American life is improving for the lowest paid(economist.com)
economist.com
American life is improving for the lowest paid
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/05/18/american-life-is-improving-for-the-lowest-paid
134 comments
> 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
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
You're comparing apples (average) and oranges (10th percentile) here.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It's up to the Americans. If they are fine with the way things are I'm not going to try to convince them.
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
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
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?
All that live in some European countries?
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....
You personally chose to use "people on HN" as your barometer. So, if you failed to see the point you tried to make then you're the only one to blame here.
Are you as an individual volunteering to give more money in taxes???
well Trump was elected president in 2016 and there might be a socialist elected president in 2020. so people realize.
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-thi...
Unfortunately I think the Economist is one of those publications where it seems authoritative until they write about something you really know about and realize it is mostly just written in an assertive style.
Granted. Yet, I think about it this way: They're smart kids that have studied their PPE in Oxford and can write well, but know nothing about issue XYZ, say whether to use tabs or spaces.
But now, the issue comes up, and then they send someone out to visit a conference and speak to people and ask around who the experts in the field are, and (because they're The Economist) get an interview with, dunno, Guido van Rossum and Bill Gates and Woz and Don Knuth and Joel Spolsky and Linus and rms, and hear them out. Maybe throw in a few unnamed senior government officials and ambassadors and so on.
Then they take all their notes and condense it in one page for the magazine, providing some background, explanations, "colour" and the consensus (or factions) in the field.
Sure, if you know the subject in great depth, you'll recognise that it's not written by an expert in the field, and some details may be wrong, and maybe you don't agree with some characterisation. Yet, if you didn't know anything about the subject before, you now know vastly more than before.
I think that's valuable.
But now, the issue comes up, and then they send someone out to visit a conference and speak to people and ask around who the experts in the field are, and (because they're The Economist) get an interview with, dunno, Guido van Rossum and Bill Gates and Woz and Don Knuth and Joel Spolsky and Linus and rms, and hear them out. Maybe throw in a few unnamed senior government officials and ambassadors and so on.
Then they take all their notes and condense it in one page for the magazine, providing some background, explanations, "colour" and the consensus (or factions) in the field.
Sure, if you know the subject in great depth, you'll recognise that it's not written by an expert in the field, and some details may be wrong, and maybe you don't agree with some characterisation. Yet, if you didn't know anything about the subject before, you now know vastly more than before.
I think that's valuable.
It isn't so much that they get details wrong. As you say they are smart. It is that they won't present the full picture. Sometimes they even do that, but come up with conclusions that aren't supported.
If they for example supported tabs they would end up writing a story how you could attribute the success of Python and Microsoft to tab usage. The quotes and the numbers would be correct and they would make a compelling case, but in the real world the difference would be marginal at best.
If they for example supported tabs they would end up writing a story how you could attribute the success of Python and Microsoft to tab usage. The quotes and the numbers would be correct and they would make a compelling case, but in the real world the difference would be marginal at best.
There I disagree. When they write on things I know about - like science and tech - they do a far better job of being accurate than most others. They are one of a very few that I don't start by presuming they misunderstand the science, statistics or facts of the matter.
On conclusions, or political consequence, or what should be done there we can agree or disagree. On opinion we can disagree stridently - their stance is not of the right, or simple "capitalist cheerleading", nor of the left, so even there we can agree or disagree surprisingly sometimes.
I know their stance and view - they make it very plain, have run several features explaining it, and even discuss it on their About page. So even when we do disagree on conclusion I find it mostly a rational view from the other side of the fence.
Pick something like The Telegraph to get a "cheerleader for capitalism". It infects everything, even the footie, and damn the facts. If it's science or tech they're very unlikely to have understood. Thirty years ago they were more like the Economist - we may vehemently disagree on some points, agree on others, but their core facts and striving for accuracy were reasonable.
On conclusions, or political consequence, or what should be done there we can agree or disagree. On opinion we can disagree stridently - their stance is not of the right, or simple "capitalist cheerleading", nor of the left, so even there we can agree or disagree surprisingly sometimes.
I know their stance and view - they make it very plain, have run several features explaining it, and even discuss it on their About page. So even when we do disagree on conclusion I find it mostly a rational view from the other side of the fence.
Pick something like The Telegraph to get a "cheerleader for capitalism". It infects everything, even the footie, and damn the facts. If it's science or tech they're very unlikely to have understood. Thirty years ago they were more like the Economist - we may vehemently disagree on some points, agree on others, but their core facts and striving for accuracy were reasonable.
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.
For US presidential elections, they endorsed Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.
Are you implying that because their record of presidential endorsements have a (D) after their name, we can thus infer they are critical thinkers?
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)
(EDIT: typos)
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.
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.
Or more like, to be a true critical, you can only like the stuff that no one has ever heard of.
"Oh me, yes, I'm very liberal. I'd tell you about what candidate I support, but you've probably never heard of them..."
"Oh me, yes, I'm very liberal. I'd tell you about what candidate I support, but you've probably never heard of them..."
If you want to call the candidates from the left party in the US right-wing, sure (when you look at it on a global scale, you might have a point there).
But as I said, while The Economist supports free trade and free markets, they are not laissez-faire, but support sensible regulation, anti-trust, action on climate, etc.
> "The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability." [1]
> Is The Economist left- or right-wing? Neither. We consider ourselves to be in the "radical centre" [2]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090228231949/http://www.econom...
[2] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/02/...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190329063026/https://www.econo...
But as I said, while The Economist supports free trade and free markets, they are not laissez-faire, but support sensible regulation, anti-trust, action on climate, etc.
> "The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability." [1]
> Is The Economist left- or right-wing? Neither. We consider ourselves to be in the "radical centre" [2]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090228231949/http://www.econom...
[2] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/02/...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190329063026/https://www.econo...
Considering the shift in the Overton window the last 50 years in the USA, radically center is right wing.
What exactly does an anti-capitalist look like that would be considered something that most Americans would recognize?
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.
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.
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-s...
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-s...
> actual data
The data is available from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics 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.
The data is available from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics 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.
"What’s really rare, he adds, is his annual week of paid holiday"
I may be getting it wrong as I don't live in US, but does it mean he only gets one week of holidays per year? Is there any other form of paid off time?
I may be getting it wrong as I don't live in US, but does it mean he only gets one week of holidays per year? Is there any other form of paid off time?
Everyone else is throwing out their experiences, so since none mentioned something like mine I may as well too:
Back in highschool, I worked hourly at a library for a year, and don't recall getting any paid vacation time. What I do remember is trading days with co-workers so I could get a full week off on occasion, or once just giving them my days so they got paid more that week with no pay loss another week.
Back in highschool, I worked hourly at a library for a year, and don't recall getting any paid vacation time. What I do remember is trading days with co-workers so I could get a full week off on occasion, or once just giving them my days so they got paid more that week with no pay loss another week.
Correct. US companies don’t have to give any paid time off. It’s as bad as it sounds.
Usually, low-skill hourly wage service jobs in the US have no paid leave, at all.
If you work N hours, you get paid for N hours.
That’s why getting one week of paid leave annually was described as rare.
If you work N hours, you get paid for N hours.
That’s why getting one week of paid leave annually was described as rare.
Jesus I didn't know that. I knew that the US had a debate about maternity leave, but I thought the US had paid annual leave. Here in Germany everyone gets 24 working days off, I don't think I'd survive a year without it.
Even for a lot of white collar jobs, you will get 8 days total paid time off the first year, usually either pro-rated or earned on a percentage basis as you work. Large companies of European origin with a unionized staff tend to be vastly more generous with retirement.
My new employer offers 3 weeks of vacation plus 3 days of PTO. That's it. Everyone at the senior level and above gets that. If I had worked for my dad's employer with a similar amount of seniority, I'd be looking at 4-5 bankable weeks of vacation each year.
His employer routinely offered negotiated severance for people with X years of employment. He took one of their packages. They paid him 2 years salary complete with healthcare coverage and 401k for those years, and then he was able to use his accumulated vacation. He went into the office twice in 4 months and then cleared out his desk before retiring to a nice pension.
My new employer offers 3 weeks of vacation plus 3 days of PTO. That's it. Everyone at the senior level and above gets that. If I had worked for my dad's employer with a similar amount of seniority, I'd be looking at 4-5 bankable weeks of vacation each year.
