If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Hey, 90 percent of Americans, what are you complaining about? Your incomes have gone up nearly $60. Sure, that's over forty years, but still   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 122
    More: Sad, Americans, tax analysts, AlterNet, Pulitzer Prize-winning, incomes  
•       •       •

6166 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2013 at 11:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 08:51:54 AM

tbhouston: I've gotten between 3-6% every year for the past 5 years...maybe subby should stop flipping burgers


Where do you mythical people work?  I've never known anyone in my entire working life that has exceeded 3%... ever... regardless of where they work, unless they were willing to relocate or were promoted.
 
2013-03-26 09:00:39 AM
How the hell did they know? $60/hour is actually about my pay growth over the last 40 years.
 
2013-03-26 09:02:11 AM

WhyteRaven74: evil saltine: Why would wages be expected to grow faster than inflation?

Because if they don't purchasing power doesn't increase. If purchasing power doesn't increase people don't buy more stuff. If people don't buy more stuff demand doesn't increase. If demand doesn't increase the economy doesn't grow.

wademh: why would you expect it to go up at all?

Because the sign of a health economy is incomes increasing faster than the rate of inflation thus giving people more money to buy stuff.

sendtodave: So, wages should be 4x as much as they were then! Or somethng.

Actually it used to be that as productivity went up so did wages, because people were producing more. The short explanation of why it's bad not to pay more as productivity increases is that by not paying more you're limiting the number of people to buy that stuff, either directly or indirectly, but you are most definitely limiting it. Or put even more simply, you're undercutting demand, which is a very bad thing.


but this is all econ 101
so pretty much most people wont understand any of it ... ever

try explaining the downward death spiral of deflation and watch their heads explode

/plus - the people who think that going back on the gold standard would mean the END of inflation and deflation. well, they are morons.
 
2013-03-26 09:10:52 AM
Can I get a show of hands for those who would be willing to have a 1973 standard of living with the "same" income? Anyone?
 
2013-03-26 09:11:45 AM

awruk!: Here is a bit of interesting statistics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM


THIS THIS MORE THIS AND ONLY THIS
 
2013-03-26 09:20:43 AM

BMFPitt: Can I get a show of hands for those who would be willing to have a 1973 standard of living with the "same" income? Anyone?


oh never mind
 
2013-03-26 09:48:40 AM

Psycat: Enrico Fermi postulated the idea that we're not finding extra-terrestrial life because any civilization that's advanced enough ends up inventing nukes or some other WMD that brings about the end of their civilization.


That's not the Fermi Paradox.  When did he say that?

/fermi admirer
 
2013-03-26 11:03:14 AM

El Pachuco: WhyteRaven74: Actually it used to be that as productivity went up so did wages,

[www.irle.berkeley.edu image 340x180]

And then something changed.


the end of strong unions.  oops...
 
2013-03-26 11:10:29 AM

pedobearapproved: Well, in every business EVER they raise the cost of goods and services to cover the increased labor costs while maintaining the same level of profit.


And you've just demonstrated that you know not only nothing of economic history but pretty much nothing about business history.
 
2013-03-26 11:12:14 AM

namatad: - the people who think that going back on the gold standard would mean the END of inflation and deflation. well, they are morons.


Morons is being polite about it.
 
2013-03-26 11:28:21 AM

thecpt: Psycat: Enrico Fermi postulated the idea that we're not finding extra-terrestrial life because any civilization that's advanced enough ends up inventing nukes or some other WMD that brings about the end of their civilization.

That's not the Fermi Paradox.  When did he say that?

/fermi admirer


I can't find the exact article I'm thinking of that directly links Fermi with the idea of intelligent life destroying itself, but if you check out the Wikipedia article on the Fermi Paradox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox , you'll see the topic "It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself" about 1/3 of the way down which is one of the bigger aspects of the Fermi Paradox.
 
2013-03-26 11:28:35 AM
So the group that were kids in the 60s are now working...working population is larger so you have more people to average the increases over. There will always be jobs like barristas or fry cooks who don't need lots of skill and therfore don;t need lots of money to do their job.

