Everything Is Booming Except for Wages(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Everything Is Booming Except for Wages
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-23/u-s-economic-growth-isn-t-translating-into-bigger-paychecks
237 comments
Unemployment is so low and companies continue to complain that they can’t find anyone. The unspoken end of that sentence is they can’t find anyone at the wage they are offering. It’s only a matter of time before companies will be forced to start increasing wages just so they can find people.
A lot of that unemployment is low because of tricks like counting people with part-time jobs forced on them (that might still work full time to not get fired) as properly employed, or anybody that gave up looking for a job as employed, or anybody that has some occasional gig in the last 6 months as employed and so on. Not because many people have steady, quality jobs.
Those aren't tricks, they are the people doing the measuring making choices about what to measure.
Maybe the press should focus on U6, who knows.
(except U3 is preferred by employers because it more directly predicts the marginal slack in the labor force...)
Maybe the press should focus on U6, who knows.
(except U3 is preferred by employers because it more directly predicts the marginal slack in the labor force...)
>Those aren't tricks, they are the people doing the measuring making choices about what to measure.
Well, to make unemployment vanish by sleight of hand is a choice. That doesn't mean it's not also a trick.
I used the more loaded word "trick" because I believe that they are human scum interested in hiding the problem, not people "making choices about what to measure" in order to better measure it.
Well, to make unemployment vanish by sleight of hand is a choice. That doesn't mean it's not also a trick.
I used the more loaded word "trick" because I believe that they are human scum interested in hiding the problem, not people "making choices about what to measure" in order to better measure it.
It's a cool angry story, but they publish U6 on the same schedule as U3.
> Well, to make unemployment vanish by sleight of hand is a choice. That doesn't mean it's not also a trick.
If you look at labor force participation and underemployment you'll see those stats have remained the same or even improved in recent years.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-parti...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205240/us-underemploymen...
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/underemployment-...
Taking these into consideration that means unemployment dropping seems pretty good.
If you look at labor force participation and underemployment you'll see those stats have remained the same or even improved in recent years.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-parti...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205240/us-underemploymen...
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/underemployment-...
Taking these into consideration that means unemployment dropping seems pretty good.
Meaning there's a small recovery from the result of the greatest economic disaster of all time ? (2008, meaning compared to the low of 2009-2011)
Yes.
Compared to the previous high ? (2007)
No.
Meaning we're even at the level when I entered the workforce (~2000) ?
No.
Meaning compared to when I was born ? (~1980)
Oh my God, no.
And then we're not even getting into why people use the term "secular stagnation".
So I guess it depends on how you look at it. Or rather it depends on how you pick your comparison. Given that most of the people that lost their jobs in the 90s, 00s are only now, after 10 years of serious problems, exiting the workforce into retirement, I'd say a lot of folks are thoroughly f-cked.
Yes.
Compared to the previous high ? (2007)
No.
Meaning we're even at the level when I entered the workforce (~2000) ?
No.
Meaning compared to when I was born ? (~1980)
Oh my God, no.
And then we're not even getting into why people use the term "secular stagnation".
So I guess it depends on how you look at it. Or rather it depends on how you pick your comparison. Given that most of the people that lost their jobs in the 90s, 00s are only now, after 10 years of serious problems, exiting the workforce into retirement, I'd say a lot of folks are thoroughly f-cked.
Calling 2008 the greatest economic disaster of all time doesn't strike me as accurate. Maybe it is by total dollars of market value lost or something like that, but we didn't see anything like the 25% unemployment, previously middle class families lined up around the block at soup kitchens, etc. that we saw in the Great Depression
True, but that’s mostly because we papered over the disaster with debt. Personal, student, sovereign and total debt are extremely high.
Not that anyone minded - QE was considered a success and allowed the businesses it protected to stay afloat
But I do think it could setup the next recession to be harsher.
Recessions in the 70s and 80s were bad, but pretty short. Businesses went bust, assets were dumped for pennies, and then 18 months later it was done.
There’s some healthy clean up and fresh starts that happen after a typical recession. I guess time will tell what works best.
Personally I don’t think the business cycle of boom and bust can be solved with debt in the long run.
Not that anyone minded - QE was considered a success and allowed the businesses it protected to stay afloat
But I do think it could setup the next recession to be harsher.
Recessions in the 70s and 80s were bad, but pretty short. Businesses went bust, assets were dumped for pennies, and then 18 months later it was done.
There’s some healthy clean up and fresh starts that happen after a typical recession. I guess time will tell what works best.
Personally I don’t think the business cycle of boom and bust can be solved with debt in the long run.
They are measuring unemployment not underemployment. I think it's totally fair to include part time gigs that produce a family income at greater than minimum wage @ 40hour work week.
They are not trying to hide anything. They publish hundreds of pages of data about employment and unemployment every month. Just because the one most popular number doesn't completely describe the entire state of employment for the entire country (how could any one number completely describe it?) doesn't mean they are trying to hide anything.
> It’s only a matter of time before companies will be forced to start increasing wages
This article is from February. Wages, at that point, were increasing a little faster than inflation. They’re now increasing considerably faster than inflation outside manufacturing, which is confronting the twin headwinds of automation and export...erm...difficulties. Fortunately, a solid (and shrinking) minority of Americans work are exposed.
This article is from February. Wages, at that point, were increasing a little faster than inflation. They’re now increasing considerably faster than inflation outside manufacturing, which is confronting the twin headwinds of automation and export...erm...difficulties. Fortunately, a solid (and shrinking) minority of Americans work are exposed.
Increasing considerably faster? Do you have a citation for this information with some specific numbers for 'considerably faster'?
> Do you have a citation for this information with some specific numbers for 'considerably faster'
From February 2009, the year after the crisis, through February 2018, when this article was published, average seasonally-adjusted hourly earnings of American private-sector employees rose by 2.2% per year [1][a]. From February through July, the same statistic rose at an annualized rate of 5.9% [b]. The former approximates inflation; the latter dramatically exceeds it.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003
[a] (26.74 / 22) ^ (1 / 9) - 1
[b] (27.05 / 26.74) ^ (1 / (1 / 5)) - 1
From February 2009, the year after the crisis, through February 2018, when this article was published, average seasonally-adjusted hourly earnings of American private-sector employees rose by 2.2% per year [1][a]. From February through July, the same statistic rose at an annualized rate of 5.9% [b]. The former approximates inflation; the latter dramatically exceeds it.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003
[a] (26.74 / 22) ^ (1 / 9) - 1
[b] (27.05 / 26.74) ^ (1 / (1 / 5)) - 1
I realise I am late to the thread, but to set the record straight, you sir have got your math wrong. 5 months is not 1/5 of a year, but 5/12, so the correct annualised growth rate for Feb-July 2018 is
(27.05 / 26.74) ^ (1 / (5 / 12)) - 1 = 2.8%
An improvement, but hardly a spectacular one, and nowhere near 5.9%.
(27.05 / 26.74) ^ (1 / (5 / 12)) - 1 = 2.8%
An improvement, but hardly a spectacular one, and nowhere near 5.9%.
Are you suggesting something happened in February to change things or just using the most convenient time frame?
Data on BLS shows wages going from $26.34 in July 2017 to $27.05 in July 2018 [1]. That is 2.7% wage growth.
CPI data from July 2017 to July 2018 shows 2.9% increase for all items [2].
This is negative real wage growth over the past 12-months. It's also worth keeping in mind that these are average wages, so they would be susceptible to wage movements at the higher-end (as there is no upper-bound).
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Data on BLS shows wages going from $26.34 in July 2017 to $27.05 in July 2018 [1]. That is 2.7% wage growth.
CPI data from July 2017 to July 2018 shows 2.9% increase for all items [2].
This is negative real wage growth over the past 12-months. It's also worth keeping in mind that these are average wages, so they would be susceptible to wage movements at the higher-end (as there is no upper-bound).
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Yes, if you cherry-pick your baseline at the bottom of the worst economic catastrophe of the last 80 years, then things don't look too shabby.
> if you cherry-pick your baseline at the bottom of the worst economic catastrophe of the last 80 years
The 2007-09 "bear market...lasted from October 9th 2007 to March 9th 2009" [1]. Using the same data as before [2] we find similarly-paltry 2.2% annualized wage growth between October 2007 and October 2017 [a].
Your counterargument is not only inaccurate, it also makes no sense. My argument relies on the former number being smaller than the latter. Picking a low baseline presents my evidence in its most conservative form.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2...
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003
[a] (26.47 / 21.06) ^ (1 / 10) - 1
The 2007-09 "bear market...lasted from October 9th 2007 to March 9th 2009" [1]. Using the same data as before [2] we find similarly-paltry 2.2% annualized wage growth between October 2007 and October 2017 [a].
Your counterargument is not only inaccurate, it also makes no sense. My argument relies on the former number being smaller than the latter. Picking a low baseline presents my evidence in its most conservative form.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2...
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003
[a] (26.47 / 21.06) ^ (1 / 10) - 1
Yes, which is why you should pick earliest data to be the most conservative and then say "hey, we're living much better than people in 1800s".
Comparing down is not helpful. The government is supposed to be striving up and not letting things settle compared to a low baseline or slide down.
If you're arguing that the situation is within bounds of some sort of cycle or variance, you get to show evidence for bounded variance (e.g. bands) and arguments on how much of it is normal.
Comparing down is not helpful. The government is supposed to be striving up and not letting things settle compared to a low baseline or slide down.
If you're arguing that the situation is within bounds of some sort of cycle or variance, you get to show evidence for bounded variance (e.g. bands) and arguments on how much of it is normal.
> which is why you should pick earliest data to be the most conservative and then say "hey, we're living much better than people in 1800s"
My argument was that wage growth in the last few months has been significant; before that it was insignificant. So yes, the average American is earning more (in real terms) than in the 1800s, 1950s or even mid-2000s. But that wasn’t the argument.
My argument was that wage growth in the last few months has been significant; before that it was insignificant. So yes, the average American is earning more (in real terms) than in the 1800s, 1950s or even mid-2000s. But that wasn’t the argument.
Could you perhaps elaborate on how this compares to the BLS Real Earnings report https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf ?
They don't, because it isn't true. Source, first link when you search "BLS wage growth" which links to the BLS site a PDF that shows wage growth is flat over time with some volatility.
But companies can't increase wages if it makes them uncompetitive. I think a huge downward pressure on wages is the fact that more industries have moved into "winner take all" economics, so all of the also-rans face immense pressure to keep costs down in an attempt to compete.
Consider the bloodbath in retail. Amazon possesses so many structural advantages at this point that other retail companies are forced to do everything they can to keep costs low. A raise in wages could very easily make them even more uncompetitive with Amazon.
Consider the bloodbath in retail. Amazon possesses so many structural advantages at this point that other retail companies are forced to do everything they can to keep costs low. A raise in wages could very easily make them even more uncompetitive with Amazon.
Conversely, not having appropriate, enough or under-skilled employees makes them uncompetitive as well.
In retail, consider Costco, who are known for paying decent wages and benefits. As a result of that, they have less shrink/theft and are able to compete.
In technology, consider any big name tech firm. Chances are they understand what skills they need to be competitive and are willing to pay for them - creating upwards pressure for tech folks.
In retail, consider Costco, who are known for paying decent wages and benefits. As a result of that, they have less shrink/theft and are able to compete.
In technology, consider any big name tech firm. Chances are they understand what skills they need to be competitive and are willing to pay for them - creating upwards pressure for tech folks.