His employer routinely offered negotiated severance for people with X years of employment. He took one of their packages. They paid him 2 years salary complete with healthcare coverage and 401k for those years, and then he was able to use his accumulated vacation. He went into the office twice in 4 months and then cleared out his desk before retiring to a nice pension.
Even for high-paid white-collar jobs, you normally don't get a lot of paid time off in the US. Two weeks, typically. Three weeks is seen as generous. These days off are then typically used piecemeal, a day here, a long weekend there, some days around christmas, a family trip here. A whole week off is seen as weird.
I worked at a company where that was the standard, but every five years (!) you could apply for a whole month (!!) of unpaid (!!!) time off. I witnessed discussions on the employee blabbing mailing list where people who had worked there for five years or ten were talking about what they would do, and how a whole month of not working would affect them and some were not sure if they could stay away that long...
Meanwhile, in Sweden, I had six weeks of paid time off every year, and everyone has a legal right to four consecutive weeks in the summer, so most people take a month off every year. Not every five years. Everyone.
The cultural difference is absolutely crazy.
A second-order effect of this is that if people are gone a lot every year, it forces companies to have better redundancies, it forces companies to spread knowledge around, it forces them to make sure that everyone's job can be covered by someone else. This lessens the impact of someone quitting, because there should be people around who can at least somewhat do that person's job, so you are less likely to end up in a situation where someone quitting is a disaster for the company, because that person had made themselves essential as a crazy sort of job security.
I worked at a company where that was the standard, but every five years (!) you could apply for a whole month (!!) of unpaid (!!!) time off. I witnessed discussions on the employee blabbing mailing list where people who had worked there for five years or ten were talking about what they would do, and how a whole month of not working would affect them and some were not sure if they could stay away that long...
Meanwhile, in Sweden, I had six weeks of paid time off every year, and everyone has a legal right to four consecutive weeks in the summer, so most people take a month off every year. Not every five years. Everyone.
The cultural difference is absolutely crazy.
A second-order effect of this is that if people are gone a lot every year, it forces companies to have better redundancies, it forces companies to spread knowledge around, it forces them to make sure that everyone's job can be covered by someone else. This lessens the impact of someone quitting, because there should be people around who can at least somewhat do that person's job, so you are less likely to end up in a situation where someone quitting is a disaster for the company, because that person had made themselves essential as a crazy sort of job security.
A whole week off is not seen as weird in most of the US. I’ve had 3-4 weeks of vacation for decades and I’ve always taken pretty much every day. Among many of the people I’ve known that was by no means unusual.
Sorry for generalizing. In my experience, it was very rare for people to use up all their vacation, and people were routinely used to being denied vacation time for whatever business reason, both at my company, and previous companies. Don't know how common it is across Silicon Valley, but it exists at least.
We had to push people into taking vacations in my team, and we never, ever denied vacation requests, as long as people had earned the time off.
I really wish people were more pushy about their vacation time, because they've earned it, just like they've earned their salary. Not taking vacation time is essentially giving money to your company, which is dumb, because you get nothing in return.
We had to push people into taking vacations in my team, and we never, ever denied vacation requests, as long as people had earned the time off.
I really wish people were more pushy about their vacation time, because they've earned it, just like they've earned their salary. Not taking vacation time is essentially giving money to your company, which is dumb, because you get nothing in return.
I totally agree. Based on numbers I've seen people in the US do better than their stereotype. But a lot of people still leave vacation on the table in a way that is foreign to me.
Sure, some companies are dysfunctional in this respect. But, it's also true that at a company I worked at for a long time where I pretty much saved up my vacation for month trips on a number of occasions, a fair number of people couldn't really understand how I could do this. (My managers had no problems and I did quite well there for over a decade.)
In all fairness, I've also worked with people who didn't like to travel and got bored with staycations so they didn't take much of their time. Alien to me but I sorta get it to some degree.
Sure, some companies are dysfunctional in this respect. But, it's also true that at a company I worked at for a long time where I pretty much saved up my vacation for month trips on a number of occasions, a fair number of people couldn't really understand how I could do this. (My managers had no problems and I did quite well there for over a decade.)
In all fairness, I've also worked with people who didn't like to travel and got bored with staycations so they didn't take much of their time. Alien to me but I sorta get it to some degree.
11 days for salaried employees is the average.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/how-much-vacation-time-and...
Anecdotally, I’ve had one job in the past 20 years that didn’t have at least 15 days PTO. Because of corporate policy, they wouldn’t budge. I asked for extra pay to compensate.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/how-much-vacation-time-and...
Anecdotally, I’ve had one job in the past 20 years that didn’t have at least 15 days PTO. Because of corporate policy, they wouldn’t budge. I asked for extra pay to compensate.
> A whole week off is seen as weird.
Hang on. So even if you have paid leave, is a yearly week or two's holiday really not usual in the US? You know to go spend a week hiking or skiing in the Rockies, or fortnight camping, or whatever is your thing.
Not being able to take a week or two straight to get away from civilisation would have me clawing the walls going stir crazy, and I'd probably find myself divorced. Quite apart from the practicality - a long weekend isn't going to work to visit Europe or anything remotely long haul. Even a weekend break taking in the Grand Canyon if you happen to be on the east coast barely works, it certainly isn't going to leave any time to chill and unwind.
Hang on. So even if you have paid leave, is a yearly week or two's holiday really not usual in the US? You know to go spend a week hiking or skiing in the Rockies, or fortnight camping, or whatever is your thing.
Not being able to take a week or two straight to get away from civilisation would have me clawing the walls going stir crazy, and I'd probably find myself divorced. Quite apart from the practicality - a long weekend isn't going to work to visit Europe or anything remotely long haul. Even a weekend break taking in the Grand Canyon if you happen to be on the east coast barely works, it certainly isn't going to leave any time to chill and unwind.
If you only have two weeks total, getting two weeks straight is very hard, because you've probably had to use vacation days for other things, family obligations, christmas, etc, so you don't really have the time.
Fair point. I'm am so used to the statutory days paid provision as separate and extra from how many days holiday we get - Xmas, Boxing Day, Easter, August Bank Holiday etc.
So we always built around 9 day or 16 day breaks, and everyone else seems to. There's usually a few holiday days left over for the odd day off. Some places didn't even count the compassionate things or family emergencies towards holiday entitlement days. Heck, when I was contracting, we took a few - obviously unpaid - one month holidays!
So we always built around 9 day or 16 day breaks, and everyone else seems to. There's usually a few holiday days left over for the odd day off. Some places didn't even count the compassionate things or family emergencies towards holiday entitlement days. Heck, when I was contracting, we took a few - obviously unpaid - one month holidays!
>Not being able to take a week or two straight to get away from civilisation would have me clawing the walls going stir crazy, and I'd probably find myself divorced.
That's interesting, as I recall many couples get divorced after being on vacation together because they spend most of the year separated but they discover during vacation that they can't stand each other.
That's interesting, as I recall many couples get divorced after being on vacation together because they spend most of the year separated but they discover during vacation that they can't stand each other.
I always heard as Xmas - particularly the big family Xmas - as the biggest trigger stressor for divorce.
Everyone here is taking one or two two holidays a year with their partner, as well as several long weekends and all the statutory holidays such as Xmas, Easter etc, yet divorce seems broadly comparable across the globe. Even if a few of those are only lazing in the back garden or redecorating the lviing room.
Being prevented from doing any of that with partner by an employer in the dark ages would also be a divorce stressor. If one partner takes a job with shite holiday provision, the other - also used to civilised holiday provision - is likely to end up resentful, no?
Everyone here is taking one or two two holidays a year with their partner, as well as several long weekends and all the statutory holidays such as Xmas, Easter etc, yet divorce seems broadly comparable across the globe. Even if a few of those are only lazing in the back garden or redecorating the lviing room.
Being prevented from doing any of that with partner by an employer in the dark ages would also be a divorce stressor. If one partner takes a job with shite holiday provision, the other - also used to civilised holiday provision - is likely to end up resentful, no?
> Even for high-paid white-collar jobs, you typically don't get a lot of paid time off in the US. Two weeks, typically
Two weeks at 1 year, three weeks at 5 years, and 4 weeks at 20 years, typically. (That's tenure at one company, not total experience.)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/heres-how-many-paid-vacation...
