Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Al Jazeera)   New data show the highest earners are making less money in the current economy, although makers of tiny violins expect to see surge in profits   (america.aljazeera.com) divider line 152
    More: Misc, social security, wages and salaries, President Theodore Roosevelt  
•       •       •

2128 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2014 at 5:09 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-19 03:49:21 AM  
Don't worry. Their tears will trickle down.
 
2014-08-19 05:36:15 AM  
Well, when you decide not to raise your employees' wages, that lack of money soon trickles up.
 
2014-08-19 05:41:16 AM  

farkingismybusiness: Don't worry. Their tears will trickle down.


Because Obama's policies of QE are doing wonders for inequality.
 
2014-08-19 05:46:51 AM  
let's all vote socialist until the redistribute the monies.
 
2014-08-19 05:57:27 AM  
Feeling poorer every year.
one-simple-idea.com
 
2014-08-19 06:01:13 AM  
buckminster fuller, something, something, specious notions and all that.
 
GBB
2014-08-19 06:04:38 AM  
Highest earners making reporting less, Social Security data show


/there ya go
 
2014-08-19 06:07:25 AM  
That is because billionaires have run out of money to squeeze from the middle class, so they are reducing millionaire's wages to keep the income flowing.
 
2014-08-19 06:30:34 AM  
Gee, it's almost like there are negative consequences to firing everyone in a consumption based economy.
 
2014-08-19 06:31:50 AM  
As a tiny violin maker, I'm really getting a kick out of this thread.

/Also make tiny wallets but there's no money in it.
 
2014-08-19 06:32:20 AM  
They're comparing 2012 with 2000.

Year 2000 wasn't representative - it was still the peak of dotcom boom #1. So of course a load of people paid themselves a shiat load.

I'd like to see the full trend since c. 1990.
 
2014-08-19 06:34:19 AM  
This article isn't about the 1%, or even the very rich. It's about people who earn high wages or salaries working. That isn't the wealthy - that's the upper middle class we are talking about.
The wealthy don't get their wealth from working, and earning wages.
 
2014-08-19 06:37:42 AM  

jso2897: This article isn't about the 1%, or even the very rich. It's about people who earn high wages or salaries working. That isn't the wealthy - that's the upper middle class we are talking about.
The wealthy don't get their wealth from working, and earning wages.


It's 38,000 people. That's the 0.01%.

It's a bit above upper middle class.
 
2014-08-19 06:40:29 AM  

Deep Contact: Feeling poorer every year.
[one-simple-idea.com image 375x276]


Yes, let's go back to a system dependent on a steady supply of a rare extraction commodity that is easily subject to wild fluctuations in prices and can trigger financial panics every few years.
 
2014-08-19 06:42:42 AM  

Deep Contact: Feeling poorer every year.
[one-simple-idea.com image 375x276]


This is about real shrinkage in wages, adjusted for inflation.
 
2014-08-19 06:46:02 AM  
I can't even imagine making the kind of money per year that they are talking about.
 
2014-08-19 06:46:02 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Deep Contact: Feeling poorer every year.
[one-simple-idea.com image 375x276]

Yes, let's go back to a system dependent on a steady supply of a rare extraction commodity that is easily subject to wild fluctuations in prices and can trigger financial panics every few years.


We should have a diamond standard. Let DeBeers control the economy. Or maybe bananas would work better...
 
2014-08-19 06:47:47 AM  
I just want to praise subby for properly recognizing that "data" is plural... Most people would've incorrectly said "data shows"...
 
2014-08-19 06:49:24 AM  

opiumpoopy: jso2897: This article isn't about the 1%, or even the very rich. It's about people who earn high wages or salaries working. That isn't the wealthy - that's the upper middle class we are talking about.
The wealthy don't get their wealth from working, and earning wages.

It's 38,000 people. That's the 0.01%.

It's a bit above upper middle class.


They are not the wealthiest people.They are the wealthiest WAGE EARNERS. They aren't especially wealthy, and not even part of the 1% - at least not by virtue of their salaries. These are (partly) miilionaires we are talking about here, not billionaires.
 
2014-08-19 06:49:33 AM  

fusillade762: UNC_Samurai: Deep Contact: Feeling poorer every year.
[one-simple-idea.com image 375x276]

Yes, let's go back to a system dependent on a steady supply of a rare extraction commodity that is easily subject to wild fluctuations in prices and can trigger financial panics every few years.

We should have a diamond standard. Let DeBeers control the economy. Or maybe bananas would work better...


You missed an opportunity to bring up coconuts.
 
2014-08-19 06:51:42 AM  
This is what we get when rich people think they only need to understand finance and economics.  History is for sissies,  obviously.

/Liberte, egalite, fraternite!
 