What did the larger corporations widely do after Trump's taxcuts? Invest heavily in stock buy backs. They have the means to pay their workers more, they just don't want to.
Also, they "can't increase wages if it makes them uncompetitive" doesn't square with "Everything Is Booming[...]" bit.
Also, they "can't increase wages if it makes them uncompetitive" doesn't square with "Everything Is Booming[...]" bit.
Which is the hidden downside of free market economics. It incentivises exactly this kind of cost cutting, even when it isn't beenficial to society.
Downside? We wouldn’t have the level of wealth today if we didn’t become more efficient in our production (I.e. lower cost).
The level of wealth we have is disproportionately assigned to the minority of people best able to exploit the majority of people. Obviously we can go back and forth on the specifics of how the world's current state of prosperity has benefits and harms, but to present that level of wealth as intrinsically beneficial is disingenuous.
You didn’t address my point at all. You claimed that “cost efficies” are a negative about capitalism and I said that’s the reason why level of wealth has changed increased dramatically even for the lowest rung.
Just because it’s disproportionate doesn’t mean my statement isn’t true.
Just because it’s disproportionate doesn’t mean my statement isn’t true.
Your points are not mutually exclusive. The efficiencies are a large part of the reason we’ve collectively grown our wealth. They also are at times not the most advantageous to our society.
Right, that's the upside: cost cutting by means of more efficient production. This can often be good. But not all cost cutting is equal. Say for example if a company cuts their costs by lobbying for lower taxes on the product that they sell. This could well be harmful to society, but is still incentivised in our economy.
We need more nuance in our policy than "always incentivise lower prices".
We need more nuance in our policy than "always incentivise lower prices".
But it is beneficial to society. It keeps prices low and accessible.
What good are increasing wages if it is accompanied by inflation that negates those increases?
The truth is that the minimum wage worker today is able to purchase a LOT more than they could in the past.
The only two costs that have gone up disproportionately are housing and healthcare. The former is due to bad government policy that encourages homeownership as an investment. The latter is due to cost disease.
What good are increasing wages if it is accompanied by inflation that negates those increases?
The truth is that the minimum wage worker today is able to purchase a LOT more than they could in the past.
The only two costs that have gone up disproportionately are housing and healthcare. The former is due to bad government policy that encourages homeownership as an investment. The latter is due to cost disease.
Outside of space-limited desirable locations where house prices are the result of a bidding war, the problem of house prices is related to expectations and the resulting regulation.
To get an FHA loan, all sorts of stuff has to be present and in good condition. Zoning requirements, building codes, and the ADA have all jacked up prices. You can't just build yourself a shack anymore.
Example location: Sommerville Massachusetts, where you can't legally build the city today. Nearly everything is in violation. The same applies in Manhattan.
Example feature: We now have to have arc fault interrupters and wired-together fire alarms, even if you can't stand them. For decades we got by with low-cost circuit breakers and battery-powered fire alarms.
People who are living well start to see expensive things as being important, and so they feel that the features should be mandated, and it seems like only a trivial cost... but just like software bloat, it adds up over time. Sellers of the features push for it too. We end up pricing less-well-off people out of the market.
I am simply prohibited from building a house that would have been good-quality construction in medieval times. I can't even build an ordinary house of the 1980s... and even last year's design is often illegal to build. There is a ratchet effect here. Requirements keep getting added, but none are ever removed.
To get an FHA loan, all sorts of stuff has to be present and in good condition. Zoning requirements, building codes, and the ADA have all jacked up prices. You can't just build yourself a shack anymore.
Example location: Sommerville Massachusetts, where you can't legally build the city today. Nearly everything is in violation. The same applies in Manhattan.
Example feature: We now have to have arc fault interrupters and wired-together fire alarms, even if you can't stand them. For decades we got by with low-cost circuit breakers and battery-powered fire alarms.
People who are living well start to see expensive things as being important, and so they feel that the features should be mandated, and it seems like only a trivial cost... but just like software bloat, it adds up over time. Sellers of the features push for it too. We end up pricing less-well-off people out of the market.
I am simply prohibited from building a house that would have been good-quality construction in medieval times. I can't even build an ordinary house of the 1980s... and even last year's design is often illegal to build. There is a ratchet effect here. Requirements keep getting added, but none are ever removed.
Except for rent, which shows no sign of stopping it's climb in cities and their associated suburbs.
The housing market is hardly an example of free market economics.
So, what is the example then?
Personally, I think free market belongs to a class of spherical cow models.
Personally, I think free market belongs to a class of spherical cow models.
Rent is also tied to bad housing policy that prevents building.
> What good are increasing wages if it is accompanied by inflation that negates those increases?
Nothing. But that’s not the situation we’re in. The implication that your “if” would come true is an argument against any increase in wages ever. but it assumes that we’re in some sort of equilibrium where everyone spends 100% of their money and spends it on the same things.
Nothing. But that’s not the situation we’re in. The implication that your “if” would come true is an argument against any increase in wages ever. but it assumes that we’re in some sort of equilibrium where everyone spends 100% of their money and spends it on the same things.
> The truth is that the minimum wage worker today is able to purchase a LOT more than they could in the past.
Except for energy, housing, health care, and education. But besides that sure, android phones are cheap!
Except for energy, housing, health care, and education. But besides that sure, android phones are cheap!
Housing, healthcare, and education are expensive because of increased demand and unwillingness or inability to expand supply (e.g. restrictions on building denser housing in a lot of desirable areas, strong social pressure to get a 4 year education). Some of them are actually exacerbated by public involvement - easy access to credit for education means universities can charge a lot more.
It's not just electronics that are cheaper. Things we take for granted now - owning a refrigerator, a car, heck even things like electricity and plumbing - were out of reach for many people a matter of decades ago. Sure many of these things were made in good old 'Murica back then and created low-skilled jobs - but these products also cost a much larger percentage of the average household's available income.
You're also ignoring the immense benefit that free global markets provide for countries other those in the First World. China's shift to a free market economy singlehandedly halved global poverty. We tend to index heavily on the American that needs to change fields when his job is "shipped overseas". Rarely do litanies against free markets consider those overseas - almost always in a more precarious financial position than the country that is losing low skilled jobs - who get a chance to improve their lives due to free global markets.
It's not just electronics that are cheaper. Things we take for granted now - owning a refrigerator, a car, heck even things like electricity and plumbing - were out of reach for many people a matter of decades ago. Sure many of these things were made in good old 'Murica back then and created low-skilled jobs - but these products also cost a much larger percentage of the average household's available income.
You're also ignoring the immense benefit that free global markets provide for countries other those in the First World. China's shift to a free market economy singlehandedly halved global poverty. We tend to index heavily on the American that needs to change fields when his job is "shipped overseas". Rarely do litanies against free markets consider those overseas - almost always in a more precarious financial position than the country that is losing low skilled jobs - who get a chance to improve their lives due to free global markets.
Appliances today have much shorter lifespans than previously, so it's hard to tell if they're cheaper or more expensive.
[deleted]
Whatever the reasons of higher expense, key items are still pricier.
Many of those "key" items weren't even considered "key" items a matter of decades ago, because their costs were too high for the average family and most didn't even think to expect those things. When did the notion that even every moderate high school student go to a four year university become prevalent? Certainly it was some time in the last half century. Same with electricity. Electricity and associated electronics have become so prevalent that we buy desks with USB ports, and the thought of living in an home with no electricity is practically foreign to most people. And healthcare? Infant mortality nearly halved from 1949 to 1970 (28 to 17 per 1000 live births), and has since more than halved over again (5.8).
I think it's important to view the trajectory of progress not in how is lines up with how reality lines up with our expectations (because any optimistic society will - and should - strive for better), but by seeing how our reality lines with with what used to be reality.
I think it's important to view the trajectory of progress not in how is lines up with how reality lines up with our expectations (because any optimistic society will - and should - strive for better), but by seeing how our reality lines with with what used to be reality.
When did the notion that every even moderate high school student could get a job and buy a house stop being prevalent? Certainly it was some time in the last half century.
Yes we get it, it's great that we have antibiotics and electricity, but it's completely missing the point. Food, shelter, education, and health are not luxury goods, they are the foundation of a functioning civilization.
Yes we get it, it's great that we have antibiotics and electricity, but it's completely missing the point. Food, shelter, education, and health are not luxury goods, they are the foundation of a functioning civilization.
> It’s only a matter of time before companies will be forced to start increasing wages just so they can find people.
It’s been like 30+ years. When does the trickle begin?
It’s been like 30+ years. When does the trickle begin?
In a closed labour market (one where the number of available workers remains stable) it would have begun rising already. Wages are artificially depressed using immigration. Like most markets, labour vs demand for labour is just a function of supply and demand.
*Just to clarify, this issue is definitely more complicated than an S&D curve and it is not my intention for this issue to become mired in politics. However it's worth having a discussion about domestic wage stagnation and the decline of the middle class in the US, and how it relates to the past 30 years of trade liberalization and increased immigration rates.
*Just to clarify, this issue is definitely more complicated than an S&D curve and it is not my intention for this issue to become mired in politics. However it's worth having a discussion about domestic wage stagnation and the decline of the middle class in the US, and how it relates to the past 30 years of trade liberalization and increased immigration rates.
When you say "just a function of supply and demand". This only applies to perfectly competitive markets where everyone has perfect information. The labor market is a textbook example of information asymmetry.
Your point rings true, but I think you're talking more about more microscopic asymmetries in wages. Certainly in some areas of the country you have a demand for labour that is not satisfied by cross state migration, however the aggregate demand doesn't really change. When you add excess labour to the closed system (The whole of the US labour market) it will inevitably reduce demand as companies looking to fill roles are more easily able to do so.
> When you add excess labour to the closed system (The whole of the US labour market) it will inevitably reduce demand as companies looking to fill roles are more easily able to do so.
An increase in supply will result in an increased supply. But as I've said in another response--adding people to the economy also tends to increase the aggregate demand for labor. It's not a simple function.
An increase in supply will result in an increased supply. But as I've said in another response--adding people to the economy also tends to increase the aggregate demand for labor. It's not a simple function.
>Adding people to the economy also tends to increase the aggregate demand for labor.
I agree, but the contention is the lag between growth in demand and new immigration. More people will consume more and increase aggregate demand, this we agree on. Most new immigrants don't add a lot to domestic consumption especially if they come from a background of relative poverty. So finding that balance is important.
Just to state, I am more for increasing immigration for people with advanced degrees, but when it comes to low skilled immigration I feel that as a nation we owe it to our poorest to look out for their interests as long as wages remain stagnant for their income strata.
I agree, but the contention is the lag between growth in demand and new immigration. More people will consume more and increase aggregate demand, this we agree on. Most new immigrants don't add a lot to domestic consumption especially if they come from a background of relative poverty. So finding that balance is important.
Just to state, I am more for increasing immigration for people with advanced degrees, but when it comes to low skilled immigration I feel that as a nation we owe it to our poorest to look out for their interests as long as wages remain stagnant for their income strata.
We don't know what the impact of low skilled immigrants is on aggregate demand or on wage growth in the short term. Studies done on low-skill immigration are inconclusive. Google, the Mariel boatlift studies for example. Some studies show a decrease in wages, some show an increase, and some show no impact.
Generally this indicates that the effect is too small to overcome statistical noise.
In the long term however, we have good evidence to support that immigration of all kinds is a net benefit to the economy.