EDIT: And note, lots of workers don't get separate paid sick leave, and those that do get very small allotments compared to anywhere else in the developed world.
Two weeks at 1 year, three weeks at 5 years, and 4 weeks at 20 years, typically. (That's tenure at one company, not total experience.)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/heres-how-many-paid-vacation...
EDIT: And note, lots of workers don't get separate paid sick leave, and those that do get very small allotments compared to anywhere else in the developed world.
>I may be getting it wrong as I don't live in US, but does it mean he only gets one week of holidays per year?
Yes, and even that is a rarity for wage workers.
>Is there any other form of paid off time?
Nope. Most hourly workers are lucky to get a few unpaid sick days. Have an accident, or get sick and need to spend a couple weeks in the hospital? Now you're unemployed and bankrupt.
Yes, and even that is a rarity for wage workers.
>Is there any other form of paid off time?
Nope. Most hourly workers are lucky to get a few unpaid sick days. Have an accident, or get sick and need to spend a couple weeks in the hospital? Now you're unemployed and bankrupt.
This is both true and mind boggling to me.
I employ 5-10 unskilled people at any given time. Mostly for assembly and packing. They get two weeks PTO, and at least a week of paid vacation throughout the year when we close for holidays, mostly more.
At the end of the day the total annual cost to provide this is well worth the drama it keeps out of the workplace.
Sick days? Take as many as you need. I don’t want sick people at the office.
I employ 5-10 unskilled people at any given time. Mostly for assembly and packing. They get two weeks PTO, and at least a week of paid vacation throughout the year when we close for holidays, mostly more.
At the end of the day the total annual cost to provide this is well worth the drama it keeps out of the workplace.
Sick days? Take as many as you need. I don’t want sick people at the office.
“Two weeks PTO”, like it’s a godsend, when the EU basic law, not known for being worker-friendly, guarantees everyone in the EU at least four weeks.
> This is both true and mind boggling to me.
We all come into this with a lot of context. However, America has I think something like the highest average and median wages outside the Nordics [0, 1]. And the Nordics are potentially a statistical aberration.
If somebody "gets" 2 weeks of paid time off, but at the end of the year their average salary is (50/52)% of someone who gets no PTO, are they really being paid for time off? It doesn't look paid to me.
The real benefit would be a culture where you can take unpaid time off then return to the same job later on. The per-hour pay is likely to correct quietly via ye olde market forces, and everyone enjoys the best of all worlds. High pay if they want it, time off if they want it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
We all come into this with a lot of context. However, America has I think something like the highest average and median wages outside the Nordics [0, 1]. And the Nordics are potentially a statistical aberration.
If somebody "gets" 2 weeks of paid time off, but at the end of the year their average salary is (50/52)% of someone who gets no PTO, are they really being paid for time off? It doesn't look paid to me.
The real benefit would be a culture where you can take unpaid time off then return to the same job later on. The per-hour pay is likely to correct quietly via ye olde market forces, and everyone enjoys the best of all worlds. High pay if they want it, time off if they want it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
> If somebody "gets" 2 weeks of paid time off, but at the end of the year their average salary is (50/52)% of someone who gets no PTO, are they really being paid for time off? It doesn't look paid to me.
How much does it cost an american worker to take 2 weeks off? If that means unemployment, new job search and your own health care payments, it might be much more expensive than that.
> median wage ... OECD
any idea how they calculated the purchasing power for the US?
How much does it cost an american worker to take 2 weeks off? If that means unemployment, new job search and your own health care payments, it might be much more expensive than that.
> median wage ... OECD
any idea how they calculated the purchasing power for the US?
I pay hourly employees between $14-$20/hr. The standard is to let people accrue two weeks. I just give it all up front. It's easier this way, honestly, because people spend the time more evenly throughout the year. I guess I could reverse it so they are "earning" the PTO over time, but everyone seems happy with it the way things are, and that's fine by me.
For salaried employees I just give them an FTO policy instead. As long as things are getting done I just don't care. I'm not interesting in creating a hostile work environment to save a few thousand dollars a year.
For salaried employees I just give them an FTO policy instead. As long as things are getting done I just don't care. I'm not interesting in creating a hostile work environment to save a few thousand dollars a year.
What happens to the PTO at the rollover date?
Or if an employee accrues more PTO time than the employer will pay.
I'm not being caustic here im just wondering what happens to those funds?
It’s use it or lose it. After 60 days I just give two weeks up front and let people use it however they want. Every year I just rebank them up to two weeks. You can’t accrue more than that. Some people wait to get the rebank then quit and take the two week payout. Seems fair to me though.
[deleted]
And you'll attract and keep a better level of employee because you do this. IMO this is particularly important with unskilled labor as your pool of employees is so large with very little to differentiate quality people.
Costco does this and it has worked, at least it seems, really well for them.
Always maintained an above average hourly salary and benefits offering for retail staff. Their turnover is considerably lower than other big box retail (Walmart around 40%, Costco around 17%).
Not to mention the cost reduction of not having to retrain someone who is only going to quit/get fired in six months.
Source: https://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages
Always maintained an above average hourly salary and benefits offering for retail staff. Their turnover is considerably lower than other big box retail (Walmart around 40%, Costco around 17%).
Not to mention the cost reduction of not having to retrain someone who is only going to quit/get fired in six months.
Source: https://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages
> Sick days? Take as many as you need. I don’t want sick people at the office.
I hire people trained or untrained for my shed manufacturing business. Younger (under 25 years) people try to pull the "my stomach is hurting" and take the rest of the day off. I tell them they need to go see the doctor and bring a note from the doctor excusing the time off they need for their sickness. Otherwise, I don't get decent workweeks out of them younglings.
I hire people trained or untrained for my shed manufacturing business. Younger (under 25 years) people try to pull the "my stomach is hurting" and take the rest of the day off. I tell them they need to go see the doctor and bring a note from the doctor excusing the time off they need for their sickness. Otherwise, I don't get decent workweeks out of them younglings.
If you're demanding they see a doctor then you should be paying for them to do it. Otherwise the employees are losing wages and paying additional fees for the privilege.
Unless an employee has demonstrated that they can't take leave appropriately, you really should get out of their business and let them use the benefits they're entitled to.
Unless an employee has demonstrated that they can't take leave appropriately, you really should get out of their business and let them use the benefits they're entitled to.
What you call a privilege and entitlement is not at all such.
I spent 6 years in the Air Force and the military sends you to sick call for you to be excused from duty. If an employee at MY business doesn't want to follow my policy for sick time, they are at liberty to work elsewhere or not at all.
I spent 6 years in the Air Force and the military sends you to sick call for you to be excused from duty. If an employee at MY business doesn't want to follow my policy for sick time, they are at liberty to work elsewhere or not at all.
I believe in theory they don't have to give any paid time off, no vacation, no sick days. I once was offered a job in NYC with 5 days vacation, increasing to 10 after a few years. I said "No, thank you". I can't even imagine how it is to work like that.
I interviewed for a ton of positions recently because I was about to be laid off. I got to see the entire gamut of offers from "no PTO, no benefits, and a pittance" to "fully paid benefits, 18 days PTO, and top 10% salary for location".
I can't imagine the difference in quality between the guys who are getting nothing and made to fend for themselves and the ones who are getting taken care of. I'm going to go out on a limb to say it might not necessarily be a giant difference depending on how well the developer in question Luckily for me, the job at the most financially rewarding location seemed just as interesting as the ones who appeared to be bootstrapping themselves.
I can't imagine the difference in quality between the guys who are getting nothing and made to fend for themselves and the ones who are getting taken care of. I'm going to go out on a limb to say it might not necessarily be a giant difference depending on how well the developer in question Luckily for me, the job at the most financially rewarding location seemed just as interesting as the ones who appeared to be bootstrapping themselves.
I know it sounds crazy, it's because it is. Working in the US SUCKS for everyone.
> Working in the US SUCKS for everyone.
Simply not true. Every 12 months I get three weeks PTO and three weeks sick leave (which is also paid and not connected to my vacation time). PTO will soon jump to 4 weeks after another year of working at my job.
I know it isn't this good for everyone, but to say that working in the US sucks for everyone is a ridiculous statement.
Simply not true. Every 12 months I get three weeks PTO and three weeks sick leave (which is also paid and not connected to my vacation time). PTO will soon jump to 4 weeks after another year of working at my job.