2014-08-19 06:52:23 AM  

opiumpoopy: jso2897: This article isn't about the 1%, or even the very rich. It's about people who earn high wages or salaries working. That isn't the wealthy - that's the upper middle class we are talking about.
The wealthy don't get their wealth from working, and earning wages.

It's 38,000 people. That's the 0.01%.

It's a bit above upper middle class.


To these people, $350,000 a year is a shoestring budget.
 
2014-08-19 07:01:31 AM  
Where I work, wages have stayed stagnant for years while the CEO makes close to 7 figures. The result?  Mass exodus of employees. And because of the low wages compared to the surrounding area, we can't hire enough people to replace the fallen. This results in complaints from the higher-ups about high turnover and  decreased revenue which results in budget cut-backs, lack of supplies, changes in benefits,  frustrated employees and more people leaving. I'm leaving in October. Can't wait.
Maybe the high wage earners will finally realize you can't treat your employees like shiat forever.
/yah right
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-08-19 07:12:31 AM  
How can you LIVE on 2 mil a year??
 
2014-08-19 07:16:11 AM  
I think I confused some people when I referred to the "1%".
I was not referring to the 1% who earn the biggest paychecks. I was talking about the wealthiest %1 of Americans.
Most of the people in that group don't work at all. Many are children, housewives, or elderly. And they don't get their wealth from working - they get it from owning things.
If the only money Bill Gates ever made was the salary he was paid as head of Microsoft, He'd be living in a fairly impressive house in the nicer part of Redmond, his kids would be going to good schools, and if he was feeling bold, he might drive a Tesla.
Nobody really rich earned their money by working. Not most of it, anyway.

Note - before any of you Mickey-marketeers jump down my throat, I am neither saying nor implying that wealth earned through capital investment isn't legitimately earned wealth - but is not a wage, paid to one as a "worker".
 
2014-08-19 07:18:56 AM  
I'm making more than I ever have, but that's more due to the fact I'm now 37 and finally have really marketable skills.

22-32 was paycheck to paycheck time, and that was pre-recession.
 
2014-08-19 07:20:17 AM  

jso2897: opiumpoopy: jso2897: This article isn't about the 1%, or even the very rich. It's about people who earn high wages or salaries working. That isn't the wealthy - that's the upper middle class we are talking about.
The wealthy don't get their wealth from working, and earning wages.

It's 38,000 people. That's the 0.01%.

It's a bit above upper middle class.

They are not the wealthiest people.They are the wealthiest WAGE EARNERS. They aren't especially wealthy, and not even part of the 1% - at least not by virtue of their salaries. These are (partly) miilionaires we are talking about here, not billionaires.



Sort of. Their income puts them easily in the top 1% by income, but IMO it makes more sense to talk about the 1% by wealth, and we don't know whether these people are in that club or not. The top 1% wealth cutoff is only 2-5X their income, so maybe. And there are about 500 billionaires in the USA; that's a *much* higher bar than "the 1%."

It's true that income doesn't entirely determine socioeconomic class, and well-paid working class isn't the same as upper class. But we don't know how much of the income here is wages, just that they have some wage income. A genuine superwealthy upper crust farker *could* file a W-2.
 
2014-08-19 07:22:59 AM  

jso2897: This article isn't about the 1%, or even the very rich. It's about people who earn high wages or salaries working. That isn't the wealthy - that's the upper middle class we are talking about.
The wealthy don't get their wealth from working, and earning wages.


Fark, where $2,000,000 a year is not "very rich."
 
2014-08-19 07:25:22 AM  
What percentage of these 40 thousand people earning $2 million a year are professional athletes?  I think the average player salary in the MLB is above $2 million.  If it is a significant percentage, then can this loss be traced solely to owners in the large leagues getting more beneficial players union contracts set up that reduce the amount of money they pay to the athletes in their leagues?

Just a thought.  On the other hand, I doubt there are more than 1,000 players in MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL making more than two million.
 
2014-08-19 07:25:39 AM  

RobSeace: I just want to praise subby for properly recognizing that "data" is plural... Most people would've incorrectly said "data shows"...


I hope you're joking, as "data" is one of those weird words that can be used to refer to a collective group (as in, "Our data represents multiple points") or a number of...something, who would make it plural.

Thank god I have an English teacher for a mother. And I had a lot of really good professors in college.

Of course, the singular of " data" is "datum," but who in the name of sanity uses that word anyway?
 
2014-08-19 07:39:28 AM  

maram500: RobSeace: I just want to praise subby for properly recognizing that "data" is plural... Most people would've incorrectly said "data shows"...

I hope you're joking, as "data" is one of those weird words that can be used to refer to a collective group (as in, "Our data represents multiple points") or a number of...something, who would make it plural.

Thank god I have an English teacher for a mother. And I had a lot of really good professors in college.