> I feel that as a nation we owe it to our poorest to look out for their interests as long as wages remain stagnant for their income strata.
And if immigration is likely beneficial long term, and the short term impact is unknown or at least too small to easily measure, then decreasing immigration isn't necessarily looking out for their interests (or the interests of their children).
Automation will likely play a much bigger role in wage growth over the next decades, but no popular politicians are calling for an ban on self-checkout lines.
Generally this indicates that the effect is too small to overcome statistical noise.
In the long term however, we have good evidence to support that immigration of all kinds is a net benefit to the economy.
> I feel that as a nation we owe it to our poorest to look out for their interests as long as wages remain stagnant for their income strata.
And if immigration is likely beneficial long term, and the short term impact is unknown or at least too small to easily measure, then decreasing immigration isn't necessarily looking out for their interests (or the interests of their children).
Automation will likely play a much bigger role in wage growth over the next decades, but no popular politicians are calling for an ban on self-checkout lines.
> And if immigration is likely beneficial long term, and the short term impact is unknown or at least too small to easily measure
What’s the evidence that it is beneficial in the long term?
We have had decades of flat wage growth and large l increases in cost of living.
In the short term it’s clearly negative when you take into account not just wages but increased pressure on housing and infrastructure.
What’s the evidence that it is beneficial in the long term?
We have had decades of flat wage growth and large l increases in cost of living.
In the short term it’s clearly negative when you take into account not just wages but increased pressure on housing and infrastructure.
>What’s the evidence that it is beneficial in the long term?
This is the consensus view among economists. If you do some searching it's going to be hard to find anyone outside of far right ethno-state proponents who doesn't believe that long term immigration is a net benefit.
"Economic analysis finds little support for the view that inflows of foreign labor have reduced jobs or Americans’ wages. Economic theory predictions and the bulk of academic research confirms that wages are unaffected by immigration over the long-term and that the economic effects of immigration are mostly positive for natives and for the overall economy." [1]
>In the short term it’s very clearly negative when you take into account not just wages but increased pressure on housing and infrastructure.
This is not very clear. If you take it to the extreme, sure there is some amount of immigration could cause enough such a strain on housing supply and infrastructure that it would be a net detriment. We don't know what the number is, and there is no consensus view that we've come anywhere close to reaching it.
[1] http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-ef...
This is the consensus view among economists. If you do some searching it's going to be hard to find anyone outside of far right ethno-state proponents who doesn't believe that long term immigration is a net benefit.
"Economic analysis finds little support for the view that inflows of foreign labor have reduced jobs or Americans’ wages. Economic theory predictions and the bulk of academic research confirms that wages are unaffected by immigration over the long-term and that the economic effects of immigration are mostly positive for natives and for the overall economy." [1]
>In the short term it’s very clearly negative when you take into account not just wages but increased pressure on housing and infrastructure.
This is not very clear. If you take it to the extreme, sure there is some amount of immigration could cause enough such a strain on housing supply and infrastructure that it would be a net detriment. We don't know what the number is, and there is no consensus view that we've come anywhere close to reaching it.
[1] http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-ef...
> This is the consensus view among economists.
Economists are the modern day equivalent of seers reading tea leaves.
> who doesn't believe that long term immigration is a net benefit.
1) Well the first problem is they are lumping all long term immigration together.
Yet it’s clear that not all immigration is alike. For example:
“the estimated fiscal burden of immigration is five times higher for native residents of California than of New Jersey”
2) The second problem is the focus on wages instead of total economic gain:
“They find a small but positive effect, equal to about half a percentage point, on the average wages of native workers”
And they go on to state the key reason for the lack of wage decline is because native workers are pushed out of lower skilled jobs and go into jobs that immigrants lack the skills for.
They aren’t taking into account the additional costs (whether they be additional study, higher stress, lack of flexibility, etc) to the native born.
E.g. A half percentage point pay rise from a new job is a financial net negative if I have to go to college to get the new job.
3) The third and biggest problem is they give no indication that the kind of immigration the US has is sustainable.
For example can natives continue shifting to communication heavy and education heavy roles without limit?
And if they can’t the article makes it clear that immigration will likely result in wage decline:
“both studies find that earlier immigrants experienced wage declines, on average, of 4 to 7 percent” [from new immigrants competing for their jobs]
Edit: Worse still they don’t even compare low skilled immigrants to the next best alternative. It reeks of bias.
Economists are the modern day equivalent of seers reading tea leaves.
> who doesn't believe that long term immigration is a net benefit.
1) Well the first problem is they are lumping all long term immigration together.
Yet it’s clear that not all immigration is alike. For example:
“the estimated fiscal burden of immigration is five times higher for native residents of California than of New Jersey”
2) The second problem is the focus on wages instead of total economic gain:
“They find a small but positive effect, equal to about half a percentage point, on the average wages of native workers”
And they go on to state the key reason for the lack of wage decline is because native workers are pushed out of lower skilled jobs and go into jobs that immigrants lack the skills for.
They aren’t taking into account the additional costs (whether they be additional study, higher stress, lack of flexibility, etc) to the native born.
E.g. A half percentage point pay rise from a new job is a financial net negative if I have to go to college to get the new job.
3) The third and biggest problem is they give no indication that the kind of immigration the US has is sustainable.
For example can natives continue shifting to communication heavy and education heavy roles without limit?
And if they can’t the article makes it clear that immigration will likely result in wage decline:
“both studies find that earlier immigrants experienced wage declines, on average, of 4 to 7 percent” [from new immigrants competing for their jobs]
Edit: Worse still they don’t even compare low skilled immigrants to the next best alternative. It reeks of bias.
No- economists are the people with compasses, when the question usually are “can you help find my keys.”
Econ models are good, but their pretty useless to normal people.
For example In this scenario the reason that economist say that immigration is a net positive, is because those immigrants also need
Food Water Clothes Shelter
So the addition of those people ends up increasing total demand.
Econ is brought up to win arguments, while policy is hidden away.
The fact is that wages will go down because automation is crushing it and firms now have the ability to set prices for the market.
Immigration is a convenient concept, but ultimately useless in diagnosing or dealing with the problem.
Problem is America has a lack of good jobs, humans are hard to retrain and most of your welfare and support systems have been systematically gutted.
Econ models are good, but their pretty useless to normal people.
For example In this scenario the reason that economist say that immigration is a net positive, is because those immigrants also need
Food Water Clothes Shelter
So the addition of those people ends up increasing total demand.
Econ is brought up to win arguments, while policy is hidden away.
The fact is that wages will go down because automation is crushing it and firms now have the ability to set prices for the market.
Immigration is a convenient concept, but ultimately useless in diagnosing or dealing with the problem.
Problem is America has a lack of good jobs, humans are hard to retrain and most of your welfare and support systems have been systematically gutted.
>Economists are the modern day equivalent of seers reading tea leaves.
So the experts are useless because the data is just too complex to make accurate models, but the data isn't too complex for you to use to make accurate predictions?
Or are you saying that the expert consensus is wrong because it's a product of ideological bias, but your conclusions are correct because for some unknown reason you are free from bias?
So the experts are useless because the data is just too complex to make accurate models, but the data isn't too complex for you to use to make accurate predictions?
Or are you saying that the expert consensus is wrong because it's a product of ideological bias, but your conclusions are correct because for some unknown reason you are free from bias?
> In the long term however, we have good evidence to support that immigration of all kinds is a net benefit to the economy.
How is that working out for Sweden at the moment?
How is that working out for Sweden at the moment?
1. Sweden has had one of the best performing economies in Europe over the last few years.
2. You realize you were replying to a statement that said "In the long term"?
2. You realize you were replying to a statement that said "In the long term"?
Several studies have been made on immigrants net contribution to the public sector. With the low immigrant unemployment rate and a smaller share of the total population, the studies concluded that immigrant net contribution to the public sector was either negligible, neutral or slightly positive up until the 1970s. With increasing unemployment rates and a larger share of the total population, this was shown no longer to be true in 1999 by Ekberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden
None of what you said addresses the effect of immigration on the economy as a whole in the long term...at all.
> Wages are artificially depressed using immigration.
What an amazing and completely original scapegoat. Even if it were true, using a 7th grade economics to describe the entirety of U.S. employment economics has to be a joke, right?
What an amazing and completely original scapegoat. Even if it were true, using a 7th grade economics to describe the entirety of U.S. employment economics has to be a joke, right?
He's not completely incorrect though: Illegal immigration accounts for a significant portion of farm and construction labor in the southwest/midwest because it gets around pesky minimum wage and other labor laws. These are usually unskilled jobs however, so their effect on other wages is likely nonsignificant. Legal Immigration in general tends to grow wages as the GDP and investment increases.
We also don't know what the real impact undocumented immigrants have on the labor market. They tend to have some impact on aggregate demand, the same as legal immigrants because they also participate in the economy as well.
Right. illegal immigration likely does not effect these numbers in a significant way, and legal immigration raises wages.
How is it not a scapegoat to say immigration is the cause of flat wages?
How is it not a scapegoat to say immigration is the cause of flat wages?
> How is it not a scapegoat to say immigration is the cause of flat wages?
Flood your economy with low skilled labor at the same time that average GDP growth is at an all-time low and productivity growth is at an all-time low. See what happens.
If your economy isn't growing fast enough to absorb the amount of low skill labor that you're importing, you're going to considerably depress wages.
In more realistic terms, 1.5% to 2% GDP growth isn't going to get you anywhere. You have a stagnant economy at those growth rates. Finally then the mistake is being made of throwing a lot of new unskilled labor on top of that at exactly the historical time when you need a lot of new unskilled labor the least.
Flood your economy with low skilled labor at the same time that average GDP growth is at an all-time low and productivity growth is at an all-time low. See what happens.
If your economy isn't growing fast enough to absorb the amount of low skill labor that you're importing, you're going to considerably depress wages.
In more realistic terms, 1.5% to 2% GDP growth isn't going to get you anywhere. You have a stagnant economy at those growth rates. Finally then the mistake is being made of throwing a lot of new unskilled labor on top of that at exactly the historical time when you need a lot of new unskilled labor the least.
What you’re saying is directly opposed to what the article states, FYI.
[deleted]
If the labor pool increases in relation to jobs, than yes, he's correct, it will depress wages, that's simple economics. However the blame doesn't lie with the immigrants: you shouldn't be working so simple a job it can be easily taken over by an unskilled worker and expect a decent wage.
When you add an immigrant to the country, it's not just the labor pool that grows - it's also the demand (because every new resident needs housing, food and other services), and that demand translates to jobs.
Exactly. I'm not sure why we're being down voted into oblivion, but this is exactly correct.
It's not really a scapegoat, it is a major part of the issue. The balance between wage growth and immigration rates don't seem to be discussed in mainstream politics (Likely because it's in the interests of the ownership class to keep the issue muted). The issue gets relegated to the fringes, and thus becomes an emotionally charged issue.
I am not an economist but immigration rates and the relaxing of barriers of trade between nations would seem to be the most impactful policies on domestic wage growth. You can always argue that these policies have helped to lift the rest of the world out of poverty, but it doesn't belie the fact that increased immigration rates impact on wage growth for American workers. Maybe someone could shed more light on this issue, but I would suspect that both issues are inexorably tied.
