5 ms·

The article text does not really support the headline > By last year, the poorest 10% were still earning only a miserly 4.1% more per hour than they did (in re

The article text does not really support the headline > By last year, the poorest 10% were still earning only a miserly 4.1% more per hour than they did (in real wages) 40 years ago. Median hourly pay for America’s workers was up a little more, by 14%. With exactly 40 years ago being in the midst of a wage downturn. Go back a little more and real hourly wages have fallen for both groups, despite GDP etc. booming for decades in relation (and out of relation as well) to population growth. The wealth created by those who work and create wealth goes to the heirs and rentiers in America. The "job creators" who do not work and who parasitically expropriate surplus labor time and the fruits of that time from those if us who do work.

will4274 7y ago
> The article text does not really support the headline While that's true, it' mostly because its a bad article rather than the headline being wrong. Of that 4.1% gain over 40 years, 0.9% were in the the past year. America is seeing an economic boom go on longer than expected and low unemployment is allowing people who left the labor market to re-enter and _slowly_ pushing wages up. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm
- FabHK 7y ago
  You're comparing apples (average) and oranges (10th percentile) here.
adventured 7y ago
The real median household income is up over 43% since 1990. It's up 62% for the bottom 20%.[1] It's popular to claim that wages have gone nowhere for ~40 years, it's never supported by the actual data. The premise requires that one ignores the cost of health coverage in the US that is commonly paid for or heavily subsidized by an employer (the employee would have to pay far higher taxes for that otherwise, given the per capita healthcare cost in the US is now ~$11,000 -- $33,000 for a family of three). It ignores pretty much every benefit that employees receive today, that did not exist in the early 1970s, including 401k matching. If companies weren't paying for healthcare benefits, the employees would see their taxes skyrocket. That's a dramatic, obvious, direct wage benefit. In socialized systems such as are common in Europe, the companies do not pay nearly so much for healthcare coverage, instead individuals pay far higher personal taxes, while the average corporate income tax rate is low. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-15/wage-stagnation-was-mostly-a-myth https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-15/wage-s...
- peisistratos 7y ago
  > actual data The data is available from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov https://www.bls.gov . The Economist's gloomy figures were right, but are gloomier if pushed back a few years as 1979 was a nadir any how. > health The US is off the charts in terms of health costs compared to other industrialized countries, and big business has arranged it so it is the only industrialized country with people not under health coverage. > 401k US Workers used to have guaranteed pensions, the 401k was a backward step, not some new benefit Plus the fact that Google workers have all these things, and some other workers may have some if these things doesn't modify that wages have fallen. The US has skyrocketing health care compared to everyone else, with some unconvered unlike every other industrialized countries, and guaranteed pensions no longer exist - not great arguments for an improvement. People are not stupid, they know things are not better, despite think tank commissars trying to present ways that they are.
  - toastbox2 7y ago
    Your English grammar is pretty bad - you are obviously not from US. Please don't speak as if you are an American. You create opinions without any facts to back them up.
  - stallmanite 7y ago
    I can’t reply directly to his comment for some reason but please disregard the other poster complaining about your grammar. Your grammar is fine, perhaps the only change is “skyrocketing healthcare” should be “skyrocketing health care costs”. One can assume that the poster can’t engage with your points rationally and resorted to name calling / xenophobia.
bjourne 7y ago
How come so few Americans realize how insanely unfair that is? The USSR collapsed 30 years ago, so there is no Communism to scare people with anymore.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So how do you propose to make things more fair? Why do I have the feeling that knowing the population of HN, who are heavily employed in the tech industry, don’t consider themselves the privileged beneficiaries of capitalism?
  - thelasthuman 7y ago
    The privileged beneficiaries of capitalism are the people that hire the population of HN to make them money. As for how to make things more fair, a good start would be to allow bad actors (the well connected good ole boys) in the economy to die off instead of bailing them out. Perhaps a better use of that money would be to invest in community owned assets (like low income housing) and businesses (corporations structured similarly to Mondragon)? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
    - scarface74 7y ago
      How many people on HN are volunteering to pay more in taxes and give up their income that is probably more than twice the median amount in the US?
      - JetSpiegel 7y ago
        All that live in some European countries?
        scarface74 7y ago
        Well seeing that the article we are discussing is “American life is improving for the lowest paid”, I fail to see how what Europeans are willing to do is relevant....
dj_gitmo 7y ago
I actually like some things about the Economist and I subscribed for years. I feel like people would be better informed about the world if they read it. That said, it's absolutely dripping with ideology and you need to know how to read it. It's a cheerleader for Capitalism, kinda like the Financial Times. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thinks https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thi...
- FabHK 7y ago
  It's not an uncritical cheerleader, though. They do support free trade and globalisation, yes, but also drug legalisation, gun control, carbon taxes, gay marriage, etc. For US presidential elections, they endorsed Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    Are you implying that because their record of presidential endorsements have a (D) after their name, we can thus infer they are critical thinkers?
    - FabHK 7y ago
      No, that was a second point: The Economist is often portrayed as a right-wing or libertarian magazine, and I think that's an unfair and inaccurate portrayal. The list of endorsements supports that (unstated) point. (EDIT: typos)
      - hollandheese 7y ago
        They are a right-wing magazine (i.e. ardently pro-capitalist). Their endorsements support that idea. All of those candidates that they supported were also ardent supporters of capital.
        skybrian 7y ago
        This is kind of a weird critique though. It's like, it's not enough for a movie critic to think some movies are bad and they should have been made better. They have to hate the whole concept of movies.
0x262d 7y ago
yes, it’s an absurdly out of touch pro-capitalist propagandistic article. what really puts the cherry on top is that a market crash is expected soon, with much less ability to cushion it than last time. guess what market crashes due to median wages? very bad things! and the people who own lots of capital will see their fortunes recover soon enough as everyone else is cleaned out. so things look very tentatively positive now and will be very bleak in a couple years.
RickJWagner 7y ago
According to Forbes, Vox, The Heritage Foundation, etc.(in other words, people all across the liberal<->conservative spectrum) American poor are vastly better off than the rest of the world, and American poor are moving forward. The poor in America often have climate controlled environments, cell phones, access to employment opportunities, access to charitable organizations and more. With rising wages, their fortunes are increasing. It's not easy or desirable to be poor. But if you have to be poor, being American in 2019 is a pretty good spot.

