It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is wage growth so slow

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

The last round of tax cuts for the wealthy actually did bring and is bringing money sitting offshore back to the US.

The theory behind the original tax was good, have corporations pay a higher tax rate, a tax on the 1%. The problem was globalization. Large corporations are allowed to hide profits in countries with tax policies favorable to the 1%.

The higher taxes in the US meant the large corporations would actually lose money on any investment in the US as opposed to investments globally. The only way to bring money back to the US was to eliminate the tax. The problem is very convoluted.

To simply. Trillions of dollars were sitting overseas generating no tax revenue or investment in the US. Eliminating the tax is bringing that money back and generating revenue and taxes in the form of payroll tax with the new jobs created through investment.

The global system is broken. Nothing short of an act of God could fix it. So Trump did the only thing he could to bring the money back. From a tax standpoint he had to make it more profitable to do business in the US than overseas or no new business would come to the US.

The problem started with Reagan. Trickle down economics and horrible trade deals caused the problems. It's going to be difficult to get back to anything close to the era before Reagan.

To the OP. The idea behind Unions is something every worker should embrace. However the corruption of modern Unions is something every worker should despise.

Unions became large bureaucratic organizations with political agendas. They have become out of touch with the workers. We need Unions that work only for fair wages without the bloated bureaucracy and political agendas.


I don't know whether or not to STAR this.

Some information is correct but you are conflating one issue with others. Apples and Oranges.

Bringing money back into the country has very little relevancy on Wages.

Unions, have and do, bring up the wage/benefit profile on Wages in large corporations but only tangentially on small and medium business.

Bureaucracy are bad-mouthed by everyone but serve a valuable role in large social structures. They buffer the 'consequences' of radical change on those effected and hence help transition without undue harm to anyone.

Perhaps this was about bringing money back into the US but I don't believe it was for any other reason then to benefit the wealthy. It's inflationary, in any case. Can be a means of 'money laundering'.

It wasn't to help our individual little micro-economies.

STAR for making me think - thanks.




posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
When you get more in welfare and various social programs than you would in honest employment, why would you work?

Maybe this is just the run up for something more drastic like a basic income.

If you look at the labor participation rate, we are back to 1977 statistics:



Article from 2015 but we are still at 62.9% today.


In September, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 251,325,000. Of those, 156,715,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 156,715,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.4 percent of the 251,325,000 civilian noninstitutional population. The last time the labor force participation was as low as 62.4 percent was in October 1977. (The rate had been 62.6 percent for the 3 months prior to September.)


www.cnsnews.com...

So we have the lowest number of working age adults in the labor force but unemployment is being reported as 'low'. Something smells fishy here.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Stevenjames15

Well said. Monopsony — ‘buyers market’ — being well-articulated on ATS is a first. As it relates to the supply of available workers, here is a nice piece on males falling out of the labor market: Fed Chairman Says Opioid Epidemic is Keeping High Percentage Out of Labor Market


You can see that by the number of street people begging.

The real economy only exist in the minds of the people that have their money making more money off of it.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: dfnj2015


Wage growth Depends on where you are, and what you know. Inflation low in most parts of the country too.

Wages were increasing rapidly when I was a kid in Michigan. So was inflation. Those who were unemployed caught hell.


If real wages had kept apace with inflation the minimum wage would be $22.00 an hour.

This is from 2012 but underlying points are still valid:


If our standard for minimum wages had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.16 per hour.

Yes, had the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained exactly what it was in 1968, the minimum wage would now be $21.16 per hour.

I grew up on the idea that America stood for progress, continual progress toward a better society.

Even a $21.16 minimum wage wouldn’t represent progress. It would mean socially standing still, just with better technology and higher productivity levels.

Progress would mean a minimum wage in excess of $21.16 per hour.


inequality.org...



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think I understand what you are saying.

When I said increased wages it was about moving people from unemployment to employment. The unemployed are a tax burden collecting welfare. The employed recieve a paycheck and pay income tax.

If a large corporation reinvests in the US a certain number of people will move from unemployment to employment and those employees will pay income tax.

You are correct ro say the rich get richer. But at least your manufactured goods will say made in America and not made in China.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Racism!



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think the people who believe in trickle down have their heart in the right place. IMO they lack the understanding of the type of person that makes it to the 1%.

In a world wothout extreme Narcissism/Elitism the 1% would voluntarily contribute to society through philanthropy and increased wages. Most of today's philanthropists in the top 1% or in the entertainment industry are virtual signaling. In reality they are Narcissistic Sociopaths whose behavior is always intended to gain some reward for themselves.