I am not an economist but immigration rates and the relaxing of barriers of trade between nations would seem to be the most impactful policies on domestic wage growth. You can always argue that these policies have helped to lift the rest of the world out of poverty, but it doesn't belie the fact that increased immigration rates impact on wage growth for American workers. Maybe someone could shed more light on this issue, but I would suspect that both issues are inexorably tied.
Immigration can have an impact on wages, but It's a much more complex function than more immigrants equals more labor supply equals lower wages.
Immigrants also contribute to the economy. Depending on how much they contribute, immigration can raise or lower wages. The issue is how much do they contribute? Immigration doves argue they are a net gain, while immigration hawks argue they are a net detriment.
Historically, in the long run, immigration has always been a net gain.
Immigrants also contribute to the economy. Depending on how much they contribute, immigration can raise or lower wages. The issue is how much do they contribute? Immigration doves argue they are a net gain, while immigration hawks argue they are a net detriment.
Historically, in the long run, immigration has always been a net gain.
It has begun, just not in America. American unskilled labor isn't competitive except for jobs that are difficult or impossible to offshore (e.g. construction, landscaping, agriculture), so American capital trickled into emerging markets instead. China, for example, has experienced a massive trickle-down of Western capital.
China, for example, has experienced a massive trickle-down of Western capital
This is not the effect that the term "trickle-down", or "supply-side" economics refers to. Trickle-down economics is a fallacious concept that says if you make rich people or corporations even richer, they will in turn re-invest their riches in things that employ wage-earners. There is no empirical support for this concept, and much empirical evidence that the reverse is true - a vibrant economy requires most of the economic activity to be enriching the lower/middle class wage earners.
The massive flow of capital to e.g. China is simply wage arbitrage combined with structural disadvantage, e.g., no worker safety protection, environmental protection, etc costs.
This is not the effect that the term "trickle-down", or "supply-side" economics refers to. Trickle-down economics is a fallacious concept that says if you make rich people or corporations even richer, they will in turn re-invest their riches in things that employ wage-earners. There is no empirical support for this concept, and much empirical evidence that the reverse is true - a vibrant economy requires most of the economic activity to be enriching the lower/middle class wage earners.
The massive flow of capital to e.g. China is simply wage arbitrage combined with structural disadvantage, e.g., no worker safety protection, environmental protection, etc costs.
What empirical evidence are you referring to that says rich people aren't investing their money? And if it is the case that they are indeed investing, where do you suppose China's investment-centric economy is getting capital from? Who do you suppose is paying Chinese workers manufacturing goods for American corporations?
If you leave out unskilled workers (whose share of capital went offshore), wage growth among skilled American laborers has been very high... which is also what you'd expect from trickle-down.
If you leave out unskilled workers (whose share of capital went offshore), wage growth among skilled American laborers has been very high... which is also what you'd expect from trickle-down.
> where do you suppose China's investment-centric economy is getting capital from?
From the Chinese central bank, which has massively expanded the economy through low interest rates and easy credit.
Wealthy people are are investing their windfalls, but not in production, but rather in rent-seeking FIRE assets. Those assets do not create middle- and lower-class wage jobs, in fact they suck income out of those classes.
> wage growth among skilled American laborers has been very high
You will have to support this with more than just an assertion. The wages for skilled trades, for instance, have not nearly kept up with inflation. Skilled manufacturing, same. Some of the professional categories, like software development, have seen some growth - but the outliers in SF/NY are outliers, not the median nationwide. Doctors net less, lawyers are mostly destitute unless they are in the 10% who make it in biglaw, and so on and so on.
From the Chinese central bank, which has massively expanded the economy through low interest rates and easy credit.
Wealthy people are are investing their windfalls, but not in production, but rather in rent-seeking FIRE assets. Those assets do not create middle- and lower-class wage jobs, in fact they suck income out of those classes.
> wage growth among skilled American laborers has been very high
You will have to support this with more than just an assertion. The wages for skilled trades, for instance, have not nearly kept up with inflation. Skilled manufacturing, same. Some of the professional categories, like software development, have seen some growth - but the outliers in SF/NY are outliers, not the median nationwide. Doctors net less, lawyers are mostly destitute unless they are in the 10% who make it in biglaw, and so on and so on.
Can you cite the Chinese low interest rates? The BLR is 4.3% according to this[0] is there something else going on?
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/china/bank-lending-rate
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/china/bank-lending-rate
China started to rein in the massive debt economy earlier this year. Current rates are not indicative of the past, and official rates don't reflect the enormous "shadow banking" industry that has been at the heart of the debt boom.[1]
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/45bd8052-59dc-11e8-bdb7-f6677d2e1...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/45bd8052-59dc-11e8-bdb7-f6677d2e1...
He's saying that the wage earners are in China instead of America and are recieving the 'trickle down' effects.
I'm saying they're not - they're receiving the benefit of wage arbitrage. US workers are on the losing end. That's not what supply-side economics is about.
So the jobs have to remain inside of the economy that created them to create the demand I think is what you're saying.
Supply-side economics seems kind of flawed then.
How does it account for automation taking jobs?
Supply-side economics seems kind of flawed then.
How does it account for automation taking jobs?
I never thought of it this way. Thanks for making me look at trickle down in a different light.
Trickle-down refers to a belief about the relationship between taxes and growth, not what the parent is using it to mean.
Care to explain why you think I’m using it incorrectly?
That's incorrect. It has begun in America. Just not in the manner some would like. The bottom has seen a dramatic improvement, the middle class has not.
The inflation adjusted per capita income transfer for welfare programs has nearly tripled since 1979.
The US welfare state has massively expanded over 30 and 40 years. The rich are paying for that social safety net expansion. The top 20% pay 87% of all income taxes in the US.
Nobody ever wants to talk about these facts because it's unpopular and deflates the propaganda.
US poverty is near an all-time low. Homelessness is at an all-time low. The poor now have near universal healthcare coverage.
The US spends more on welfare programs as a share of GDP than what Australia and Canada do. It'll surpass Switzerland on that metric within a couple of years. The US has a lower homelessness rate than Canada or France and a poverty rate as low as those.
The inflation adjusted per capita income transfer for welfare programs has nearly tripled since 1979.
The US welfare state has massively expanded over 30 and 40 years. The rich are paying for that social safety net expansion. The top 20% pay 87% of all income taxes in the US.
Nobody ever wants to talk about these facts because it's unpopular and deflates the propaganda.
US poverty is near an all-time low. Homelessness is at an all-time low. The poor now have near universal healthcare coverage.
The US spends more on welfare programs as a share of GDP than what Australia and Canada do. It'll surpass Switzerland on that metric within a couple of years. The US has a lower homelessness rate than Canada or France and a poverty rate as low as those.
> The poor now have near universal healthcare coverage
If the rest of the unfounded assertions above are as incorrect as this one, we should completely disregard this comment.
In many republican-controlled states, for instance, it is impossible for a non-disabled male living in poverty to obtain health coverage.
If the rest of the unfounded assertions above are as incorrect as this one, we should completely disregard this comment.
In many republican-controlled states, for instance, it is impossible for a non-disabled male living in poverty to obtain health coverage.
This is such a biased propaganda-ish statemet.
The top 20% pays more taxes because they make 80% of the money and own 80% of the assets in the country. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
As a PERCENTAGE of their income they pay much less that the middle and lower class.
The poor have universal health care? WAT. Cant even justify this with a response.
The US spends more on welfare programs as a share of GDP than what Australia and Canada do...but we're behind like 20 other countries. Bizzare cherry picking there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_...
The top 20% pays more taxes because they make 80% of the money and own 80% of the assets in the country. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
As a PERCENTAGE of their income they pay much less that the middle and lower class.
The poor have universal health care? WAT. Cant even justify this with a response.
The US spends more on welfare programs as a share of GDP than what Australia and Canada do...but we're behind like 20 other countries. Bizzare cherry picking there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_...
This isn’t about “trickle-down”, it’s basic supply and demand. If there’s a low supply of workers, and the demand is high, the price of workers goes up.
I think there is wage increase, but not as paying more for the people that keep doing the same thing as yesterday. Companies are forced to pay more for the skills in short supply. Google "angular dev salary" vs "java dev salary" - the wage difference is essentially that increase you're looking for.
Also, labor is relatively inelastic, if you are 'selling' yours. Switching jobs isn't like switching your brand of toothpaste. If workers could truly capitalize on the real value of their labor, nobody would stay at their job for more than 6 months.
Companies have been making that same complaint for 5 years, wages still stagnate.
It's possible that companies, being use to getting their way from the government, expects that their labor and wage woes will get soon get taken care of for them by government intervention in the labor market. If this is how they're viewing the issue, the have incentive to hold off on wage increases as long as possible so to not end up at a competitive disadvantage when their desired government policies get implemented. If those policies never actually come to be or are less effective than desired, then sooner or later some companies will try to gain a competitive advantage by offering higher wages. How long are employers willing to forego the ability to attract away labor from other employers with wage hikes is an unknown but as long as they believe the government will alter the labor market for them, they're unlikely to take a risk on wage increases.
That they might be thinking this way is pure speculation on my part but seems plausible.
>as long as they believe the government will alter the labor market for them, they're unlikely to take a risk on wage increases.
This wouldn't explain all of the times throughout history when companies did increase wages during times of economic growth and low unemployment.
This sounds like taking something that looks like a market failure and trying to frame it as a governmental failure.
This wouldn't explain all of the times throughout history when companies did increase wages during times of economic growth and low unemployment.
This sounds like taking something that looks like a market failure and trying to frame it as a governmental failure.
Why not both?
It can be both a market failure and governmental failure, either because it allowed it or because it is applying bandage solutions that actually do not work long term and not trying to figure out real ones. Alternatively it is bought by the actors causing the market failure.
Just the exploitation of certain properties of the imperfect markets that actually exist is enough for the current situation to occur in absence of arbitrage. Market could be working exactly as modeled given a full model with big information inequality and low labour elasticity.
It can be both a market failure and governmental failure, either because it allowed it or because it is applying bandage solutions that actually do not work long term and not trying to figure out real ones. Alternatively it is bought by the actors causing the market failure.
Just the exploitation of certain properties of the imperfect markets that actually exist is enough for the current situation to occur in absence of arbitrage. Market could be working exactly as modeled given a full model with big information inequality and low labour elasticity.
≥ Unemployment is so low and companies continue to complain that they can’t find anyone. The unspoken end of that sentence is they can’t find anyone at the wage they are offering.
But that's the requirement, apparently. At that wage.
Corporations reportedly enjoy a stellar recovery from the great recession. So they can go quite some time without raising wages; it's worked very well for them so far, by demonstration.
But that's the requirement, apparently. At that wage.
Corporations reportedly enjoy a stellar recovery from the great recession. So they can go quite some time without raising wages; it's worked very well for them so far, by demonstration.
Increasing wages will just take employees from somewhere else. It will not just magically increase the supply of workers in the country by a significant amount.
'a significant amount' I suppose depends on the location and situation. Just adding 12,000 employees to our medium city would certainly be a big impact for several businesses here.
Certainly if everyone doubled the wages here more people would come from other states, and more people would come from an hour away that would not otherwise.
It would also bring a lot of people to the workforce that are already here but not willing to work for half of what it costs to live. Whether that is considered magical or not I suppose depends on where you stand as an employer who is losing money because they are not able to be open their posted hours (steak and shake here for example) - or an employee willing to work, but literally can not afford rent, food and transportation, or someone who is being objective and not really affected by any of these things.
Everything is booming indeed, rents, cost of housing and cars, taxes. I think a lot of people want to participate that can not afford to.
