Men Who Work Full-Time Earn Less Than 40 Years Ago

page: 1
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
mods: not sure if this goes here, please move if it doesnt. just putting out facts, so no need to move to the trash bin like my other posts.

www.cnsnews.com...

"In 1973, median earnings for men who worked full-time, year-round were $51,670 in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars. The median earnings of men who work full-time year-round have never been that high again."

"In 2012, the latest year for which the Census Bureau has published an estimate, the real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-round was $49,398. That was $2,272—or about 4.4 percent—below the peak median earnings of $51,670 in 1973."

"in the late 1970s [ceo pay] was about 30 times that of a typical worker. Today, it is more than 200 times that of a typical worker. Fast wage growth among executives and those in the financial sector is the primary reason why incomes of the top 1 percent have exploded since 1979."
- See more at: www.stateofworkingamerica.org...

"A report on Wednesday from the left-leaning think tank Center For American Progress notes that as middle-class incomes have steadily fallen, so have union membership rates. The middle 60 percent of households earned 53.2 percent of national income in 1968. That number has fallen to just 45.7 percent. During that same period, nationwide union membership fell from 28.3 percent to a record-low 11.3 percent of all workers." www.huffingtonpost.com...

"In 1993, when Congress capped the tax deductibility of executive pay at $1m, it allowed US corporations to deduct performance-based pay –including stock options – from their federal income taxes. The companies use the tax-deductible stock options to lower their IRS bills. That, in turn, means that those rich executive bonuses turn into government subsidies.

"The total cost to the US: in the neighborhood of $7bn a year at last count, according to the Economic Policy Institute." www.theguardian.com...

"Income for the country's top 1 percent has soared by 275 percent over the past 30 years, while growth for the rest of us has stagnated. A new study finds that policymakers' decisions to make the tax code less progressive played a large role in widening that gulf." www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation -- an increase in income of $973,100 per household -- compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities] www.dailykos.com...

"The top 1 percent of households took home 22.5 percent of America's income in 2012, which is the most since 1928. Economist Thomas Piketty, author of the bestseller "Capital in the 21st Century," suggests that this income gap not seen since the Gilded Age might be a warning that the "rich will get richer, and everyone else will find it nearly impossible to catch up."
Read more at national.deseretnews.com...

ceos in the states make much more than the rest of the world, reducing the pay for the employees, which is one reason the rest of the worlds middle class, like canada, are better off than we are. www.nytimes.com...

most other countries where the middle class are doing well, by that i mean better than us, have far higher tax rates on the wealthy. money.cnn.com...

so hows that trickle down working out for you?

discuss.




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
So to summarize,

The rich get Richer, the Poor get poorer.

Thank you fractional reserve banking, for maximizing the effect of inflation on the poor, while funneling the wealth to the rich.


The Middle class, are an Offense to the Rich, we must guard it, as "middle income" class so wide spread, that we have only seen the likes of in the past 200 years.

Think of any point in history, trade class, Dirt poor, and the Aristocratic classes.

The industrial Revolution saw an Uptick in the size of the middle, money went to the poor.

Can't be having that now can we.
edit on 29-4-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

Trickle down? The so-called Bush tax cuts that Obama kept rolling were supposed to "create jobs". Remember that? Create jobs. Passed in 2002, we then dealt with the fallout of 2006-8 as businesses used their "breaks" to instead make investments instead of hires.
Both parties were involved. I think it WA just a ploy in order for the labor market not to be short changed now that most baby boomers lost their investments and are bagging my groceries rather than enjoying their last few years. It's just buying time until a year or two when the millennials can enter the job market.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

how can it be the bush tax cuts at fault, when like you said they started in 2002, and this has been going on since 1980?

2nd



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson
Maybe it is because they expect two people per household to slave around the clock now outside the home and no one clean the house cook, shop and raise the kids.

So they pay each of the two half as much and figure alls good.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I remember the seventies very well. A decent job and you could pay the rent, buy good food, and had plenty of money to do stuff or save. Everything was covered by the health insurance most mid sized employers supplied, no deductible at all. I don't understand what happened since then. A doctors visit was about thirty five bucks for a major visit. You often walked out with free medicine. You didn't pay for government services back then, your taxes took care of that. Tax rates weren't much higher back then either. Since the government started subbing out labor, the price of these services has skyrocketed. I thought it was much better back then, I don't understand how they got weaseled into changing things for the worse.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
When the Gold Standard was dropped by Nixon in 1971, minimum wage was $1.60/hr which was equal to 1.82 oz of gold at the rate of $35/oz for working a 40 hour week. That rate of $1.60/hr was established Feb 1, 1968.

A minimum wage worker would have to make $59/hr to buy 1.82 oz after a 40 hour week today. Or gold would have to sell for a fixed rate of $159.34/oz for the $7.25/hr minimum wage to be considered equal to the gold standard minimum wage earner of 1971.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

What happen was starting in 1978, the Supreme Court began to allow corporate money to influence politics.

Money in Politics

Ever since then America was sold to the highest bidder. Politicians at least on the national level do not work for the people any more, they do not care what you think because your money does not get them reelected. So until we fix this problem nothing will change and the only way to fix it will be to call for an national convention of the states.