I know it isn't this good for everyone, but to say that working in the US sucks for everyone is a ridiculous statement.
Of course “everyone” is never true. But for example in The Netherlands, 4.5 weeks of paid leave is the bare minimum (like even if you flip burgers you get at least that). If you’re e sick, you get paid leave for multiple months and after that, still 70% is paid. Your health endurance is not held hostage by your employer; for a small monthly fee (< $50 if you have a low income job) you’re pretty much ensured health issues won’t ruin you financially.
Every country has their own Stockholm Syndromes where they think they’ve got it made, while actually other places are doing a lot better. I think employment and benefits are one of these for the US.
Every country has their own Stockholm Syndromes where they think they’ve got it made, while actually other places are doing a lot better. I think employment and benefits are one of these for the US.
Eh, not necessarily. In my field (tech-related), I make substantially more than I would in the Netherlands and my tax burden is also substantially lower. I get 4 weeks of PTO plus 10 holidays every year and I never use it all. That is certainly not what everyone would prefer, but it suits me just fine.
Having that little leave is literally illegal here (Ireland, minimum 20 days per year). Sick leave has its limits, but they're so irrelevant that I don't even know what they are.
That’s really not true. Plenty of people in the US do get paid time off. It’s just not required by law.
This article is about low skilled workers. I've worked the same job in the US and the EU, I earned MORE than double in the US. Also lower taxes.
And holiday you can negotiate up front to get as many as you would in Europe.
And holiday you can negotiate up front to get as many as you would in Europe.
Not everyone. Most salaried jobs have at least two weeks paid vacation and 10 paid holidays. This is also true for decently paid full time hourly workers.
https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2017/ownership/private/...
As of March 2017 ~23% of private industry workers have no paid time off
As of March 2017 ~23% of private industry workers have no paid time off
There are no requirements for vacation days. However, by using the term 'holiday' it may be mixing things up slightly. In the US, you may get a holiday off (eg, bank holiday such as Christmas or New Year's Day), in addition to "paid time off" or "vacation" days that you use at your discretion.
I'd call that a "public holiday".
I have never worked an hourly paid job in the UK that has paid holiday.
I'm not sure they exist, it's sort of what hourly pay is - you get it when you work and not when you don't.
Personally I'm not sure it's something that makes sense, it should just be factored in to the wage. Most hourly paid jobs I know of don't have regular hours, even - how much do you pay for a week's holiday when some weeks the employee works 8 hours and some 24 hours? An average? Of what, if they've only been there a few months, say?
Now, time off, e.g. whether someone practically actually can take time off during the year without being sacked, is a different matter entirely.
Historically (before my career as a software developer) whenever I've felt like I need a bit of time out I've either had to negotiate it or just leave. It's usually far easier to quit a job than to convince your manager to let you go away for a few weeks. Sometimes the bureaucracy doesn't even, well, understand it.
I am personally completely convinced that the only answer to these sorts of issues is just to pay people properly. If they choose to chuck the money away regardless, it's on them.
Building some savings early in my adult life and maintaining them has been the best thing I've ever done. It turns the matter of "does this job offer holiday" "can I get the weekend off" stuff into an academic concern because you are in control.
I'm not sure they exist, it's sort of what hourly pay is - you get it when you work and not when you don't.
Personally I'm not sure it's something that makes sense, it should just be factored in to the wage. Most hourly paid jobs I know of don't have regular hours, even - how much do you pay for a week's holiday when some weeks the employee works 8 hours and some 24 hours? An average? Of what, if they've only been there a few months, say?
Now, time off, e.g. whether someone practically actually can take time off during the year without being sacked, is a different matter entirely.
Historically (before my career as a software developer) whenever I've felt like I need a bit of time out I've either had to negotiate it or just leave. It's usually far easier to quit a job than to convince your manager to let you go away for a few weeks. Sometimes the bureaucracy doesn't even, well, understand it.
I am personally completely convinced that the only answer to these sorts of issues is just to pay people properly. If they choose to chuck the money away regardless, it's on them.
Building some savings early in my adult life and maintaining them has been the best thing I've ever done. It turns the matter of "does this job offer holiday" "can I get the weekend off" stuff into an academic concern because you are in control.
Hang on - paid holiday is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights
This applies to people on zero-hour contracts as well.
https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights
This applies to people on zero-hour contracts as well.
What does paid holiday mean, exactly, in a zero-hour contract? If there's no guaranteed minimum rate at which one is paid during any given period, it seems like there can be no way to assert that one is on "paid leave".
I tried googling it and found this, which seems inconclusive: https://www.breathehr.com/blog/zero-hours-contracts-holiday-...
I tried googling it and found this, which seems inconclusive: https://www.breathehr.com/blog/zero-hours-contracts-holiday-...
According to the gov.uk page above, it's based on the actual hours worked: if you've accumulated X hours since start of the calculation period, you get the appropriate amount of time allocated. Presumably they can just like normal employees request time off for a specific time, and get paid for their time during that? For people only having very few hours, it seems weird, but if someone gets scheduled a lot the right to block out time seems relevant.
> Irregular hours
> People working irregular hours (like shift workers or term-time workers) are entitled to paid time off for every hour they work. They need to calculate their leave entitlement for irregular hours.
That takes you to this calculator: https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-holiday-entitlement
> People working irregular hours (like shift workers or term-time workers) are entitled to paid time off for every hour they work. They need to calculate their leave entitlement for irregular hours.
That takes you to this calculator: https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-holiday-entitlement
Do you see the point I'm making, though?
Edit: I'm not asking about the rate at which paid leave builds up, I'm asking about how the employee can ever be said to have used it up. Given that zero-hours contracts are a Bad Thing, I don't expect this to make any sense.
If I have accrued 24 hours of paid leave, and potentially work 6hrs a day, typically one day a week, do I need to pre-emptively use all of those 24 hours just to take leave for a block of 4 weekdays? It seems like I might have to, in the face of an unscrupulous employer.
Edit: I'm not asking about the rate at which paid leave builds up, I'm asking about how the employee can ever be said to have used it up. Given that zero-hours contracts are a Bad Thing, I don't expect this to make any sense.
If I have accrued 24 hours of paid leave, and potentially work 6hrs a day, typically one day a week, do I need to pre-emptively use all of those 24 hours just to take leave for a block of 4 weekdays? It seems like I might have to, in the face of an unscrupulous employer.
[deleted]
News to me! Perhaps I was ripped off.
I've either done short-term stints or been salaried for over a decade now.
Cheers for the link!
I've either done short-term stints or been salaried for over a decade now.
Cheers for the link!
Please edit your earlier post, it is misleading
"if they fail to save it's on them"
while this is mechanically true everywhere i look it isnt a comprehensive implementation of managing varieties of types of people toward the betterment of humanity
while this is mechanically true everywhere i look it isnt a comprehensive implementation of managing varieties of types of people toward the betterment of humanity
> I have never worked an hourly paid job in the UK that has paid holiday.
It has been a legal requirement since 1938, so hypothetical that is possible if you're in your mid 95 or older.
It has been a legal requirement since 1938, so hypothetical that is possible if you're in your mid 95 or older.
Turns out you're right. I can't edit the post as the time has passed.
I've actually just never taken holiday from an hourly job, since it wouldn't have made sense at the time (if I were aware I would have probably tried to fill the time with more work.. )
I assume then that I should have been paid in my final pay. Ten years back now, I've been contracting or salaried since.
I've actually just never taken holiday from an hourly job, since it wouldn't have made sense at the time (if I were aware I would have probably tried to fill the time with more work.. )
I assume then that I should have been paid in my final pay. Ten years back now, I've been contracting or salaried since.
Or, you know, never worked an hourly job.
> Personally I'm not sure it's something that makes sense, it should just be factored in to the wage. Most hourly paid jobs I know of don't have regular hours, even - how much do you pay for a week's holiday when some weeks the employee works 8 hours and some 24 hours? An average? Of what, if they've only been there a few months, say?
If you want full time hourly employees (40 hours per week) to earn two weeks of paid vacation per year, then you have hourly workers accrue vacation time at a rate of 1 hour vacation earned for every 25 hours on the clock.
This system handles people who hours worked varies from week to week, and it handles people who have not been there long enough to earn the full two weeks--ever 5 weeks they have accumulated a vacation day, so if they want to take a week off 6 months in, say, that works.