Of course, the singular of " data" is "datum," but who in the name of sanity uses that word anyway?



cdn.meme.li
 
2014-08-19 07:43:09 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Deep Contact: Feeling poorer every year.
[one-simple-idea.com image 375x276]

Yes, let's go back to a system dependent on a steady supply of a rare extraction commodity that is easily subject to wild fluctuations in prices and can trigger financial panics every few years.


I still want a currency backed by pork-bellies.
 
2014-08-19 07:44:03 AM  
Played, subby.
 
2014-08-19 07:52:34 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Deep Contact: Feeling poorer every year.
[one-simple-idea.com image 375x276]

Yes, let's go back to a system dependent on a steady supply of a rare extraction commodity that is easily subject to wild fluctuations in prices and can trigger financial panics every few years.


I want an economy backed by nickel.

For the man the largest magnet becomes the world's great thief.
 
2014-08-19 07:54:58 AM  
Hey now, golden toilets and cruise ship-size yachts are getting more and more expensive.
 
2014-08-19 08:03:08 AM  

opiumpoopy: jso2897: This article isn't about the 1%, or even the very rich. It's about people who earn high wages or salaries working. That isn't the wealthy - that's the upper middle class we are talking about.
The wealthy don't get their wealth from working, and earning wages.

It's 38,000 people. That's the 0.01%.

It's a bit above upper middle class.


You don't pay social security taxes on cap gains, so this "report" is kinda missing a big piece of the puzzle.
 
2014-08-19 08:05:25 AM  
Well now that the kidlet is older and is better about entertaining himself without destroying anything, I have time for an after work and weekend hobby.

/starts reading on how to make violins
 
2014-08-19 08:06:51 AM  
When they all take thier money and irreplaceable expertise and go to a place with more freedoms the jobs will all dry up.
Then there will be suffering and no job creation and you will all beg them to come back. They won't come back because they will creating freedoms and jobs elsehwere.
Class warfare has no winners.
 
2014-08-19 08:15:14 AM  

jso2897: I think I confused some people when I referred to the "1%".
I was not referring to the 1% who earn the biggest paychecks. I was talking about the wealthiest %1 of Americans.
Most of the people in that group don't work at all. Many are children, housewives, or elderly. And they don't get their wealth from working - they get it from owning things.
If the only money Bill Gates ever made was the salary he was paid as head of Microsoft, He'd be living in a fairly impressive house in the nicer part of Redmond, his kids would be going to good schools, and if he was feeling bold, he might drive a Tesla.
Nobody really rich earned their money by working. Not most of it, anyway.

Note - before any of you Mickey-marketeers jump down my throat, I am neither saying nor implying that wealth earned through capital investment isn't legitimately earned wealth - but is not a wage, paid to one as a "worker".


To all the Mickey-marketeers: I will say that wealth gained through capital investment is not legitimately earned when the earner pays less in taxes than someone who works for a living.

The tax system has no reason to incentivize investment at this point. Wealth is concentrated in such a small percentage of people that they have so much surplus wealth they have no where else to put it. If you don't work for a living, you should have to pay the same, if not more, in taxes than the people who actually produce instead of being a farking parasite.
 
2014-08-19 08:15:48 AM  

Bowen: opiumpoopy: jso2897: This article isn't about the 1%, or even the very rich. It's about people who earn high wages or salaries working. That isn't the wealthy - that's the upper middle class we are talking about.
The wealthy don't get their wealth from working, and earning wages.

It's 38,000 people. That's the 0.01%.

It's a bit above upper middle class.

You don't pay social security taxes on cap gains, so this "report" is kinda missing a big piece of the puzzle.


Exactly. It's like trying to report on the state of prostitution in America by only examining the Nevada bunny ranch. Not exactly representative of the big picture.
 
2014-08-19 08:16:33 AM  

UNC_Samurai: fusillade762: UNC_Samurai: Deep Contact: Feeling poorer every year.
[one-simple-idea.com image 375x276]

Yes, let's go back to a system dependent on a steady supply of a rare extraction commodity that is easily subject to wild fluctuations in prices and can trigger financial panics every few years.

We should have a diamond standard. Let DeBeers control the economy. Or maybe bananas would work better...

You missed an opportunity to bring up coconuts.


Harry Caray had the right idea. Clone hot dogs and base the economy off of them.


banter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2014-08-19 08:18:36 AM  

zeroman987: jso2897: I think I confused some people when I referred to the "1%".
I was not referring to the 1% who earn the biggest paychecks. I was talking about the wealthiest %1 of Americans.
Most of the people in that group don't work at all. Many are children, housewives, or elderly. And they don't get their wealth from working - they get it from owning things.
If the only money Bill Gates ever made was the salary he was paid as head of Microsoft, He'd be living in a fairly impressive house in the nicer part of Redmond, his kids would be going to good schools, and if he was feeling bold, he might drive a Tesla.
Nobody really rich earned their money by working. Not most of it, anyway.