Article Five of the United States Constitution



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I have an idea.. lets make min wage 15 dollars an hr so people can make a whole lot less...
i for 1 think that is the most awesome idea ever..

Stupid people.... more money means less buying power.. but idiots like me just be crazy for talking like that..



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
what about the idea that there are more people than jobs and employers are using this to their advantage worldwide.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

if youre gonna self label, who am i to disagree with you?

more money means more people buying your product. you can reduce the profit margin per item, sell more, and still come out ahead.

however, the only way to get people to buy stuff is for them to have more money, or more credit. since the seventies, big corps have gone the credit route.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: the owlbear

how can it be the bush tax cuts at fault, when like you said they started in 2002, and this has been going on since 1980?

2nd


True. Trickle down started with that era. I remember "Reaganomics". Ketchup as a vegetable for the poor. Again democratic congress.

But we didnt have it as smoke blown up our collective asses that it would "create jobs" in the form of a tax cut for the wealthy. Deregulation of mortgage and other practices.
The Lesser Bush repeated "create jobs" so many times...and people bought it.
Where are the jobs? Michelle Bachmann chewed on the same words in a "debate" with Bernie Sanders on CNN. Never once said had to make it happen but talked over him every chance she could when he tried to speak...
...and they made fun of Gore when he said the budget surplus should go in a lockbox. The people voted...the rich by way of the supreme court won.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

ah, i understand now.
very good points.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

Ya.. no..

Dont believe me look up how much things were then to now..

Cigs: 1990 85-90 cents where I live today 7 to 7.50 a pack
Gas : 1990 99 - 110 a gallon today 3.75
lb of ground meat: 1990: 49 sale 59 not on sale today 3.99 to 5 bucks
Irony if you used gold to buy these items it would cost the same as it did in 1913.

ya your right.. Giving people money for a mandatory min wage dont increase the price of things.. Maybe its all the money we are borrowing and throwing into the money already here that is deluding it... Either way giving people 15 bucks an hr is a bad idea.. For the record I make 7.25 an hr mandatory minimum wage.

edit on 4/29/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   


Thank you fractional reserve banking


I don't think fractional banking is the cause. When you consider that the 1% and corporations have 85% of the money now and they own congress, that's why regular people are being screwed.

I saw an article once about how the banking/finance sector of the economy has grown massively in the last 50 years and now they control most of the money in the economy. There's your cause and effect.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
a reply to: stormson

Ya.. no..

Dont believe me look up how much things were then to now..

Cigs: 1990 85-90 cents where I live today 7 to 7.50 a pack
Gas : 1990 99 - 110 a gallon today 3.75
lb of ground meat: 1990: 49 sale 59 not on sale today 3.99 to 5 bucks
Irony if you used gold to buy these items it would cost the same as it did in 1913.

ya your right.. Giving people money for a mandatory min wage dont increase the price of things.. Maybe its all the money we are borrowing and throwing into the money already here that is deluding it... Either way giving people 15 bucks an hr is a bad idea.. For the record I make 7.25 an hr mandatory minimum wage.



Collusion in the oil companies gives you your gas price.
The United States is #3 in oil production.
Why the hike in gas prices?
Why do refineries shut down seasonally?
Start there. Follow the money and the profit and the government subsidies.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Trickle down economics - what a joke. And an even worse joke is that so many “rich” politicians still keep trying to shove it up our butts, and STILL keep getting elected. It has NEVER been shown to work. The elite (corporations included - remember, corporations are people, too. Our Supreme Court said so.) never have, and never will, share the wealth. They hoard it. That trickle you feel running down your face IS NOT your fair share of the goodies produced from your years of hard work and dedication; it’s the greedy corporation you work for taking a leak while handing you that little red slip.

Don’t tell anyone I said this, but the USA is no longer a democracy. It has become an oligarchy. Corporations, organizations representing business interests, and the elite class have taken control of US Government policy. This isn’t just my half-baked idea. It’s backed by very legitimate and professional research. Google it, or checkout Is America an Oligarchy It’s a decent read.

This isn’t news to anyone. We all know it to be the case. The only real question is, “Is it too late to stop it and take our democracy back”?

I wish I knew...



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: netbound

while i appreciate your approach, i fear you may be slightly off.

its not an oligarchy, but a plutonomy. citigroup put out two memos saying that since the rich 1% control so much wealth, there was really no need to consider the every day person.
politicalgates.blogspot.com...

now, dont get me wrong, i would also like to be rich, but im wise enough to know when enough is enough. if i made the salary of walmart ceo for one year, i would never work again.

the guys at the top dont work for money. they have enough to last a lifetime after one year. they work to work and money is just a score card.

the most funny thing i find is that the party of "what the founders wanted" completely ignore the laws the founders put on corps. they hated them, and wrote laws like a corporation could only exist for 30 yrs. corps werent people to the founders. www.addictinginfo.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Of course they do. My grandparents on my father's side both worked. They had 8 kids I # you not. Even taking care of all those kids, they were able to save for a few years and buy a home. And I mean buy a home, not get a mortgage. Save for a few months and buy a new car. Not get a loan for a car, buy a car. How many people can say the same today?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
And the taxpayers end up picking up the slack in the form of food stamps and other welfare benefits to help the working poor because the companies pay their employees crappy wages.





top topics
 
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join