will4274 7y ago

> The article text does not really support the headline While that's true, it' mostly because its a bad article rather than the headline being wrong. Of that 4.1% gain over 40 years, 0.9% were in the the past year. America is seeing an economic boom go on longer than expected and low unemployment is allowing people who left the labor market to re-enter and _slowly_ pushing wages up. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm

FabHK 7y ago
You're comparing apples (average) and oranges (10th percentile) here.

adventured 7y ago

The real median household income is up over 43% since 1990. It's up 62% for the bottom 20%.[1] It's popular to claim that wages have gone nowhere for ~40 years, it's never supported by the actual data. The premise requires that one ignores the cost of health coverage in the US that is commonly paid for or heavily subsidized by an employer (the employee would have to pay far higher taxes for that otherwise, given the per capita healthcare cost in the US is now ~$11,000 -- $33,000 for a family of three). It ignores pretty much every benefit that employees receive today, that did not exist in the early 1970s, including 401k matching. If companies weren't paying for healthcare benefits, the employees would see their taxes skyrocket. That's a dramatic, obvious, direct wage benefit. In socialized systems such as are common in Europe, the companies do not pay nearly so much for healthcare coverage, instead individuals pay far higher personal taxes, while the average corporate income tax rate is low. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-15/wage-stagnation-was-mostly-a-myth https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-15/wage-s...