Note - before any of you Mickey-marketeers jump down my throat, I am neither saying nor implying that wealth earned through capital investment isn't legitimately earned wealth - but is not a wage, paid to one as a "worker".

To all the Mickey-marketeers: I will say that wealth gained through capital investment is not legitimately earned when the earner pays less in taxes than someone who works for a living.

The tax system has no reason to incentivize investment at this point. Wealth is concentrated in such a small percentage of people that they have so much surplus wealth they have no where else to put it. If you don't work for a living, you should have to pay the same, if not more, in taxes than the people who actually produce instead of being a farking parasite.


I believe the lower taxes you just referred to is the incentive to invest.
 
2014-08-19 08:18:57 AM  
Nine shareholders just looted $300,000,000 from our local supermarket chain while donations to food pantries for the poor have dried up due to the loss of a reasonably-priced market (basket).  Hope they enjoy the taste of those last golden eggs.


Getting a kick...
 
2014-08-19 08:19:17 AM  

Goetz: When they all take thier money and irreplaceable expertise and go to a place with more freedoms the jobs will all dry up.
Then there will be suffering and no job creation and you will all beg them to come back. They won't come back because they will creating freedoms and jobs elsehwere.
Class warfare has no winners.


Tell me more of this place, and where it might be.
 
2014-08-19 08:24:35 AM  

techmom: Goetz: When they all take thier money and irreplaceable expertise and go to a place with more freedoms the jobs will all dry up.
Then there will be suffering and no job creation and you will all beg them to come back. They won't come back because they will creating freedoms and jobs elsehwere.
Class warfare has no winners.

Tell me more of this place, and where it might be.


Igotminefarkyoursistan
 
2014-08-19 08:28:13 AM  

DubyaHater: Where I work, wages have stayed stagnant for years while the CEO makes close to 7 figures. The result?  Mass exodus of employees. And because of the low wages compared to the surrounding area, we can't hire enough people to replace the fallen. This results in complaints from the higher-ups about high turnover and  decreased revenue which results in budget cut-backs, lack of supplies, changes in benefits,  frustrated employees and more people leaving. I'm leaving in October. Can't wait.
Maybe the high wage earners will finally realize you can't treat your employees like shiat forever.
/yah right


Learning lesson of the day. Wages are not the only cost of employment. If wages are stagnant, it does not mean your employment cost is stagnant. Silly things like regulations add costs onto your employment. They even have indexes to track this.
 
2014-08-19 08:37:21 AM  

Billy Bathsalt: Nine shareholders just looted $300,000,000 from our local supermarket chain while donations to food pantries for the poor have dried up due to the loss of a reasonably-priced market (basket).  Hope they enjoy the taste of those last golden eggs.


Getting a kick...


Ahhh, Market Basket. Two guys born halfway between third base and home desperately try to stretch it into a single.
 
2014-08-19 08:42:54 AM  

maram500: Of course, the singular of " data" is "datum," but who in the name of sanity uses that word anyway?


I run into it occassionally, usually in scholarly/scientific articles (which pretty much always use data as plural)... I see it is apparently true that the singular mass noun usage is acceptable now as well... I was always told that was just incorrect, even if common... But, then, lots of formerly incorrect usages are now considered standard and acceptable just due to being commonly used enough ("I could care less", "begging the question", "literally" used to mean "figuratively", etc.)... I suppose the same situation exists with "media", too? Lots of people use that singularly as well, like "The media is reporting such-and-such.", rather than as a plural of "medium"...

Oh, well, whatever... As long as they pronounce it "day-tuh", not "dah-tuh"!

upload.wikimedia.org

"One is my name. The other is not."
 
2014-08-19 08:46:34 AM  

UNC_Samurai: techmom: Goetz: When they all take thier money and irreplaceable expertise and go to a place with more freedoms the jobs will all dry up.
Then there will be suffering and no job creation and you will all beg them to come back. They won't come back because they will creating freedoms and jobs elsehwere.
Class warfare has no winners.

Tell me more of this place, and where it might be.

Igotminefarkyoursistan



See?
Not even the slightest appempt at rational discourse. No attempt to learn anything from the creators, just vengeful name calling and envy.
I expected it, but it's still sad.
 
2014-08-19 08:57:24 AM  

rev. dave: That is because billionaires have run out of money to squeeze from the middle class, so they are reducing millionaire's wages to keep the income flowing.


That's a bingo.

The metaphor I like to use is "Why wouldn't the wealthy want the rest of us to make more money? They can squeeze more juice from a watermelon than from a raisin."
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report