Certainly if everyone doubled the wages here more people would come from other states, and more people would come from an hour away that would not otherwise.
It would also bring a lot of people to the workforce that are already here but not willing to work for half of what it costs to live. Whether that is considered magical or not I suppose depends on where you stand as an employer who is losing money because they are not able to be open their posted hours (steak and shake here for example) - or an employee willing to work, but literally can not afford rent, food and transportation, or someone who is being objective and not really affected by any of these things.
Everything is booming indeed, rents, cost of housing and cars, taxes. I think a lot of people want to participate that can not afford to.
Very true, and we need to keep repeating this until this misinformation stops.
Right, and this actually indicates that the market is working and very robust and healthy. Companies will try and hire the most qualified candidates at the lowest cost possible. If a company needs to fill positions desperately enough they will increase their offers.
It's helpful in this case to imagine that there is a majority of people who work in industries other than tech and finance.
I am very aware, moved out of SF for Tennessee.
Why are all of these articles so clueless as to what's actually happening, and how to solve it? Just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ every time.
Unions are the obvious easy fix [1]. Give the workers some real bargaining power and ability to stand up for themselves.
https://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequalit...
Unions are the obvious easy fix [1]. Give the workers some real bargaining power and ability to stand up for themselves.
https://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequalit...
Unions protect incumbent workers against new entrants. That's obviously great for you if you're personally an incumbent worker in an industry that's unionizing, but can't move the needle on the economy as a whole. As price rises, quantity demanded drops.
I hear this often but have never seen hard evidence of it working, unlike the OP who shows data which gives hard evidence.
BTW, I've seen enough handwaving and half-truths about unions peddled by those trying to further degrade them I've stopped seeing arguments against unions as being in good faith.
BTW, I've seen enough handwaving and half-truths about unions peddled by those trying to further degrade them I've stopped seeing arguments against unions as being in good faith.
Hard evidence of closed shops and hiring halls existing? Hard evidence of supply and demand dynamics?
This is not an argument for or against unions. As I mentioned, it’s likely in your personal interest to unionize if you can.
This is not an argument for or against unions. As I mentioned, it’s likely in your personal interest to unionize if you can.
Closed shops are illegal in America and have been since the 1950s. Because of this, an employer never is forced to hire from a hiring hall (though many choose to do so because the union often contributes to the cost of recruitment and training these candidates).
unions are an organization that can, if it's working properly (big if), stand on equal grounds with HR - and probably the only organization that won't get all of its workers-members fired the moment the company realizes what's going on. sometimes.
You’d have to explain why there’s the same problem in Germany, where there are many unions.
Yep.
Trade Union Congress (TUC) puts real wage growth in germany at 0.9%, and real wage growth in the USA at 1.2%
Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/national/uk-be-bottom-wage-growt...
Trade Union Congress (TUC) puts real wage growth in germany at 0.9%, and real wage growth in the USA at 1.2%
Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/national/uk-be-bottom-wage-growt...
>real wage growth in the USA at 1.2%
Does that take into account all wage earners? The lower 40% of the country has seen -2.4% real wage growth since the 70's, and the 40%-60% have only seen an increase of 0.5%. These numbers can be severely offset by including all salary ranges, the higher levels of course having actual wage growth but the lower 60% haven't seen anything.
https://www.businessinsider.com/record-median-household-inco...
Does that take into account all wage earners? The lower 40% of the country has seen -2.4% real wage growth since the 70's, and the 40%-60% have only seen an increase of 0.5%. These numbers can be severely offset by including all salary ranges, the higher levels of course having actual wage growth but the lower 60% haven't seen anything.
https://www.businessinsider.com/record-median-household-inco...
This is so frustrating. I clicked the link above on the "real wage growth of OECD countries" and it says nothing, specifically whether it's the median or it's an average. Too many times people swap the median and average which makes no sense for data that is a power law.
Enough, it's so misleading and mathematically illiterate it's frustrating especially because it comes from people who pretend they are "data driven."
Enough, it's so misleading and mathematically illiterate it's frustrating especially because it comes from people who pretend they are "data driven."
Because unions have been corrupted and sold out for decades...
Can I get an "and how"? I'd like a picture painted.
(...) The German parliament enacted the co-determination law in 1976, a form of employee participation that allows union representatives to serve on the Board of Directors of corporations and vote on firm-related business decisions. The co-determination law covers enterprises with a workforce of over 2,000 employees. A series of recent labor-management bribery scandals could, however, contribute to destabilizing this model, which celebrated its 30th anniversary in 2006. The former president and founder of the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft Unabhängiger Betriebsangehöriger,”1 an independent union representing 30,000 employees at the multi-national corporation Siemens, was charged in mid-February with illegally receiving 14 million Euros from Siemens.
The second unfolding union-bribery corruption scandal involves the former head of Volkswagen’s (VW) works council Klaus Volkert, a member of the IG Metall. (VW is Europe’s largest automobile manufacturer.) The former director of the VW labor relations department, Peter Hartz, admitted this past January to employing illegal spending accounts for prostitution and luxury trips to Brazil in which Volkert was a principal recipient of the payments. Documents show that Albert Schunk, an IG Metall member of the joint VW-IG Metall labor-management committee and responsible for international relationships for the union, also benefited from the illegal spending account for his trip to Brazil, including monies used for prostitutes. Keep in mind that Hartz was the architect of a set of neo-liberal reforms in Germany which reduced unemployment insurance for German workers. The reform is called Hartz IV and was enacted last year by the SPD-Green government.
Robert Fitch, who was interviewed by Michael Yates in Monthly Review, minimized the first VW corruption scandal as a kind of anomaly within the European labor movement. But such scandals are hardly new: former head of the IG Metall Klaus Zwickel resigned his post in 2003 in the midst of a criminal proceeding lodged against him. His unsavory role on the Board of Directors of the Mannesmann corporation in which departing executives were paid severance payments totaling 57 Million Euros was the source of great media attention, largely because the case involved the most devastating white-collar economic criminal case in the history of Germany. Zwickel agreed to pay a 60,000 Euro settlement and is, according to German law, free of criminal guilt. The timing of Zwickel’s resignation in 2003 coincided with the IG Metall’s first strike defeat in over 50 years.
Fitch moreover maintained that there is “no comparison between European and American corruption. No one has ever charged a European union with being a criminal enterprise.” The recent collapse of the union-controlled bank BAWAG (Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft) in Austria, however, would certainly qualify as an example of fundamental union corruption comparable to or surpassing American labor corruption. One German commentator described the scandal as “the downfall of the Austrian worker’s movement.” The BAWAG, the fourth largest bank in Austria, engaged in speculative business dealings in the Caribbean, which resulted in the loss of approximately 1 billion Euros. The Austrian Labor Federation (ÖGB) oversaw the bank, and the running shopping list of inept and criminal activities of the ÖGB could be attributed to a union leadership who were more interested in a wannabe-capitalist banker lifestyle rather than protecting the assets of ordinary rank-and-file members. The ÖGB turned the BAWAG into a criminal enterprise. The illegal practices of the BAWAG have resulted in the loss of the strike fund, an education fund for the children of union members, and an emergency assistance program for members who are experiencing a financial crisis. Union expenditures in Europe are not as transparent as in the United States. Consequently, union corruption in Germany is simply better disguised and therefore unregistered by many American labor journalists and commentators.
https://mronline.org/2007/02/21/where-is-the-german-trade-un...
In 2007, an attempt of a company to influence unions became publicly known that had been unprecedented in the history of German unions.
Already in the late 1970s, the Siemens AG made arrangements to weaken the impact of the DGB. The first goal was to reduce the power of the DGB in the board of directors. The essential execution of this plan started in the 1980s. The Association of Independent Employees (German: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Unabhängiger Betriebsangehöriger, AUB) was founded. As "the other union", the AUB positions itself today deliberately against "traditional unions". Although the AUB has only about 32,000 members, the AUB chairman Schelsky said in 2003: "In ten years, we will be the only competitor in Germany to the DGB." And then his organization was supposed to have stronger political power. After it became public that Siemens had made payments of about 14 million euro to Wilhelm Schelsky, a business consultant and AUB chairman, the offices of Schelsky, Siemens and the AUB were searched by police. On February 14, 2007, Schelsy was arrested on suspicion of offenses in connection with taxes. The payments from Siemens to Schelsky are now estimated to be about 54 million euros. However, direct payments from Siemens to the AUB could not be proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_Germany#Weaken...
The second unfolding union-bribery corruption scandal involves the former head of Volkswagen’s (VW) works council Klaus Volkert, a member of the IG Metall. (VW is Europe’s largest automobile manufacturer.) The former director of the VW labor relations department, Peter Hartz, admitted this past January to employing illegal spending accounts for prostitution and luxury trips to Brazil in which Volkert was a principal recipient of the payments. Documents show that Albert Schunk, an IG Metall member of the joint VW-IG Metall labor-management committee and responsible for international relationships for the union, also benefited from the illegal spending account for his trip to Brazil, including monies used for prostitutes. Keep in mind that Hartz was the architect of a set of neo-liberal reforms in Germany which reduced unemployment insurance for German workers. The reform is called Hartz IV and was enacted last year by the SPD-Green government.
Robert Fitch, who was interviewed by Michael Yates in Monthly Review, minimized the first VW corruption scandal as a kind of anomaly within the European labor movement. But such scandals are hardly new: former head of the IG Metall Klaus Zwickel resigned his post in 2003 in the midst of a criminal proceeding lodged against him. His unsavory role on the Board of Directors of the Mannesmann corporation in which departing executives were paid severance payments totaling 57 Million Euros was the source of great media attention, largely because the case involved the most devastating white-collar economic criminal case in the history of Germany. Zwickel agreed to pay a 60,000 Euro settlement and is, according to German law, free of criminal guilt. The timing of Zwickel’s resignation in 2003 coincided with the IG Metall’s first strike defeat in over 50 years.
Fitch moreover maintained that there is “no comparison between European and American corruption. No one has ever charged a European union with being a criminal enterprise.” The recent collapse of the union-controlled bank BAWAG (Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft) in Austria, however, would certainly qualify as an example of fundamental union corruption comparable to or surpassing American labor corruption. One German commentator described the scandal as “the downfall of the Austrian worker’s movement.” The BAWAG, the fourth largest bank in Austria, engaged in speculative business dealings in the Caribbean, which resulted in the loss of approximately 1 billion Euros. The Austrian Labor Federation (ÖGB) oversaw the bank, and the running shopping list of inept and criminal activities of the ÖGB could be attributed to a union leadership who were more interested in a wannabe-capitalist banker lifestyle rather than protecting the assets of ordinary rank-and-file members. The ÖGB turned the BAWAG into a criminal enterprise. The illegal practices of the BAWAG have resulted in the loss of the strike fund, an education fund for the children of union members, and an emergency assistance program for members who are experiencing a financial crisis. Union expenditures in Europe are not as transparent as in the United States. Consequently, union corruption in Germany is simply better disguised and therefore unregistered by many American labor journalists and commentators.
https://mronline.org/2007/02/21/where-is-the-german-trade-un...
In 2007, an attempt of a company to influence unions became publicly known that had been unprecedented in the history of German unions.