Just as much as the 1% is out of touch with humanity. The 99% are largely out of touch with the 1%. Because the nature of humanity dictactes the most Narcissistic Sociopaths will rise to the top of the pyramid it becomes up to the common man to implement policies that dictate what share of revenues should go to the common man. (Unions)

Putting all the money in the hands of the wealthy only empowers their insatiable desire for wealth and power. Most people simply have no understanding of the type of person who would litteraly bankrupt the system that made them wealthy if there was even a hint of profit.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Gothmog
Every job that can possibly be off-shored , is.
Those folk work for tens of dollars/day. With no labor laws , overtime is not paid for the most part.In some cases the US corps can work them 20 hr/day at that same pay . On the good side ? Tens of USD/day is a fairly good wage in a lot of countries.
Once the person has been there a while they shove em out of the seat and move someone else in.
Or , find another country that is cheaper to exploit.

The same happens to the US employees . The older , higher paid employees are given the old boot , and someone is hired straight out of school and off the streets. Never mind the word "experience" . When it is time for a raise ? Wash , rinse , repeat.
There is your answer to your question.
Anything else I can help you with today ?


You have a stunning level of math illiteracy. A "good wage in a lot of countries" is absolutely meaningless drivel. It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. It doesn't matter how much you make. WHAT DOES MATTER is the purchasing power of your take home pay.

No, there's nothing you have of value that would be helpful today.




What countries do you ASSUME I was speaking of ?
You have to ask yourself in which field the most of the high paid public sector jobs were .
Hint - it wasn't industry .
And , actually , if you want to nitpick , you are the one showing a fair amount of ignorance
I tried to answer your question , and you reply with nonsense.

edit on 7/20/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Gothmog
Every job that can possibly be off-shored , is.
Those folk work for tens of dollars/day. With no labor laws , overtime is not paid for the most part.In some cases the US corps can work them 20 hr/day at that same pay . On the good side ? Tens of USD/day is a fairly good wage in a lot of countries.
Once the person has been there a while they shove em out of the seat and move someone else in.
Or , find another country that is cheaper to exploit.

The same happens to the US employees . The older , higher paid employees are given the old boot , and someone is hired straight out of school and off the streets. Never mind the word "experience" . When it is time for a raise ? Wash , rinse , repeat.
There is your answer to your question.
Anything else I can help you with today ?


Outsourcing does contribute to stagnant wages but is not the sole cause.

BTW - wasn't somebody "important" going to do "something wonderful" about outsourcing...... hmmmm

Outsourcing was just one of my examples.



posted on Jul, 21 2018 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think I understand what you are saying.

When I said increased wages it was about moving people from unemployment to employment. The unemployed are a tax burden collecting welfare. The employed recieve a paycheck and pay income tax.

If a large corporation reinvests in the US a certain number of people will move from unemployment to employment and those employees will pay income tax.

You are correct ro say the rich get richer. But at least your manufactured goods will say made in America and not made in China.


It a robust economy that is exactly what you would see happening. Unemployed people largely moving into new positions or roles - at somewhat equivalent wages/benefits. What we have is people unable to find positions that meet their needs and staying unemployed longer, many eventually settling on low wage/no benefit jobs or giving up looking altogether.

Once you are no longer receiving unemployment benefits, doesn't mean you have a job either - but you are counted as such.

It's messy tangle.



posted on Jul, 21 2018 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think the people who believe in trickle down have their heart in the right place. IMO they lack the understanding of the type of person that makes it to the 1%.

In a world wothout extreme Narcissism/Elitism the 1% would voluntarily contribute to society through philanthropy and increased wages. Most of today's philanthropists in the top 1% or in the entertainment industry are virtual signaling. In reality they are Narcissistic Sociopaths whose behavior is always intended to gain some reward for themselves.

Just as much as the 1% is out of touch with humanity. The 99% are largely out of touch with the 1%. Because the nature of humanity dictactes the most Narcissistic Sociopaths will rise to the top of the pyramid it becomes up to the common man to implement policies that dictate what share of revenues should go to the common man. (Unions)

Putting all the money in the hands of the wealthy only empowers their insatiable desire for wealth and power. Most people simply have no understanding of the type of person who would litteraly bankrupt the system that made them wealthy if there was even a hint of profit.


I believe the 'burden of proof' is on the 1% not the 99%.

As a percentage of income lower income people donate more to charities then the 1%. It's just a numbers and publicity game with the wealthy, and an ego - power thing.

From Forbes 2014 - A stalwart capitalist publication....


Unlike their wealthier counterparts, low- and middle-income Americans — those who made less than $100,000 — gave 5% more in 2012 than in 2006, the Chronicle found. The poorest Americans — those who took home $25,000 or less — increased their giving by nearly 17%.


www.forbes.com... d041264



posted on Jul, 21 2018 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Inflation adjusted and immigrants legal and mostly illegal are used to depress wages keeping them low.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join