It also works for tracking vacation time for salaried employees. For salaried employees you just force the hours worked to 8 per day in the program that calculates vacation accrual, regardless of the actual hours worked (assuming that you even track actual hours worked for salaried employees).
If you want full time hourly employees (40 hours per week) to earn two weeks of paid vacation per year, then you have hourly workers accrue vacation time at a rate of 1 hour vacation earned for every 25 hours on the clock.
This system handles people who hours worked varies from week to week, and it handles people who have not been there long enough to earn the full two weeks--ever 5 weeks they have accumulated a vacation day, so if they want to take a week off 6 months in, say, that works.
It also works for tracking vacation time for salaried employees. For salaried employees you just force the hours worked to 8 per day in the program that calculates vacation accrual, regardless of the actual hours worked (assuming that you even track actual hours worked for salaried employees).
I think you're missing the point another poster brought up which is that a "holiday hour" for a real hourly worker (e.g. one with flexible hours, shift work etc) is nebulous.
So let's say under your system an employee works an average of 8 hours a week. After half a year they've accrued 8 hours of holiday.
That's 1 day.
The pay isn't the issue but the legal obligation to allow the worker to not work, if that makes sense.
Whether holidays are unpaid or paid is just shuffling cashflow in time, the real problem is the amount of holiday that's possible.
So let's say under your system an employee works an average of 8 hours a week. After half a year they've accrued 8 hours of holiday.
That's 1 day.
The pay isn't the issue but the legal obligation to allow the worker to not work, if that makes sense.
Whether holidays are unpaid or paid is just shuffling cashflow in time, the real problem is the amount of holiday that's possible.
If you work 1 day a week, after half a year you can still take a week off; your 1 vacation day, added to the 4 other workdays you don't work.
A part-time/ZHC worker in the UK doesn't work a set number of days a week.
They're assigned a variable number of hours per week. It might be 4 this week, 20 the next, 0 after that, etc.
You wait for the rota and work what you've been assigned.
It's kind of like a lower-level version of being on call.
It only really even works in the first place because we have all sorts of insane welfare subsidies that mean people have their income topped up to make up the shortfall.
I would imagine something like this must exist in the US. A quick google brought up https://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-work-irregular-hou... which sounds basically like what exists here.
They're assigned a variable number of hours per week. It might be 4 this week, 20 the next, 0 after that, etc.
You wait for the rota and work what you've been assigned.
It's kind of like a lower-level version of being on call.
It only really even works in the first place because we have all sorts of insane welfare subsidies that mean people have their income topped up to make up the shortfall.
I would imagine something like this must exist in the US. A quick google brought up https://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-work-irregular-hou... which sounds basically like what exists here.
As mentioned downthread, this is the unfortunate combination of the British English term (“holiday”) which American English replaces with “vacation”.
There are a set of Federal Holidays, but the Fair Labor Standards Act does not require that all workers get them off nor that they are paid [1]. There are some holidays that are Federal Holidays but are generally not observed nationwide (e.g., Colombus Day), however, banks and financial institutions including the stock market may be closed for them.
Most workers get about 10 weekdays off per year from these federal holidays (Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, etc.) but at the low end (think fast food worker) that’s often not the case. Particularly part-time workers often get nothing. A comment downthread suggests that 23% of workers get no vacation time, but that might or might not also mean “and no Federal Holidays”.
[1] https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/holidays
There are a set of Federal Holidays, but the Fair Labor Standards Act does not require that all workers get them off nor that they are paid [1]. There are some holidays that are Federal Holidays but are generally not observed nationwide (e.g., Colombus Day), however, banks and financial institutions including the stock market may be closed for them.
Most workers get about 10 weekdays off per year from these federal holidays (Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, etc.) but at the low end (think fast food worker) that’s often not the case. Particularly part-time workers often get nothing. A comment downthread suggests that 23% of workers get no vacation time, but that might or might not also mean “and no Federal Holidays”.
[1] https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/holidays
The bls page says 77% have 'paid holidays', 68% have 'paid sick days' and 76% have 'paid vacation'
Paid leaves aren't mandated by law. The norm is two weeks for salaried workers. Most people don't used them up anyway. There's no tradition of everyone going on vacation in the same month in the US. That makes people feel somewhat guilty leaving their jobs behind. Even while on vacation many end up working.
Americans do switch jobs more frequently. People have more occasions to unwind between jobs (perhaps cashing out their unused leaves to pay for a big trip).
Americans do switch jobs more frequently. People have more occasions to unwind between jobs (perhaps cashing out their unused leaves to pay for a big trip).
Another reason for not using them up is that one of the times of year that many people do often want to take time off during has a lot of paid holiday days already for many people, so you can get a large block of time off only using a few vacation days.
I'm speaking of Christmas/New Year, which many people like to take off to be with family.
At many places, Christmas and the day before are paid holidays, and at many places New Years and the day before are also paid holidays.
Suppose that in a given year you get a Tuesday and Wednesday off for the Christmas holidays and Tuesday and Wednesday off next week for New Years.
With one day of vacation (Monday), you turn the Christmas holiday into a block of 5 consecutive days off (2 weekend days, 1 vacation day, 2 holidays). Toss in 2 more vacation days (Thursday and Friday), and now for a cost of 3 vacation days you 9 consecutive days off.
Add another vacation day next Monday, and four a total cost of 4 vacation days you get 12 consecutive days off. 6 vacation days will get you 16 consecutive days off.
If you job is such that it naturally gets a lot less busy during the holidays, and it is possible to do it remotely, you might even convince your employer to work at home on some of those days, which will be such light work that it does not interfere with your vacation activities, but counts as a work day, not a vacation day.
I've usually been able to do that at least one day each week--check some logs, run some scripts that fix some database problems that some old crappy legacy code that no one ever gets the time to rewrite cause, spend 10 minutes or so figuring out to fix a couple things the scripts cannot, and then just check work email a few times during the day to look for anything else that comes up (which usually is nothing), and my employer will let me call that a work day...and so I can get those 16 consecutive days off with only 4 days vacation used.
Even if you are only earning two weeks (10 days) of vacation a year, if you take you vacations as above it is easy to end up accumulating them.
I'm speaking of Christmas/New Year, which many people like to take off to be with family.
At many places, Christmas and the day before are paid holidays, and at many places New Years and the day before are also paid holidays.
Suppose that in a given year you get a Tuesday and Wednesday off for the Christmas holidays and Tuesday and Wednesday off next week for New Years.
With one day of vacation (Monday), you turn the Christmas holiday into a block of 5 consecutive days off (2 weekend days, 1 vacation day, 2 holidays). Toss in 2 more vacation days (Thursday and Friday), and now for a cost of 3 vacation days you 9 consecutive days off.
Add another vacation day next Monday, and four a total cost of 4 vacation days you get 12 consecutive days off. 6 vacation days will get you 16 consecutive days off.
If you job is such that it naturally gets a lot less busy during the holidays, and it is possible to do it remotely, you might even convince your employer to work at home on some of those days, which will be such light work that it does not interfere with your vacation activities, but counts as a work day, not a vacation day.
I've usually been able to do that at least one day each week--check some logs, run some scripts that fix some database problems that some old crappy legacy code that no one ever gets the time to rewrite cause, spend 10 minutes or so figuring out to fix a couple things the scripts cannot, and then just check work email a few times during the day to look for anything else that comes up (which usually is nothing), and my employer will let me call that a work day...and so I can get those 16 consecutive days off with only 4 days vacation used.
Even if you are only earning two weeks (10 days) of vacation a year, if you take you vacations as above it is easy to end up accumulating them.
While people might switch jobs more often, is that supported by data that they use this time to unwind? You end up without health insurance coverage during that gap so I can’t imagine tons of people going in that direction.
From what I have seen most people leave their job on Friday and start the new one next Monday. Almost nobody takes time off. Also, a lot of companies want you to start tomorrow. I have told companies that I want to take a month off before starting there and it seemed they couldn't even comprehend the concept.
>You end up without health insurance coverage
There's COBRA although, of course, you don't have the employer portion paid for any longer.
I'm a bit skeptical that the typical person takes a lot of time off between jobs. If you've already got a position lined up, your new employer probably wants you to start as soon as possible. You can probably negotiate 2 or 3 weeks but, in most cases, I expect a real sabbatical would be tough.