Already in the late 1970s, the Siemens AG made arrangements to weaken the impact of the DGB. The first goal was to reduce the power of the DGB in the board of directors. The essential execution of this plan started in the 1980s. The Association of Independent Employees (German: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Unabhängiger Betriebsangehöriger, AUB) was founded. As "the other union", the AUB positions itself today deliberately against "traditional unions". Although the AUB has only about 32,000 members, the AUB chairman Schelsky said in 2003: "In ten years, we will be the only competitor in Germany to the DGB." And then his organization was supposed to have stronger political power. After it became public that Siemens had made payments of about 14 million euro to Wilhelm Schelsky, a business consultant and AUB chairman, the offices of Schelsky, Siemens and the AUB were searched by police. On February 14, 2007, Schelsy was arrested on suspicion of offenses in connection with taxes. The payments from Siemens to Schelsky are now estimated to be about 54 million euros. However, direct payments from Siemens to the AUB could not be proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_Germany#Weaken...
By saying unions are the fix, you're implying that corporations are too powerful (or hold more power against employees). This was explicitly stated in the article.
> One possible reason is that employers are growing increasingly powerful.
> One possible reason is that employers are growing increasingly powerful.
I'm sorry that's not at all explicit.
You see the same trend in many other developed countries with strong union membership. You're gonna need more than one paragraph and a chart to convince me that unions are the answer to all of our problems.
Unions and increasing the minimum wage. It used to work, until we intentionally broke the system.
> It used to work
For at least half of the 20th century, unions had out of control corruption and cronyism. The biggest unions (Teamsters, etc) were totally controlled by organized crime.
Unions solve a few problems but introduce many others. Unions are also subject to the Shirky Principle[1]
[1] https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-shirky-prin/
For at least half of the 20th century, unions had out of control corruption and cronyism. The biggest unions (Teamsters, etc) were totally controlled by organized crime.
Unions solve a few problems but introduce many others. Unions are also subject to the Shirky Principle[1]
[1] https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-shirky-prin/
So, are we better off without them on median? If not, then apparently they were superior to current situation, no matter their flaws.
If you are proposing a superior solution, you are supposed to show it is superior. If it is neutral, you should also show it actually is neutral and not inferior.
I'd say that unions provide a controllable and governance alternative to employer wild west. If they are corrupt and crony, this is seen and can be fixed. Markets are not as easily controllable, even with laws.
If you are proposing a superior solution, you are supposed to show it is superior. If it is neutral, you should also show it actually is neutral and not inferior.
I'd say that unions provide a controllable and governance alternative to employer wild west. If they are corrupt and crony, this is seen and can be fixed. Markets are not as easily controllable, even with laws.
It's hard to say if we are better off with out them. I wasn't alive during the first half of the 20th century, but my grandpa was and he is vehemently against unions, having worked in them for 20+ years.
I am cautiously optimistic that unions can be a net good, but I'm also worried there aren't enough checks to balance them.
I am cautiously optimistic that unions can be a net good, but I'm also worried there aren't enough checks to balance them.
My country (Uruguay) has strong, very often out-of-control unions. I don't think they're a solution.
I've seen good union leaders, but most of them were corrupt and actively harmed the workers they purported to defend (when they weren't embezzling - and Argentina is even worse).
I've seen good union leaders, but most of them were corrupt and actively harmed the workers they purported to defend (when they weren't embezzling - and Argentina is even worse).
[deleted]
A union would deny me the freedom to negotiate my own wages.
For the majority of America there's no such thing as negotiating wages. Do you think McDonalds or Walmart are going to let you negotiate more than a few cents here and there? Nope. The union would be more beneficial to them.
If your negociating with walmart or mcdonalds you have nothing to offer in terms of skill. (for the jobs you are referencing)
Those people who have skills worth money like to negociate.
The great thing about that is everone can better themselves and be worth more.
Those people who have skills worth money like to negociate.
The great thing about that is everone can better themselves and be worth more.
Why does more skill imply negotiation opportunity? Because you can then threaten to go somewhere else? That depends on whether those other places have the same non-negotiation policy. That's the idea of a wage fixing cartel.
> For the majority of America there's no such thing as negotiating wages.
What makes you say that?
According to the first report I found via Google [1], workers who earn minimum wage make up about 2.3% of the labor force. Wouldn't that imply that almost all employees have at least some bargaining power?
Note: the report seems to only talk about workers paid hourly, I assume the statistic is no worse for full-time employees.
[1]: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm
What makes you say that?
According to the first report I found via Google [1], workers who earn minimum wage make up about 2.3% of the labor force. Wouldn't that imply that almost all employees have at least some bargaining power?
Note: the report seems to only talk about workers paid hourly, I assume the statistic is no worse for full-time employees.
[1]: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm
That's the federal minimum wage...a lot of states and cities have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage.
Negotiating only works when you have leverage. And the people with stagnating wages have no individual leverage. Unions work by grouping individuals with no leverage into a larger negotiating unit that does have leverage.
So yes, if you can go to your boss and demonstrate your value to your organization and your value above and beyond any replacement they can find, then you shouldn't need a union. But if that's not the case and your work is in any way fungible, then a union can definitely help tip the balance of power between employees and businesses that try to hoard all the profits for the owners.
So yes, if you can go to your boss and demonstrate your value to your organization and your value above and beyond any replacement they can find, then you shouldn't need a union. But if that's not the case and your work is in any way fungible, then a union can definitely help tip the balance of power between employees and businesses that try to hoard all the profits for the owners.
It doesn't matter if the employer need to hire ten other guys and pay them double your salary just to do your job, if you can't find another job that pays more.
No one is proposing forcing you into a union Brian, they are pointing out that people in low leverage jobs are likely to benefit from unionizing.
Luckily the world doesn't revolve around you.
Where do people come up with this crap? It’s trivially false: Tom Cruise is a member of the SAG and can demand his wages however he likes.
Jesus christ, bloomberg does not fuck around.
Terms of Service Violation
Your usage has been flagged as a violation of our terms of service.
For inquiries related to this message please contact support.
For sales inquiries, please visit
http://www.bloomberg.com/professional/request-demo
If you believe this to be in error, please confirm below that
you are not a robot by clicking "I'm not a robot" below.
Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies
and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more
information you can review the Terms of Service and Cookie
Policy.
Block reference ID: 2f6bf840-a96b-11e8-8a1f-91588296f859I've gotten a couple of these in Instapaper from Bloomberg, but most articles work fine.
Call them up and tell them you will not be changing your browser configuration.
Additionally I would probably add "shove your tos where the sun doesn't shine"
Additionally I would probably add "shove your tos where the sun doesn't shine"
Why? Value your time.
I think the most parsimonious explanation is too much supply of labor and not enough demand, so this means employers still have the upper hand. Low unemployment hides the low labor force participation rate. A lot of middle-aged and older men want to work but cannot. Many low and medium skill jobs still have too many applicants relative to open slots.
There is no reason to think that's the simplest explanation.
An equally simple explanation is that for the majority of jobs there is essentially a wage monopoly/cartel keeping wages low, and workers have significant barriers to moving to different areas. [1][2][3][4]
[1] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/6/17204808/wages-emp...
[2] https://www.thenation.com/article/does-monopoly-power-explai...
[3] https://ilsr.org/monopsony-labor-blp-episode-42/
[4] https://www.epi.org/publication/its-not-just-monopoly-and-mo...
An equally simple explanation is that for the majority of jobs there is essentially a wage monopoly/cartel keeping wages low, and workers have significant barriers to moving to different areas. [1][2][3][4]
[1] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/6/17204808/wages-emp...
[2] https://www.thenation.com/article/does-monopoly-power-explai...
[3] https://ilsr.org/monopsony-labor-blp-episode-42/
[4] https://www.epi.org/publication/its-not-just-monopoly-and-mo...
I think this is it. I think there is more slack in the labor market than is shown by traditional unemployment figures and that people that would have traditionally retired are still in the labor force.
Wages are always booming -- if you have the right skills. Generic "wage booms" aren't a thing that exists in a normal economy. There are a number of fields right now where there is an absolute shortage i.e. the number of qualified people at any price point is smaller than the number of jobs.
The point people often overlook is that, by and large, people cannot be easily trained into most kinds of roles that are experiencing strong wage growth. There is no easy way to satisfy a labor shortage that requires several years of training and experience to gain competency. But that is the reality.
Consequently, you have large numbers of $300k jobs that no one can fill and large numbers of people that can't find a job at $50k. These are separate markets.
The point people often overlook is that, by and large, people cannot be easily trained into most kinds of roles that are experiencing strong wage growth. There is no easy way to satisfy a labor shortage that requires several years of training and experience to gain competency. But that is the reality.
Consequently, you have large numbers of $300k jobs that no one can fill and large numbers of people that can't find a job at $50k. These are separate markets.
There are probably a couple of orders of magnitude less $300K jobs than $50K jobs. A "there exists" quantifier is useless when talking about the health of the entire US economy.
EDIT: thanks for the correction.
EDIT: thanks for the correction.
Are you saying the number of $300k jobs is not only greater than the number of $50k jobs but that there are several orders of magnitude more $300k jobs than $50k jobs? If you've accidentally reversed your numbers here then I totally agree with you.
Increasing the size of the pie doesn't mean anything unless you also increase the sizes of the slices people get.
Current inequality involves a larger pie, but with an ever smaller number of people getting the majority of the cake, so that others get the same old portions or less (despite working even harder than a company-man or union worker in the 50s and 60s).
Current inequality involves a larger pie, but with an ever smaller number of people getting the majority of the cake, so that others get the same old portions or less (despite working even harder than a company-man or union worker in the 50s and 60s).
Join a union. Join the IWW if you can't find one. America has a massively tilted playing field towards bosses and it needs to be tilted back.
Roughly 11-12% of the working age population is veterans (Using google for the rough figures and math)
It is far more fruitful to game the disability system than to pursue an actual productive career. - Anecdote: 2 personal fitness instructors with 100% disability. That is $3000 non-taxable dollars a month. For life. -- It is far more fruitful to game a bureaucratic machine than to put your mind and imagination towards fruitful work ~ This is not the same as saying "Throw them out in the street and let God sort 'em out". This is saying that a great and fruitful strategy for future vets is to rape the VA's disability system
: Temporary observations on dynamics that could be gamed to sustainability and ruin by over 10% of the possible working population ~ This is not a mere case of the ruin of commons. This is (at least) partially a manipulation by war planners to grossly underestimate the costs of constant war and constant operations. The costs of the VA are either not calculated in or are grossly distorted/underestimated by planners. It is not an organization for vets. It is an organization to cover the DoD's ass by bribing the living casualties of bureaucratic malfeasance and the normal living casualties in even the most competently executed wars.
It is far more fruitful to game the disability system than to pursue an actual productive career. - Anecdote: 2 personal fitness instructors with 100% disability. That is $3000 non-taxable dollars a month. For life. -- It is far more fruitful to game a bureaucratic machine than to put your mind and imagination towards fruitful work ~ This is not the same as saying "Throw them out in the street and let God sort 'em out". This is saying that a great and fruitful strategy for future vets is to rape the VA's disability system
: Temporary observations on dynamics that could be gamed to sustainability and ruin by over 10% of the possible working population ~ This is not a mere case of the ruin of commons. This is (at least) partially a manipulation by war planners to grossly underestimate the costs of constant war and constant operations. The costs of the VA are either not calculated in or are grossly distorted/underestimated by planners. It is not an organization for vets. It is an organization to cover the DoD's ass by bribing the living casualties of bureaucratic malfeasance and the normal living casualties in even the most competently executed wars.
