Ask Your Question today
College student interested on finding out what people views/opinion on who is responsible for Americans not being as financially well off as the generations before them
| Illegal immigrants are responsible | 4 | |
| Capitalism is responsible | 14 | |
| Banks are responsible | 3 | |
| All of the above | 10 |
Actually, wages in constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) are higher now than they’ve been since the early 80s. And they’ve been growing more rapidly over the past couple years. And the middle class has shrunk primarily because they have moved into the next higher class. The lower class has also shrunk, some moving into the middle and some into the upper. Try reading economic reports, instead of media articles and you’ll get a better view what’s actually going on.
Two minutes with Google led me to this:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
That contradicts what you claim, for both waged and salaried workers. Of course, you're free to just write off everything in that piece as being commie-Soros-Clinton propaganda, but the fact is that a lot of the American middle-class are feeling very pinched and generally pissed off, and that was a factor in the orange cretin being elected President.
Funny, that is one of the reports I just read. Look at the chart in the article and it shows exactly what I said - that constant dollar wages are at their highest point since around 1980. It also shows that real dollar wages have continued their upward climb for decades.
This article uses US census data to support my statements about the movement of people between wage classes.
http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-shrinking-but-its-because-americans-are-moving-up-and-no-americans-are-not-struggling-to-afford-a-home/
The title of the article is, "For most U.S, workers, real wages have barely budged for decades". The graph titled "Americans' paychecks are bigger than they were 40 years ago, but their purchasing power has barely budged" shows essentially a flat-line, not what you claim. In constant 2018 dollars, the average hourly wage in 1964 was $20.27; today it's $22.65. That is an increase, but a 10% increase in purchasing power over half a century is hardly proof that everything is tickety-boo in the US economy and labour market and the American Dream is still bright and shiny.
The article also cites evidence showing that the real, inflation-adjusted median income of employed, full-time wage and salary workers is virtually the same as it was in 1979. IN 2018 dollars, it was $840 per week then, and now it's $879 - roughly a 5% increase.
I don't know how you can read that piece and believe what you do. Wishful thinking? Cognitive bias?
Britain is hardly a model any country should strive to emulate in terms of the rewards its workers receive for their efforts, but the link below is to another chart that claims to show the real, inflation- and cost of living-adjusted income of British workers since 1855. The source seems credible, since it's a UK-government supported think tank, but I haven't read the original paper. Compare and contrast that graph with the one in the Pew document.
https://www.economicvoice.com/chart-of-the-week-historical-real-average-salary/
Wrong again. I made two statements. 1) Wages, in constant dollars, are higher now since the early 80s. Correct, even using you’re own resource. You’re reading the sensationalist headline and verbiage. I’m looking at the data. And 2) that the middle class shrunk in part due to many of them moving into the next upper class. The data doesn’t lie. You selectively point out that the higher income people had big wage increases, but the data in your own resource points out that all income tiers had wage increases.
You are being disingenuous tho which I believe is what boojum is stating. For all intents and purposes wages have been stagnant for decades and you know that all too well.
There is no huge influx into the upper class causing the middle class to decline. Quite the opposite.
Wealth is consolidating and that is a well known fact.
So why isn't members of the working class replacing the exiting middle class if the economy is better for Americans than generations prior? Because the working class are just too stupid to get in the middle class?
First off the old concept of classes is antiquated. There are way too many bouji rich people and broke ass prole business owners. Get that class nonsense out of your head people.
It won't be long, we're practically already here, the middle class is the automation and those that work on the automations.
The upper classes are those that can afford to own the machines and the entertainers that keep the "middle" and "lower" classes from creating a revolution.
The "lower class" are those paid enough by the state to avoid creating a revolution.
It is going to be a hard time as many "stupid" people have no work.
My short answer.
Greedy bastards.
Fake news.
Propoganda.
Complacency.
This problem started in the early 70s.
1 Women wanted to work as part of equal rights, as a biproduct.
It now takes 2 incomes to raise a family.
2 The America first crowd was convinced they could build junk, but folks would continue to buy it out of patriotism.
So, Honda, Toyota, Datsun.
Kicked ass and took names.
Quality matters.
3 The people at the top did not want an educated populace.
That's dangerous if your system is corrupt.
So, they made higher education prohibitively expensive.
4 Fake news convinces people to vote against their best interests.
So, even if you work a union job.
Great pay, benefits, medical, and retirement.
Fake news convinces you that unions are bad, and you should vote to end them.
5 treason
Ala Mitt Romney.
He made millions by shipping American factories to China.
Fuck the American worker, he showed the C.E.O.
The 1% how to make a bigger profit.
By shipping jobs to China.
6 Disconnected public,
as long as you have biggy frys and your online connection you think all is well with the world.
These items are a recipe for disaster.
Hope I'm wrong, but.
I'm curious, how is needing two incomes to raise a family a byproduct of women working in the first place, as opposed to inflation or some jobs simply not paying enough?
Caster, good point.
But, I think it worked like the frog in slowly boiling water.
Inflation, low pay, high prices.
They rose but folks did not notice.
BECAUSE they now had 2 incomes.
What people used to do by choice.
( 2 income )
They now do, out of necessity.
Because now, 1 income isn't enough.
It's an unintended consequence.
In that case, do you think companies took the liberty of increasing prices as a way to cash in on the extra money that families had?
Craster.