And, if you don't have a job lined up, I probably wouldn't be confident enough to just take it easy for a couple months.
There's COBRA although, of course, you don't have the employer portion paid for any longer.
I'm a bit skeptical that the typical person takes a lot of time off between jobs. If you've already got a position lined up, your new employer probably wants you to start as soon as possible. You can probably negotiate 2 or 3 weeks but, in most cases, I expect a real sabbatical would be tough.
And, if you don't have a job lined up, I probably wouldn't be confident enough to just take it easy for a couple months.
There certainly are a lot of Americans who mismanage their finances. Standard advice is to have at least six months of saving at your disposal. If you can't take a afford a break at a time of your own choosing then how are you going to cope when you get laid off during a recession?
It's one thing to have a reserve for emergencies and another to tap into that reserve because you want to take a few months off before looking for a new job. Though absolutely nothing wrong with that if you're in the position to do so and it's a priority.
But I've always taken a lot of vacation, including a number of trips up to a month while working. The one time recently when I had a job lined up I did push things out a few weeks which was just fine. The time before that was in the middle of the dot-com bubble bursting and I considered myself lucky to get something fairly quickly; it could easily have been many months+.
But I've always taken a lot of vacation, including a number of trips up to a month while working. The one time recently when I had a job lined up I did push things out a few weeks which was just fine. The time before that was in the middle of the dot-com bubble bursting and I considered myself lucky to get something fairly quickly; it could easily have been many months+.
I only have a few anecdotal data points of what well paid hourly work is like in the US. But, most well paid hourly jobs with benefits etc. have some combination of:
Holidays: Federal holidays where people are off and they still get paid as if they were working.
Vacation: Time off work that is paid that is accrued during the time you are working. When you submit your time, you can use your vacation hours.
Sick: Days that you are suppose to either be unable to work or have a dependent (or spouse) that you need to take care of. Depending on the company, they can require doctor’s notes.
Many companies lump sick and vacation as “paid time off”.
Companies usually have paid bereavement leave.
I’ve worked as a contractor occasionally with none of these types of time off, but fortunately, I am in a position to adjust my rate accordingly.
Even when I was in college and working retail we had some type of minimum holiday pay.
Holidays: Federal holidays where people are off and they still get paid as if they were working.
Vacation: Time off work that is paid that is accrued during the time you are working. When you submit your time, you can use your vacation hours.
Sick: Days that you are suppose to either be unable to work or have a dependent (or spouse) that you need to take care of. Depending on the company, they can require doctor’s notes.
Many companies lump sick and vacation as “paid time off”.
Companies usually have paid bereavement leave.
I’ve worked as a contractor occasionally with none of these types of time off, but fortunately, I am in a position to adjust my rate accordingly.
Even when I was in college and working retail we had some type of minimum holiday pay.
This typically means 5 paid days off per year. The rest is maybe paid holiday that other people get like Christmas. All other days taken off are unpaid and subject to approval. This was what I got at my first office job in the US.
Oftentimes the lowest paid workers end up working the days everyone else has off. Heaven forbid the Walmart or the Kohl’s be closed on any holiday but basically Christmas Day.
If you want to read the entire article:
https://outline.com/TegA4h
https://outline.com/TegA4h
American life is improving for the lowest paid
MAY 16, 2019
BRAD HOOPER quit his previous job at a grocery in Madison because his boss was “a little crazy”. The manager threatened to sack him and other cashiers for refusing orders to work longer than their agreed hours. Not long ago, Mr Hooper’s decision to walk out might have looked foolhardy. A long-haired navy veteran, he suffers from recurrent ill-health, including insomnia. He has no education beyond high school. Early this decade he was jobless for a year and recalls how back then, there were “a thousand people applying for every McDonald’s job”.
This time he struck lucky, finding much better work. Today he sells tobacco and cigarettes in a chain store for 32 hours a week. That leaves plenty of time for his passion, reading science fiction. And after years of low earnings he collects $13.90 an hour, almost double the state’s minimum rate and better than the grocer’s pay. His new employer has already bumped up his wages twice in 18 months. “It’s pretty good,” he says with a grin. What’s really rare, he adds, is his annual week of paid holiday. The firm also offers help with health insurance.
His improving fortunes reflect recent gains for many of America’s lowest-paid. Handwritten “help wanted” signs adorn windows of many cafés and shops in Madison. A few steps on from the cigarette shop is the city’s job centre, where a manager with little else to do points to a screen that tallies 98,678 unfilled vacancies across Wisconsin. In five years, he says, he has never seen such demand for labour. He says some employers now recruit from a vocational training centre for the disabled. Others tour prisons, signing up inmates to work immediately on their release.
Unemployment in Wisconsin is below 3%, which is a record. Across America it was last this low, at 3.6%, half a century ago. A tight labour market has been pushing up median pay for some time. Fewer unauthorised immigrants arriving in America may contribute to the squeeze, though this is disputed. Official figures show average hourly earnings rising by 3.2% on an annual basis. “Right now, part time, it seems like everyone is hiring. Every American who wants a job right now can get a job,” says another shop worker in Merrillville, in northern Indiana.
In any economic upturn the last group of workers to prosper are typically the poorest earners, such as low-skilled shopstaff, food preparers, care-givers and temps. Their pay was walloped in the Great Recession a decade ago, and the recovery since has been unusually slow. Pay has leapt recently—with the lowest-paid enjoying faster gains than the better-off.
The benefits are not equally spread. In Wisconsin, as in much of the country, more jobs are being created in urban areas and in services. Laura Dresser, a labour economist, points to a “very big racial inequality among workers”. Wages have been rising fastest for African-Americans, but poorer blacks, especially those with felony convictions, are also likelier to have fallen out of the formal labour market, so are not counted in unemployment figures.
The wage recovery is not only about markets. Policy matters too. Some states, typically Republican-run, have been reluctant to lift minimum wages above the federal level of $7.25 an hour. In Merrillville, a worker in a petshop carries a Husky puppy to be inspected by a group of teenage girls. Staff are paid “a dollar or two above the minimum wage”, says his manager. Despite his 13 years’ employment, and over 40 hours’ toil each week, his pay and benefits amount to little. He calls occasional bonuses a “carrot at the end of the road”.
He could munch on bigger carrots in other states. Lawmakers in some states are more willing to lift minimum wages. Where they do, the incomes of the lowest-paid rise particularly fast. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia raised the minimum wage last year. (Some cities, like Chicago and New York, occasionally raise it too). Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute told Congress in March that, in states which put up minimum wages at least once in the five years to 2018, incomes for the poorest rose by an average of 13%. In the remaining states, by contrast, the poorest got a rise of 8.6% over the same period.
In neither case, however, do the increases amount to much better long-term prospects for the worst-off. 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%.
One study in Wisconsin suggests that caretakers, for example, took home over $12 an hour by last year, so were only just getting back to their (real) average earnings achieved in 2010. Expansion at the bottom of the labour market “is finally pulling some wages up. But it’s certainly been much slower in this boom than any other,” argues Tim Smeeding, a poverty expert at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison. He describes “capital winning over labour” for several decades, and expects the trend to continue, given weak unions, more automation and other trends.
The poorest get some hard-to-measure benefits in addition to higher hourly pay. Mr Hooper is not alone in daring to walk away from an exploitative boss. More of the low-paid get a bit more say on how and when they toil. Many crave a reduction in the income volatility that afflicts them, since sudden swings in earnings are associated with poor mental health, high stress and worry over losing access to financial assistance or food stamps.
One study of 7,000 households, by Pew, found in 2015 that 92% of them would opt for lower average incomes, if earnings were predictable. Follow-up research late last year suggested the same trends are still present. Low- and middle-income households remain anxious about volatile earnings. Most have almost no savings. Many would struggle with a financial shock of just a few hundred dollars.
Lots of jobs that are being created are in or near flourishing cities like Madison, where low-paid workers are squeezed by high housing costs. Pew has estimated that 38% of all tenant households spend at least 30% of their income on rent. Living in more affordable places, such as Janesville, an hour south of Madison, may be an option for the lower-paid. But that means commuting to the city, or taking local jobs with less pay and fewer benefits. Few workers earning less than $12 an hour get health insurance from their employer, whereas most do so above that threshold.