Think of it as a form of positive income.
Doesn't help when the public is practically excited to perform tasks like getting groceries and picking up dry cleaning for $7/hr.
So, many possible reasons, and one way or another it's the relative power of employer vs. labor, but one possible factor: the longer the downturn/slowdown, the longer after it ends before wages go up. The recovery from the Great Recession was by far the slowest in living memory, so it takes longer before employers stop thinking "people will take this job soon, I just know it", and instead think "I'd better raise the pay or I'll lose the people I've got". And maybe they think that, because it's true, and you have to have a good labor market for a longer period of time before people start to hop jobs more, if they experienced a longer wait before they got the job they have.
Too much supply (employees) is a problem we should examine. Part of the reason why this is he case is because small business are having an increasingly difficult time competing with the resources of larger companies. Why have 6 accounts each at a small business of their own when a company 6 times the size can get by with 2?
I think part of the blame is the regulation around employees. It’s hard to run a small business. Even trying to do something like offer reasonable health insurance can destroy huge amounts of profit. You need to make a lot per employee for it to work.
I think part of the blame is the regulation around employees. It’s hard to run a small business. Even trying to do something like offer reasonable health insurance can destroy huge amounts of profit. You need to make a lot per employee for it to work.
This article is many months old. More recent data is showing solid wage growth. Nevertheless, many of the comments on underlying economic challenges for workers are still valid.
On a related note:
How do you negotiate for a pay increase when the pay increase is controlled centrally? Every year my increase is not negotiable because it has been handed down to my boss from central HR 5-6 layers of management away.
This has to be a common issue; and the solution is not to simply change companies.
How do you negotiate for a pay increase when the pay increase is controlled centrally? Every year my increase is not negotiable because it has been handed down to my boss from central HR 5-6 layers of management away.
This has to be a common issue; and the solution is not to simply change companies.
It's very common. Everyone realizes at some point in their career the simple, obvious truth: companies want to pay as little as they can to retain talent, which is obviously opposed to the employee's interest. They also don't want employees to have a hostile relationship with their manager, so they implement policies that seemingly remove their manager's wishes from the equation. Of course, that isn't true. The second that you walk in the door with a better offer, money will magically become available. Everything is negotiable.
> The second that you walk in the door with a better offer, money will magically become available. Everything is negotiable.
This is only for a fairly limited amount of jobs.
As a side point I've seen if people have an 'alternate offer' that gets over bid to stay, they'll probably be gone in 6 months anyway so unless there is a specific short-term reason to hold someone I'd not encourage this, but hope companies give generous pay rises as default to underpaid value producing employees. People looking to leave may cite money but there are normally greater reasons the start this path.
This is only for a fairly limited amount of jobs.
As a side point I've seen if people have an 'alternate offer' that gets over bid to stay, they'll probably be gone in 6 months anyway so unless there is a specific short-term reason to hold someone I'd not encourage this, but hope companies give generous pay rises as default to underpaid value producing employees. People looking to leave may cite money but there are normally greater reasons the start this path.
Tell them you have multiple offers elsewhere. I am that boss. Amazingly, HR discovered they have a "retention incentive" avsilable. To help me keep my employee.
You misunderstand the fundamental reason why you are getting a 2% salary increase every year. Because when you joined the company, 5 years ago, you were happy with $XX,000. You were ok with that salary one year ago. What changed? Why would you suddenly want a lot more?
PS: the answer is "because the market has moved and values me at that higher price now", which needs to be backed up with something such as a job offer (dangerous), or better, evidence (my friends with similar resumes are getting offers at that price).
PS: the answer is "because the market has moved and values me at that higher price now", which needs to be backed up with something such as a job offer (dangerous), or better, evidence (my friends with similar resumes are getting offers at that price).
The evidence gets you nothing. Only an actual job offer could work, anything else is unsafe in the extreme and might get you big unwanted notice. Trying to negotiate from weak no fallback position is bad.
(In other words, it can get you shortlisted and potentially flagged as a troublemaker. Say bye to references. Employers talk sometimes.)
(In other words, it can get you shortlisted and potentially flagged as a troublemaker. Say bye to references. Employers talk sometimes.)
[deleted]
The best way is unfortunately to find a better offer from an other employer.
Then you either take that offer or get a decent counteroffer from your current place.
It's a lot of work and inconvenience, which is one reason it actually works.
Then you either take that offer or get a decent counteroffer from your current place.
It's a lot of work and inconvenience, which is one reason it actually works.
If your boss really wants to give you a raise very often he can if he actually tries. Unfortunately companies have become really good at hiding behind their policies as long as it's convenient.
First and foremost, learn how to negotiate. Read the book, "Never Split the Difference".
Secondly, start looking for another job. Once you have an offer in hand that you'd be willing to accept, you'll be in a better place to negotiate a raise.
Secondly, start looking for another job. Once you have an offer in hand that you'd be willing to accept, you'll be in a better place to negotiate a raise.
> How do you negotiate for a pay increase when the pay increase is controlled centrally?
Unions (organize) [1]. Politics (labor regulations) [2]. If you're on a shorter timeline, and regulatory capture isn't in effect, leave with some of your coworkers and cannibalize some of your employer's business. Last option is to simply suffer in silence. That option sucks, don't take it.
(Note: If you're reading HN, this most likely doesn't apply to you. You're a privileged tech worker not facing the same perils of most of the US workforce. You're not my audience. Engage your fellow citizen and learn some empathy and compassion.)
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/union-i...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
Unions (organize) [1]. Politics (labor regulations) [2]. If you're on a shorter timeline, and regulatory capture isn't in effect, leave with some of your coworkers and cannibalize some of your employer's business. Last option is to simply suffer in silence. That option sucks, don't take it.
(Note: If you're reading HN, this most likely doesn't apply to you. You're a privileged tech worker not facing the same perils of most of the US workforce. You're not my audience. Engage your fellow citizen and learn some empathy and compassion.)
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/union-i...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
TL;DR -- A company's compensation strategy is often not optimized for retaining the best employees.
As I understand it, in any organization with formalized job classifications, each job classification has a compensation range attached to it. To keep things simple, let's say that each position has a fixed salary attached to it, and that salary is automatically adjusted upwards to match increases in the cost of living. So if you're a Software Engineer 1 (SE-1), and you want to get a raise, you need to become a Software Engineer 2 or higher (SE-2+).
So how do you go from an SE-1 to SE-2+? Figure that out, and you'll have figured out a path to predictably negotiating a higher salary. If you find yourself in a position where the company will is actively help you advance your career, consider yourself fortunate :) . It's not uncommon to work for an employer who doesn't help much with career advancement, and it's often easier to get a pay bump by moving to another company.
As I understand it, in any organization with formalized job classifications, each job classification has a compensation range attached to it. To keep things simple, let's say that each position has a fixed salary attached to it, and that salary is automatically adjusted upwards to match increases in the cost of living. So if you're a Software Engineer 1 (SE-1), and you want to get a raise, you need to become a Software Engineer 2 or higher (SE-2+).
So how do you go from an SE-1 to SE-2+? Figure that out, and you'll have figured out a path to predictably negotiating a higher salary. If you find yourself in a position where the company will is actively help you advance your career, consider yourself fortunate :) . It's not uncommon to work for an employer who doesn't help much with career advancement, and it's often easier to get a pay bump by moving to another company.
Write a letter to the members of the Board of Directors, or complain to a federal or state employment or business agency.
I am going to take a contrary position and say this is a positive. The reason why is employers are responding by bring in more of the marginal into the workforce. If wages start to rise the underclass will remain unemployed and excluded.
This kind of argument is less of a rationalization and more of public relations spin. It ignores the increase in consumer spending that comes with raising wages. In fact, it completely depends on skating over that fact.
It is neither a rationalisation nor PR spin. Until everyone who wants a job has a job then wages rises will limited the participation of the marginal in the job market. It is a value call if greater participation or greater income of those who already have a job is more important.
What is more of an issue is that the fed will kill the economy to ensure wages don't rise. As soon as there is the slightest sign that wages are rising interest rates will be jacked up - it is only inflation when wages rise, not asset prices.
What is more of an issue is that the fed will kill the economy to ensure wages don't rise. As soon as there is the slightest sign that wages are rising interest rates will be jacked up - it is only inflation when wages rise, not asset prices.
The problem seems to be that people are willing to work for low wages. At the last company I worked for, college graduate engineers were paid about $75k starting and they had an incredibly hard time hiring. So they raised the amount that they offered. But in low wage industries people take any job they can get at whatever wage is offered.
>The problem seems to be that people are willing to work for low wages.
What's the alternative? Starving?
What's the alternative? Starving?
The alternative is developing your education, whether in a trade school or University, and working towards a career that is sustainable in the area you choose to live.
Nice idea in theory but in practice you have people who take out loans just to go to community college, then their car breaks down or a relative has a medical issue, so they drop out to get a job to pay for the new expenses, then the student loans kick in, then they’re stuck in low wage life with even less of a chance of advancement through education.
A lot of people can’t work or educate themselves out of the circumstances that put them in poverty, and it’s no fault of their own.
A lot of people can’t work or educate themselves out of the circumstances that put them in poverty, and it’s no fault of their own.
>The alternative is developing your education, whether in a trade school or University, and working towards a career that is sustainable in the area you choose to live.
That needs several things to fall into place, including lots of perspective from a young age.
Ever tried being born in a single parent family, where the parent is also not the greatest role model (or doesn't have the time, working to feed you) to be?
Heck, who said you can even afford taking time off and going to university or even trade school? Or that you've had enough quality education early on to get through it? And what if you're really not that smart to begin with (which is perfectly normal too)?
That needs several things to fall into place, including lots of perspective from a young age.
Ever tried being born in a single parent family, where the parent is also not the greatest role model (or doesn't have the time, working to feed you) to be?
Heck, who said you can even afford taking time off and going to university or even trade school? Or that you've had enough quality education early on to get through it? And what if you're really not that smart to begin with (which is perfectly normal too)?
I think the idea that everyone has to go to college is a factor in this.
Many of my friends from undergrad ended up graduating with a mountain of debt, but unable to find jobs requiring a college degree. This forces them to compete for low income jobs (that traditionally don't require a degree), while in the weak bargaining position of being desperate for money just to stay afloat and short on experience.
Many of my friends from undergrad ended up graduating with a mountain of debt, but unable to find jobs requiring a college degree. This forces them to compete for low income jobs (that traditionally don't require a degree), while in the weak bargaining position of being desperate for money just to stay afloat and short on experience.
I think the idea that everyone has to have a place to live is a factor in this.
Many of my friends from who used to live with their parents ended up moving into a low-end apartment that cost market rates, but unable to find housing that they could actually afford. This forces them to compete for available rentals units (that traditionally don't require an outsized down-payments), while in the weak bargaining position of being desperate for any thing considered a luxury just to stay alive and short on money.
OK, sorry for the crappy rewrite. I'm just upset about the idea that we might look at reducing the levels of education in the United States because our employers don't need them.
Many of my friends from who used to live with their parents ended up moving into a low-end apartment that cost market rates, but unable to find housing that they could actually afford. This forces them to compete for available rentals units (that traditionally don't require an outsized down-payments), while in the weak bargaining position of being desperate for any thing considered a luxury just to stay alive and short on money.
OK, sorry for the crappy rewrite. I'm just upset about the idea that we might look at reducing the levels of education in the United States because our employers don't need them.
