.

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont recall saying he wasnt?

Gunny be fair.

I was just giving him crap back for giving me crap.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I dont recall saying he wasnt?

Gunny be fair.

I was just giving him crap back for giving me crap.

Like all good Liberals it isn't always what you say but what you mean.

 

[Gunny]

I dont recall saying he wasnt?

Gunny be fair.

I was just giving him crap back for giving me crap.

I am being fair. If you can criticize, you can be criticized. It's as simple as that.

 

[Truthmatters]

Then why did you chastize only me?

 

[Gunny]

Then why did you chastize only me?

I am not chastizing you, period. I merely pointed a well-aimed finger at a perceived double standard.

 

[Truthmatters]

I posted a subject for discussion and hoped to come back and find what people thought of the issue and this guy didnt like it so I sugested he not answer it.

seems pretty civil to me.

You and I both know the only reason he answered ti was to shoot at me.

Hell if I said that trees were green he would talk about bark.

 

[Gunny]

I posted a subject for discussion and hoped to come back and find what people thought of the issue and this guy didnt like it so I sugested he not answer it.

seems pretty civil to me.

You and I both know the only reason he answered ti was to shoot at me.

Hell if I said that trees were green he would talk about bark.

Did you or did you not add your liberal two cents in criticizing RSR?

 

[Truthmatters]

Did I ever ask for him to be banned?

I did not even sujest people should but him on mute and I argued against limmiting his posts.

 

[Annie]

Did I ever ask for him to be banned?

I did not even sujest people should but him on mute and I argued against limmiting his posts.

#4 of that thread:

we should not limmit any posts.

we can however band togerher and vow to ut certain people on an ignore list.

then there is #13, not 'ignore' just a suggestion of collusion. Heck you can't even get the more liberal posters to agree with you.

 

[Care4all]

I dont recall saying he wasnt?

Gunny be fair.

I was just giving him crap back for giving me crap.

Yes, that is all that you were doing is giving the crap back that was dealt to you first if anyone wants to be FAIR about it, and those here that do not know you have prematurely, imho, prejudged you.... in time they will see that this is just YOUR style of posting threads too...hopefully.... and they can continue to try to conform you to THEIR style of posting.....but all the years I have known you...I would say THAT is an impossible task!

Care