Katherine Cramer, who studies the long-standing causes of simmering anger among poorer, rural Americans, says “resentment is worse than before”, despite the recent better wages. Rural folk complain that “it’s been like this for decades”, she says. A year or two catching up has not yet been enough to change their minds.
This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Better at the bottom"
BRAD HOOPER quit his previous job at a grocery in Madison because his boss was “a little crazy”. The manager threatened to sack him and other cashiers for refusing orders to work longer than their agreed hours. Not long ago, Mr Hooper’s decision to walk out might have looked foolhardy. A long-haired navy veteran, he suffers from recurrent ill-health, including insomnia. He has no education beyond high school. Early this decade he was jobless for a year and recalls how back then, there were “a thousand people applying for every McDonald’s job”.
This time he struck lucky, finding much better work. Today he sells tobacco and cigarettes in a chain store for 32 hours a week. That leaves plenty of time for his passion, reading science fiction. And after years of low earnings he collects $13.90 an hour, almost double the state’s minimum rate and better than the grocer’s pay. His new employer has already bumped up his wages twice in 18 months. “It’s pretty good,” he says with a grin. What’s really rare, he adds, is his annual week of paid holiday. The firm also offers help with health insurance.
His improving fortunes reflect recent gains for many of America’s lowest-paid. Handwritten “help wanted” signs adorn windows of many cafés and shops in Madison. A few steps on from the cigarette shop is the city’s job centre, where a manager with little else to do points to a screen that tallies 98,678 unfilled vacancies across Wisconsin. In five years, he says, he has never seen such demand for labour. He says some employers now recruit from a vocational training centre for the disabled. Others tour prisons, signing up inmates to work immediately on their release.
Unemployment in Wisconsin is below 3%, which is a record. Across America it was last this low, at 3.6%, half a century ago. A tight labour market has been pushing up median pay for some time. Fewer unauthorised immigrants arriving in America may contribute to the squeeze, though this is disputed. Official figures show average hourly earnings rising by 3.2% on an annual basis. “Right now, part time, it seems like everyone is hiring. Every American who wants a job right now can get a job,” says another shop worker in Merrillville, in northern Indiana.
In any economic upturn the last group of workers to prosper are typically the poorest earners, such as low-skilled shopstaff, food preparers, care-givers and temps. Their pay was walloped in the Great Recession a decade ago, and the recovery since has been unusually slow. Pay has leapt recently—with the lowest-paid enjoying faster gains than the better-off.
The benefits are not equally spread. In Wisconsin, as in much of the country, more jobs are being created in urban areas and in services. Laura Dresser, a labour economist, points to a “very big racial inequality among workers”. Wages have been rising fastest for African-Americans, but poorer blacks, especially those with felony convictions, are also likelier to have fallen out of the formal labour market, so are not counted in unemployment figures.
The wage recovery is not only about markets. Policy matters too. Some states, typically Republican-run, have been reluctant to lift minimum wages above the federal level of $7.25 an hour. In Merrillville, a worker in a petshop carries a Husky puppy to be inspected by a group of teenage girls. Staff are paid “a dollar or two above the minimum wage”, says his manager. Despite his 13 years’ employment, and over 40 hours’ toil each week, his pay and benefits amount to little. He calls occasional bonuses a “carrot at the end of the road”.
He could munch on bigger carrots in other states. Lawmakers in some states are more willing to lift minimum wages. Where they do, the incomes of the lowest-paid rise particularly fast. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia raised the minimum wage last year. (Some cities, like Chicago and New York, occasionally raise it too). Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute told Congress in March that, in states which put up minimum wages at least once in the five years to 2018, incomes for the poorest rose by an average of 13%. In the remaining states, by contrast, the poorest got a rise of 8.6% over the same period.
In neither case, however, do the increases amount to much better long-term prospects for the worst-off. 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%.
One study in Wisconsin suggests that caretakers, for example, took home over $12 an hour by last year, so were only just getting back to their (real) average earnings achieved in 2010. Expansion at the bottom of the labour market “is finally pulling some wages up. But it’s certainly been much slower in this boom than any other,” argues Tim Smeeding, a poverty expert at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison. He describes “capital winning over labour” for several decades, and expects the trend to continue, given weak unions, more automation and other trends.
The poorest get some hard-to-measure benefits in addition to higher hourly pay. Mr Hooper is not alone in daring to walk away from an exploitative boss. More of the low-paid get a bit more say on how and when they toil. Many crave a reduction in the income volatility that afflicts them, since sudden swings in earnings are associated with poor mental health, high stress and worry over losing access to financial assistance or food stamps.
One study of 7,000 households, by Pew, found in 2015 that 92% of them would opt for lower average incomes, if earnings were predictable. Follow-up research late last year suggested the same trends are still present. Low- and middle-income households remain anxious about volatile earnings. Most have almost no savings. Many would struggle with a financial shock of just a few hundred dollars.
Lots of jobs that are being created are in or near flourishing cities like Madison, where low-paid workers are squeezed by high housing costs. Pew has estimated that 38% of all tenant households spend at least 30% of their income on rent. Living in more affordable places, such as Janesville, an hour south of Madison, may be an option for the lower-paid. But that means commuting to the city, or taking local jobs with less pay and fewer benefits. Few workers earning less than $12 an hour get health insurance from their employer, whereas most do so above that threshold.
Katherine Cramer, who studies the long-standing causes of simmering anger among poorer, rural Americans, says “resentment is worse than before”, despite the recent better wages. Rural folk complain that “it’s been like this for decades”, she says. A year or two catching up has not yet been enough to change their minds.
This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Better at the bottom"
Why this over the Internet Archive [1]? Outline is a private site run by unknown people with unknown intentions. Its privacy policy [2] (a) names no actual person or responsible entity, (b) permits business transfers and (c) permits changes at Outline's sole discretion.
The Internet Archive, on the other hand, is a nonprofit run by known, reputable people.
(Setting aside the ethics of reading journalists' work without compensating them.)
[1] https://archive.org
[2] https://outline.com/privacy.html
The Internet Archive, on the other hand, is a nonprofit run by known, reputable people.
(Setting aside the ethics of reading journalists' work without compensating them.)
[1] https://archive.org
[2] https://outline.com/privacy.html
Outline has a better interface.
Outline looks like a completely different product - it allows annotating news articles in an uncluttered, from my initial impressions.
How does Outline not get sued into the ground?
Maybe all the staff at the various pay-walled outlets use it to avoid having to subscribe to competitors?
Must say that I disagree with this article. I've been low income for years, and have had hundreds of low income coworkers, and I've seen rent, gas, food all become more expensive while their pay remains constant, or is cut. Most have at least 2 jobs, and any kind of expensive life event ($1000 or more) will put them out on the streets. Things weren't this bad for us 15 years ago...
Headline: "American life is improving for the lowest paid; Come back capitalism, all is forgiven"
Article: Low unemployment means anyone can find a job.
"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%."
"Low- and middle-income households remain anxious about volatile earnings. Most have almost no savings. Many would struggle with a financial shock of just a few hundred dollars."
"Lots of jobs that are being created are in or near flourishing cities like Madison, where low-paid workers are squeezed by high housing costs. Pew has estimated that 38% of all tenant households spend at least 30% of their income on rent."
"Katherine Cramer, who studies the long-standing causes of simmering anger among poorer, rural Americans, says “resentment is worse than before”, despite the recent better wages. Rural folk complain that “it’s been like this for decades”, she says. A year or two catching up has not yet been enough to change their minds."
Article: Low unemployment means anyone can find a job.
"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%."
"Low- and middle-income households remain anxious about volatile earnings. Most have almost no savings. Many would struggle with a financial shock of just a few hundred dollars."
"Lots of jobs that are being created are in or near flourishing cities like Madison, where low-paid workers are squeezed by high housing costs. Pew has estimated that 38% of all tenant households spend at least 30% of their income on rent."
"Katherine Cramer, who studies the long-standing causes of simmering anger among poorer, rural Americans, says “resentment is worse than before”, despite the recent better wages. Rural folk complain that “it’s been like this for decades”, she says. A year or two catching up has not yet been enough to change their minds."
Yeah, quite remarkable. Celebrating a 0.1% annual wage increase over the last 4 decades, one week (!) of paid vacation, and "help" with health insurance as progress. In 2019.