peisistratos 7y ago
> actual data The data is available from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov https://www.bls.gov . The Economist's gloomy figures were right, but are gloomier if pushed back a few years as 1979 was a nadir any how. > health The US is off the charts in terms of health costs compared to other industrialized countries, and big business has arranged it so it is the only industrialized country with people not under health coverage. > 401k US Workers used to have guaranteed pensions, the 401k was a backward step, not some new benefit Plus the fact that Google workers have all these things, and some other workers may have some if these things doesn't modify that wages have fallen. The US has skyrocketing health care compared to everyone else, with some unconvered unlike every other industrialized countries, and guaranteed pensions no longer exist - not great arguments for an improvement. People are not stupid, they know things are not better, despite think tank commissars trying to present ways that they are.
- toastbox2 7y ago
  Your English grammar is pretty bad - you are obviously not from US. Please don't speak as if you are an American. You create opinions without any facts to back them up.
- stallmanite 7y ago
  I can’t reply directly to his comment for some reason but please disregard the other poster complaining about your grammar. Your grammar is fine, perhaps the only change is “skyrocketing healthcare” should be “skyrocketing health care costs”. One can assume that the poster can’t engage with your points rationally and resorted to name calling / xenophobia.

bjourne 7y ago

How come so few Americans realize how insanely unfair that is? The USSR collapsed 30 years ago, so there is no Communism to scare people with anymore.

scarface74 7y ago
So how do you propose to make things more fair? Why do I have the feeling that knowing the population of HN, who are heavily employed in the tech industry, don’t consider themselves the privileged beneficiaries of capitalism?
- thelasthuman 7y ago
  The privileged beneficiaries of capitalism are the people that hire the population of HN to make them money. As for how to make things more fair, a good start would be to allow bad actors (the well connected good ole boys) in the economy to die off instead of bailing them out. Perhaps a better use of that money would be to invest in community owned assets (like low income housing) and businesses (corporations structured similarly to Mondragon)? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
  - scarface74 7y ago
    How many people on HN are volunteering to pay more in taxes and give up their income that is probably more than twice the median amount in the US?
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      All that live in some European countries?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Well seeing that the article we are discussing is “American life is improving for the lowest paid”, I fail to see how what Europeans are willing to do is relevant....

dj_gitmo 7y ago

I actually like some things about the Economist and I subscribed for years. I feel like people would be better informed about the world if they read it. That said, it's absolutely dripping with ideology and you need to know how to read it. It's a cheerleader for Capitalism, kinda like the Financial Times. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thinks https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thi...

FabHK 7y ago
It's not an uncritical cheerleader, though. They do support free trade and globalisation, yes, but also drug legalisation, gun control, carbon taxes, gay marriage, etc. For US presidential elections, they endorsed Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Are you implying that because their record of presidential endorsements have a (D) after their name, we can thus infer they are critical thinkers?
  - FabHK 7y ago
    No, that was a second point: The Economist is often portrayed as a right-wing or libertarian magazine, and I think that's an unfair and inaccurate portrayal. The list of endorsements supports that (unstated) point. (EDIT: typos)
    - hollandheese 7y ago
      They are a right-wing magazine (i.e. ardently pro-capitalist). Their endorsements support that idea. All of those candidates that they supported were also ardent supporters of capital.
      - skybrian 7y ago
        This is kind of a weird critique though. It's like, it's not enough for a movie critic to think some movies are bad and they should have been made better. They have to hate the whole concept of movies.

0x262d 7y ago

yes, it’s an absurdly out of touch pro-capitalist propagandistic article. what really puts the cherry on top is that a market crash is expected soon, with much less ability to cushion it than last time. guess what market crashes due to median wages? very bad things! and the people who own lots of capital will see their fortunes recover soon enough as everyone else is cleaned out. so things look very tentatively positive now and will be very bleak in a couple years.

RickJWagner 7y ago

According to Forbes, Vox, The Heritage Foundation, etc.(in other words, people all across the liberal<->conservative spectrum) American poor are vastly better off than the rest of the world, and American poor are moving forward. The poor in America often have climate controlled environments, cell phones, access to employment opportunities, access to charitable organizations and more. With rising wages, their fortunes are increasing. It's not easy or desirable to be poor. But if you have to be poor, being American in 2019 is a pretty good spot.