I think you just like to argue.
I made several points that contribute to the end result.
You fixate on one and try to nit pick.
It's my opinion bases on fact.
You are free to see things as you prefer.
Lol, while it's true that I enjoy debate, I'm not actually arguing this time. That's simply the point that interested me, as this may be the first time I've heard something like that.
I don't know much about the economy, and I'm curious about different opinions on it. I think you have mostly valid points, though I'm not sure whether to believe you on everything.
Look at it this way capitalism says the bottom line is what matters most. Greed is good. Therefore they borrow money to grow their business that's where the bank comes in the bank lends money they don't even have in effort to gain greater profits (charging interest). The business person(s) create more business for himself but he has to pay interest now is he going to pay that interest out his pocket no. He's going to make the consumer pay for it. Hence higher prices to pay interest. However if consumer is not interested in paying the higher prices then. Staff is laid off or salaries will have to be cut (therefore they will seek the cheapest labor illegal immigrants). Because the business person is going make sure the bottom line is secure (profits must increase) at the expense of the employees who are also consumers. Say the business fails then the bank just place money in a well(no returns on there loan investment). Someone must pay that bank make sure there bottom line is secure so they will increase interest on future borrowers and therefore the cycle continues. Now we all seen what happen when the bank got to greedy and made many unsecured loan investments(mortgages) to people who wasn't able to make good on their loans. The banks then lost a great deal of money, now the bank is in business to make profit so what they do they got the government to bail them out using tax payers money (your money that could of been use on healthcare, fixing infrastructure etc) all because they are deem by the elites as too big to fail. So you see why I believe that capitalism and the banks are more to blame than illegal immigrants. It's a never ended cycle and the working class and middle class or suffering the most because that is the rules of the game why should the banks and capitalist spread do different when the only rule is to increase the bottom line.
Happy most people aren't blaming the illegal immigrants, because they not the cause of the problem just one the symptoms. I think it's capitalism(greed is good ideology and the banks that is mostly responsible) through they power they infiltrate the government to bend at their will. And the workers/consumers are footing the bill for their greed which is making the economy so hard on the working class and middle class.
Well there is a growing problem. Parents seem to dropped the idea of letting children grow up. Children becoming adults have adapted to simply saying "mom and dad will pay for me". They dont leave the nest or get driver liscenses. The job market crashed for about 7 years making it near impossible for young people to get any sort of work. This was cuased by the bank scare, and following was the housing crash and than the unsuccesful Iraq war. Forcing a lot of people to attempt to join the military. Now the more poorly educated who often come from poor niahborhoods with little opportunity out of thier bad situation could not compete with a bunch of underemployed college students whos score for military were often very high. Leaving these already disadvantaged youth to either stay at home or be tossed on the streets to scrounge for scraps to survive. Since no one likes hiring the homeless that is another disadvantage. While this happened we had another issue going on. Niahborhoods that thrive often push rent up which pushes out people of lower incomes as the rich slowly take over the niaghborhood. Which again adds to homeless crises, inflation cuasing people to demand higher wages and the ever growing poverty line. Than a hero came. An apperent savior who would tell it like it was. Someone not afraid to say what others where scarred too. Americas knight would pull us out of an apperent depression we were heading for and bring back jobs! Wins the election and while people were complaining about less significant debates like gay marriage, there were others angry about the fact they were poor, couldn't find work, couldn't afford an education, and homeless who were either voting for Trump or Berny. While abortions and gay rights was still a hot button probably not the biggest issue when you are homless, poor, uneducated and unemployed. Berny ended up falling out early on and to many peoples shock Trump won the election. Though what I think people didnt realize is that Hillary was never really competing with anyone. She was really competing with Trump, she was competing with Berny.
I'm actually doing way better than the generations before me. So yeah. No complaints.
Happy to hear that you are doing better but as a whole do you think the average American is better off? Or are you the exception?
I don't have any economical substantiation for this, but I think with modernization, there are more opportunities available than in the past, at least that's what I believe to be one of the reasons I am better off than the generations before me. I only made a contrast between myself and previous generations, not against the average citizen - it's a good question but there are just too many factors at play for me to make a valid conclusion
I don't know what age group you are, but millennials will be the first generation to be worse off than the one before them. The first. And considering we have to hold down multiple jobs to scrape a living when previously one man's salary - even in a factory - would be enough to pay for a home and a family, we definitely do not have it easier.
Blind spot.
Take a little time and do a little research.
Look at the 50s, or 60s.
A single working man could provide for an entire family.
Buy a house, a new car.
Expect to have that secure job until you retire.
Put all your kids through college.
If you were a kid who's parents weren't able to pay.
You could pay your own way, just off part time and summer jobs.
Can you do that now?
Back then folks like trump, the bushes, the Koch bros.
They were taxed at 70%
They were still rich.
Just not like the huge disparity we have today.
Good for you if you are doing well.
You're not on an island though.
Terrier
Your statements require no research, nor have I formulated an opinion to the contrary.
What I have done is, stated my own reality, and admitted, humbly so, my incapability to provide an accurate answer to the question posed to me by Leo.
To answer your question, while I doubt I would have been able to pay my way through college with summer jobs, as my parents have done, opportunity was presented to me in the form of a bursary.
And most certainly I'm on no island, when in this modern era, others are defying their circumstances due to opportunities that weren't available in the past.