It reminds me of the Onion article rejoicing that "Chinese Employers To Grant 15-Minute Maternity Break".
https://www.theonion.com/chinese-employers-to-grant-15-minut...
"Of course, this measure wouldn't need to be taken at all if pregnant workers could schedule their due dates for the annual holiday of May 1," Huang added.
It reminds me of the Onion article rejoicing that "Chinese Employers To Grant 15-Minute Maternity Break".
https://www.theonion.com/chinese-employers-to-grant-15-minut...
"Of course, this measure wouldn't need to be taken at all if pregnant workers could schedule their due dates for the annual holiday of May 1," Huang added.
When you consider that it's 0.9% in the past year, and 3.2% total in the 39 years prior to that, it seems more like something to celebrate.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm
Agreed, though the number you cited is increase of average real weekly earnings over that year, seasonally adjusted, while the much worse numbers quoted from the article are not even median, but 10th percentile of real wages, IIRC.
Low unemployment is a huge deal. We should keep in mind that the real wage of an unemployed worker is, well, zero. And a robust labor market means that employees are better positioned to move up the pay scale, to jobs with better productivity, wages and working conditions.
A good example of how the news is often both factual and "fake".
I was just listening to one of the Economist podcasts with Cass Sunstein https://soundcloud.com/theeconomist/the-economist-asks-cass
The Economist is strictly broadcast, no feedback or comments allowed in any medium. The podcast interviewers introduce themselves but that's a rare exception, no article authors are attributed.
Their platform arguably promotes the Rothschild/Agnelli agenda and is useful to keep in touch with that viewpoint.
The Economist is strictly broadcast, no feedback or comments allowed in any medium. The podcast interviewers introduce themselves but that's a rare exception, no article authors are attributed.
Their platform arguably promotes the Rothschild/Agnelli agenda and is useful to keep in touch with that viewpoint.
[deleted]
The Android and iPhone made a few lives happier.
Back in my day, not everyone had a powerful pocket computer that could do Facetime!
Back in my day, not everyone had a powerful pocket computer that could do Facetime!
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But in all seriousness, the richness that has been added to my life by walking around with a Library of Alexandria in my pocket is immeasurable. People may jokes about the value of having 24/7 access to cat videos or whatever, but the reality is that over 3/4 of Americans have access to knowledge that people in any other century would have sold their souls for.
Just think about how much effort and money it took in the past to acquire knowledge and even compute time. Microsoft word ? You can get that similar functionality for free now, as well as spreadsheets, encylopedias, etc.
Let alone cameras, videos. Cheap storage.
Let alone cameras, videos. Cheap storage.
> but the reality is that over 3/4 of Americans have access to knowledge that people in any other century would have sold their souls for
Some people. Your average medieval serf didn't care for all that in his pocket: he couldn't read and he'd get the whip if he stood around doing nothing, so he would very much not have sold his soul for something that had no value for him.
It's similar today. For you, it's a great asset, but most (and, I assume, everybody some of the time) don't use it that way. For most people, it is indeed 24/7 cat videos. Also, I have my doubts about the importance of carrying it around with you. It's the knowledge and the access that counts (if you're into knowledge), not the "and I can do it while standing outside anywhere in the city". The access would be virtually the same if you had to go to a public library instead of getting your phone out of your pocket.
Some people. Your average medieval serf didn't care for all that in his pocket: he couldn't read and he'd get the whip if he stood around doing nothing, so he would very much not have sold his soul for something that had no value for him.
It's similar today. For you, it's a great asset, but most (and, I assume, everybody some of the time) don't use it that way. For most people, it is indeed 24/7 cat videos. Also, I have my doubts about the importance of carrying it around with you. It's the knowledge and the access that counts (if you're into knowledge), not the "and I can do it while standing outside anywhere in the city". The access would be virtually the same if you had to go to a public library instead of getting your phone out of your pocket.
> Also, I have my doubts about the importance of carrying it around with you. It's the knowledge and the access that counts (if you're into knowledge), not the "and I can do it while standing outside anywhere in the city".
I would have to disagree strongly with that. There's a fundamental difference between the knowledge being extraordinarily democratized vs. available only through gatekeepers. Imagine having to go to a library to get directions for a short daytrip or book an Uber a day in advance. The frustration that would cause and time it would waste is enormous.
And importantly, you can't separate the "productive" and "non productive" aspects. The fact that you can FaceTime your friends or waste time on the devices is what makes them universally available. How many people in a poor neighborhood would shell out for a knowledge-only device or spend hours after a hard day shlepping down to a library? The fact that you can do fun stuff and mindless stuff with a phone is why the phone is in your pocket when you suddenly want to learn to do something difficult or find out the solution to an obscure problem.
I would have to disagree strongly with that. There's a fundamental difference between the knowledge being extraordinarily democratized vs. available only through gatekeepers. Imagine having to go to a library to get directions for a short daytrip or book an Uber a day in advance. The frustration that would cause and time it would waste is enormous.
And importantly, you can't separate the "productive" and "non productive" aspects. The fact that you can FaceTime your friends or waste time on the devices is what makes them universally available. How many people in a poor neighborhood would shell out for a knowledge-only device or spend hours after a hard day shlepping down to a library? The fact that you can do fun stuff and mindless stuff with a phone is why the phone is in your pocket when you suddenly want to learn to do something difficult or find out the solution to an obscure problem.
You're certainly right that few people would pay as much for the device if "all" it could to is serve as a gateway to human knowledge. I don't believe that the knowledge part is an active ingredient in the equation, but I don't disagree that it's a nice bonus.
> Imagine having to go to a library to get directions for a short daytrip or book an Uber a day in advance. The frustration that would cause and time it would waste is enormous.
I grew up in a time when that was quite normal (well ... day trips to somewhere unknown? that's rare!), and it wasn't so bad, and certainly didn't feel frustrating. It's hard to believe, but we managed to traverse the city (and even the country) without navigation assistants too ;)
> How many people in a poor neighborhood would shell out for a knowledge-only device or spend hours after a hard day shlepping down to a library?
Workers in Germany used to organize voluntarily in educational organizations some 150 years ago to advance their knowledge and social situation. Since it was forbidden to do so before the revolution of 1848 by the ruling elite, they got together under the guise of singing or sports to share knowledge (and socialism). They'd happily spend hours at the library had they been allowed to.
I'm not arguing against your point, but I do believe that it's class-dependent. If you're educated, you're likely to use your phone for information and entertainment. The lower the class, the larger the entertainment part grows. The idea of social liberation through knowledge is a noble one, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't believe that the availability alone will help for large parts of the population, and we shouldn't rely on that to advance their circumstances.
> Imagine having to go to a library to get directions for a short daytrip or book an Uber a day in advance. The frustration that would cause and time it would waste is enormous.
I grew up in a time when that was quite normal (well ... day trips to somewhere unknown? that's rare!), and it wasn't so bad, and certainly didn't feel frustrating. It's hard to believe, but we managed to traverse the city (and even the country) without navigation assistants too ;)
> How many people in a poor neighborhood would shell out for a knowledge-only device or spend hours after a hard day shlepping down to a library?
Workers in Germany used to organize voluntarily in educational organizations some 150 years ago to advance their knowledge and social situation. Since it was forbidden to do so before the revolution of 1848 by the ruling elite, they got together under the guise of singing or sports to share knowledge (and socialism). They'd happily spend hours at the library had they been allowed to.
I'm not arguing against your point, but I do believe that it's class-dependent. If you're educated, you're likely to use your phone for information and entertainment. The lower the class, the larger the entertainment part grows. The idea of social liberation through knowledge is a noble one, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't believe that the availability alone will help for large parts of the population, and we shouldn't rely on that to advance their circumstances.
FWIW, economists try to capture that with quality adjustments or hedonic indices.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/home.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_regression
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/home.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_regression
The gig economy is probably helping, by multiplying the sources of demand for low-skilled labor.
As always, it's probably improving in some ways, getting worse in others.
I didn't have access to the whole article but the first three paragraphs that I read didn't really inspire confidence.
Also the claim isn't that it's not getting better but that it's not getting better as fast as it is for the rest of the economy.
I didn't have access to the whole article but the first three paragraphs that I read didn't really inspire confidence.
Also the claim isn't that it's not getting better but that it's not getting better as fast as it is for the rest of the economy.
> 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.