The top 10%? Wierd how they are going with the top 10% now instead of the top 1% To be in the top 10% you only need to make around 70k a year. That should be your avaerage college graduate with a couple years experience in their field. Even civil servants are in the group. Plus you have all the gains made through interest alone and the 0 to billions overnight type wealth with people like Facebook and Google etc.
 
2013-03-26 11:37:30 AM

Giltric: therfore don;t need lots of money to do their job.


*headdesk*
 
2013-03-26 11:43:16 AM

WhyteRaven74: Giltric: therfore don;t need lots of money to do their job.

*headdesk*



Sorry. If they want to buy a Mecedes Benz maybe they should think about bringing some sort of skill to the table. They can't even get the coffee order right half the time.


What wage do you think is reasonable for fry cooks and barristas?
 
2013-03-26 11:44:02 AM
Giltric, you mean two $70K per year incomes to be in the top 10%, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
 
2013-03-26 11:57:33 AM

Zachery: Giltric, you mean two $70K per year incomes to be in the top 10%, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States


When you are counting households and comparing them to other households sure.......try personal income.

Making between 70 and 80k as an individual still puts you in or near the top 10%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Almost half this country brings nothing to the table and wants you to bring something to the table for them.
Didn't Romney get in trouble for his 47% number? Nobody challenged the number, they just got mad at Romney for pointing it out.
 
2013-03-26 12:08:10 PM
Lets see...

Starting pay for picking watermelons in the sixties about the time money was still real: $1.50 an hour.

$1.50 converted to todays counterfeit; equals $30.88 according to the

http://www.silverandgoldaremoney.com/

So no. I think we are being farked.
 
2013-03-26 12:09:20 PM

Psycat: thecpt: Psycat: Enrico Fermi postulated the idea that we're not finding extra-terrestrial life because any civilization that's advanced enough ends up inventing nukes or some other WMD that brings about the end of their civilization.

That's not the Fermi Paradox.  When did he say that?

/fermi admirer

I can't find the exact article I'm thinking of that directly links Fermi with the idea of intelligent life destroying itself, but if you check out the Wikipedia article on the Fermi Paradox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox , you'll see the topic "It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself" about 1/3 of the way down which is one of the bigger aspects of the Fermi Paradox.


damn that portion of the page "It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself " is both poorly conjectured and poorly written.  I doubt that Fermi himself did it.  The sources are scattered to old articles with nothing directly to Fermi, but if he did say it I'm sure it was a hundred times better.  However, I don't see how that portion isn't also listed as tautological.  If we haven't died yet, then mathematically there would be a society that didn't kill itself.

He is my favorite scientist from the last century, but I always found the paradox a bit odd.  Just the idea that if we haven't seen it yet then mathematically it cannot exist.  It's simultaneously an epiphany and closed minded shunning.

anyways, thanks for coming back.  I'm going to keep an open eye on the theory every time I read about it now.
 
2013-03-26 12:37:15 PM

cman: Unfortunately the capitalist system is what is best.


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-26 01:15:55 PM

sendtodave: Sgygus: evil saltine: That's adjusted for inflation. Why would wages be expected to grow faster than inflation?

Productivity increases by an average of 2.9 percent per year in the U.S.  The average worker is producing twice what he did forty years ago.  Should he not be sharing in the extra wealth he is creating?

/we all know where that extra wealth is going ... all of it

An average worker needs to work a mere 11 hours per week to produce as much as one working 40 hours per week in 1950.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/

So, wages should be 4x as much as they were then!  Or somethng.

/not how capitalism works


Sounds about right ... I know I do the job of at least 4 people.
 
2013-03-26 01:46:15 PM

Nutsac_Jim: If you are making the same at that point, you are an unskilled worker and it is your own fault you never did anything to better yourself.


That's ridiculous and you're a fool if you think that's true. I've seen countless skilled workers let go and replaced with people making half the money. It's becoming more and more prevalent in the workforce.
 
2013-03-26 07:41:00 PM

Meatschool: tbhouston: I've gotten between 3-6% every year for the past 5 years...maybe subby should stop flipping burgers

Where do you mythical people work?  I've never known anyone in my entire working life that has exceeded 3%... ever... regardless of where they work, unless they were willing to relocate or were promoted.


Verizon wireless
 
Displayed 22 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report