How is the problem that workers accept lower wages, rather than employers proposing them?
Because if workers did not accept those wages their companies would not function
That's what strikes and things like that are for
That's what strikes and things like that are for
Can't really go on strike without organized labor, which requires a union or something similar. I don't think many unions for uber, amazon eats, doordash contractors exist.
It's very interesting how some of the most highly paid contract-based workers in the USA have the strongest unions - actors and professional athletes.
It's very interesting how some of the most highly paid contract-based workers in the USA have the strongest unions - actors and professional athletes.
If workers didn’t accept those wages they would be destitute. Companies (capital) hold all of the power in our current economic system, it hasn’t always been like this in the US and isn’t in many other countries.
If I could only find work at $8/hr that is my fault. I could get a student loan and go to a trade school or study CS and make $80k+ in 3 years. Any adult that requires to care for a family and chooses to work for $8/hr is harming themselves.
Unless you already have a family to care for, or can't afford to stop working for 3 years to take classes, or can't afford health insurance, or any of a million other reasons that life may not be as simple as you make it out.
If everyone joined the trades, the supply of trade workers would increase and their hourly wages would go down.
If everyone joined the trades, the supply of trade workers would increase and their hourly wages would go down.
Ever tried to find work to feed yourself (not work to make money AND feed yourself, merely to be able to afford food and basic rent)? Ever lived 1 paycheck away from being thrown to the street?
People are not "willing", they are desperate to not end up sleeping under a bridge.
People are not "willing", they are desperate to not end up sleeping under a bridge.
Well if I want to open a coffee shop and hire highschool students at $8/hr, as an employer I should be able to do that. But if someone who requires to provide for a family and needs $20/hr is willing to work for $8/hr at my coffee shop, that is their fault, not mine.
The logic that substantiated slavery, genocides, wars... had the same soul your logic has - greed. Greed is never good for the society. Do not forget that we are social animals.
And how much choice do you think they have?
They are clearly desperate for work. Bettering yourself via education at a trade school, or University is not difficult. But if you got a degree in Psychology and now work at a coffee shop for $8/hr to support a family, you put yourself in that situation.
I... I don't even. This demonstrates such a fundamental disconnect from the reality of people living on subsistence level that it's not even funny.
How is the fault for low wages on the worker, and not the employer? Why is the employer granted the freedom to push unlivable wages, rather than the worker being granted the right to be paid livable wages?
Starting from the proposition that the worker has a right to a decent living, a minimum wage statue is a terrible way to get there: the employer always has the freedom to "push" no work at all and deploy his capital elsewhere, leaving everyone strictly worse off. As the gig economy companies did just a few years ago, when they didn't exist.
It's much cleaner to tax the employer class's excess income, however it's earned, and redistribute it to "gross up" the worker class to whatever the minimum wage would be. Then employers don't have the option of shifting their investment to automation, self-service, less labor-intensive industries, etc. to avoid the concession.
It's much cleaner to tax the employer class's excess income, however it's earned, and redistribute it to "gross up" the worker class to whatever the minimum wage would be. Then employers don't have the option of shifting their investment to automation, self-service, less labor-intensive industries, etc. to avoid the concession.
Unfortunately, the tax does not work in a global economy, where the bigger employers can vote with their feet and employees cannot.
(minimal wage doesn't work either for the same reason)
Both measures impact smaller employers more too and cause problems for local employers but not global ones.
The good solution would be to either tax local revenue of global companies, hunt the dodges and tariff the imported products (again problematic) as well as imported labour. This stinks of mercantilism of course and could have higher order effects.
(minimal wage doesn't work either for the same reason)
Both measures impact smaller employers more too and cause problems for local employers but not global ones.
The good solution would be to either tax local revenue of global companies, hunt the dodges and tariff the imported products (again problematic) as well as imported labour. This stinks of mercantilism of course and could have higher order effects.
Purchasing power through consumer debt is at an all-time high.
Whereas workers needed wage increases to buy TVs, cars, and homes... today just about everything can be financed.
The long-term impact of this is lower savings and delayed retirement (if retiring at all).
Whereas workers needed wage increases to buy TVs, cars, and homes... today just about everything can be financed.
The long-term impact of this is lower savings and delayed retirement (if retiring at all).
Isn't the lack of wage growth the reason that most large purchases are financed?
The Internet and IT skills have greatly optimized the credit scoring and underwriting process.
It was not possible 20 years to get instantly approved for most credit lines.
It was not possible 20 years to get instantly approved for most credit lines.
When were homes primarily bought for cash?
In the US, a little over 100 years ago. Before the 1930s, mortgages were 5 years, with a very high down payment (50% would be typical). See https://bebusinessed.com/history/history-of-mortgages/
This article is from February—could a fourth possible reason be that local variance is a normal phenomenon and this is not indicative of a wider trend? I say this because the sudden and drastic dip in median weekly earnings in the last quarter of last year has already recovered 75% in the first two quarters this year according to https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm
Went from $353 -> $345 -> $351 at end of second quarter this year.
The overall trend is still very much up. That being said, even if wages do continue to increase, the fact that only half of real growth is making it to workers is still problematic and could be related to other reasons mentioned in the article.
Went from $353 -> $345 -> $351 at end of second quarter this year.
The overall trend is still very much up. That being said, even if wages do continue to increase, the fact that only half of real growth is making it to workers is still problematic and could be related to other reasons mentioned in the article.
It is a 30-year trend. Here's [1] the chart since 2000.
[1] https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corporate-...
[1] https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corporate-...
Right, but that's the trend of capital becoming more valuable than labor, which is related, but not the same thing as looking at real-wage growth. Workers portion of total production can be going down yet still be gaining an overall increase in real wages and purchasing power if it's made-up for by overall growth.
From the perspective of creating a better society, that long term trend of capital increasingly consolidating and rentiering is still dangerous and likely has a breaking point, but so long as real-wages rise for people, it's not as immediately or obviously devastating. Yet, the evidence presented in the article seemed to be pointing to real-wages not increasing, and I'm not sure that's true.
From the perspective of creating a better society, that long term trend of capital increasingly consolidating and rentiering is still dangerous and likely has a breaking point, but so long as real-wages rise for people, it's not as immediately or obviously devastating. Yet, the evidence presented in the article seemed to be pointing to real-wages not increasing, and I'm not sure that's true.
So... Buy real estate, buy equity...?
If this is the solution, then the rich will never stop getting richer. 10% ROI on a 100k investment has a significantly greater marginal utility than 10% on a 5k investment.
Just don't make your money by working.
"Work" -- clearly, a dirty four letter word.
Yeah, something only the rich can do.
1. CPI is a wrong deflator to use when comparing to GDP growth
2. Wages != Compensation
2. Wages != Compensation
Why would you expect any different in 2018?
Now that low hanging economic fruit has been picked, and almost all land has been found and developed to some level, it's technology that drives growth.
Technology is developed by a small minority of the population with special skills and high intelligence. The median human is not developing technology, and therefore not significantly contributing to growth. You can only capture some amount of the new value that you are creating.
EDIT - why the downvotes? This isn't a political statement, it's an observation.
Now that low hanging economic fruit has been picked, and almost all land has been found and developed to some level, it's technology that drives growth.
Technology is developed by a small minority of the population with special skills and high intelligence. The median human is not developing technology, and therefore not significantly contributing to growth. You can only capture some amount of the new value that you are creating.
EDIT - why the downvotes? This isn't a political statement, it's an observation.
>The median human is not developing technology, and therefore not significantly contributing to growth.
Those jobs still need to be done. Someone needs to stock your shelves, someone still needs to pick up your garbage, someone still needs to flip your burgers.
Those jobs still need to be done. Someone needs to stock your shelves, someone still needs to pick up your garbage, someone still needs to flip your burgers.
> Someone needs to stock your shelves
Anyone can do it, and Amazon disagrees.
The world used to be inefficient, run on paper and phone calls. More and more is being outsourced to tech or foreign soil so less and lis as remains for The “guy that can stick shelves” to do.
We’re left with service or simple labor, which anyone can do, so prices will fall.
It shouldn’t be surprising that the more intelligent always have and always will continue to be more successful and drive discovery and innovation. We actually used to hold these people (scientists, inventors, philosophers, writers, etc) in a high regard. Now that the bar is lower and entry is easier (tech), thenperspective seems to have changed.
What we need now is a balance or redistribution since it’s becoming impossible for those that didn’t win the genetic lottery to prosper. But we need to stay realistic and honest, those with higher intelligence more knowledge (degrees or experience) are preospering and those that don’t aren’t.
I think grandparents comment was distasteful, but let’s talk about the concepts rather than downvote.
Anyone can do it, and Amazon disagrees.
The world used to be inefficient, run on paper and phone calls. More and more is being outsourced to tech or foreign soil so less and lis as remains for The “guy that can stick shelves” to do.
We’re left with service or simple labor, which anyone can do, so prices will fall.
It shouldn’t be surprising that the more intelligent always have and always will continue to be more successful and drive discovery and innovation. We actually used to hold these people (scientists, inventors, philosophers, writers, etc) in a high regard. Now that the bar is lower and entry is easier (tech), thenperspective seems to have changed.
What we need now is a balance or redistribution since it’s becoming impossible for those that didn’t win the genetic lottery to prosper. But we need to stay realistic and honest, those with higher intelligence more knowledge (degrees or experience) are preospering and those that don’t aren’t.
I think grandparents comment was distasteful, but let’s talk about the concepts rather than downvote.
*apologies for the typos and grammar. I wrote this quickly before catching a bus and didn’t have a chance to reread, now it’s too late to edit.
Sure. But why should the wages of these tasks grow, when they are not providing more or differentiated value as opposed to say 40 years ago?
To keep the knives of the poor away from your throat.
Real mature and practical there buddy.
What's more likely is the continued political push towards socialism that we're seeing in North America. Whether or not it will alleviate the situation as I see it, I can't say.
What's more likely is the continued political push towards socialism that we're seeing in North America. Whether or not it will alleviate the situation as I see it, I can't say.
Because eventually you'll run out of consumers as people pay nearly their full paycheck for absolutely necessities like shelter.
I've heard of this theory before but never seen an example of it happening. Has this ever happened in any country's history? What was the corrective result thereafter?
It never happened so far. What did happen is consumer goods crises where people couldn't afford necessities like food. War and revolutions followed.
High rent prices with no recourse can cause the same result.
Examples: Germany after WW1, Russian bolshevik revolution. Probably a few more.
Examples: Germany after WW1, Russian bolshevik revolution. Probably a few more.
Well, at an absolute bare minimum, wages for these jobs should grow to compensate for changes in the cost of living, otherwise they are effectively getting pay cuts every year.
Edit: more simply, anyone working full time in a first world country should not be living in poverty. Once you lose this, you begin falling down the path towards losing "first world country" status.
Edit: more simply, anyone working full time in a first world country should not be living in poverty. Once you lose this, you begin falling down the path towards losing "first world country" status.
> otherwise they are effectively getting pay cuts every year
That's the point. With automation, there are a) more unskilled workers available for hire, and their work is less and less valuable because b) it's going to be automated soon as well and c) because of governmental regulations that make it increasingly hard to employ people in general and make automation even more attractive.
> Edit: more simply, anyone working full time in a first world country should not be living in poverty.
They are free to learn new skills. If they can't because of mental of physical problems, there are options available today.
That's the point. With automation, there are a) more unskilled workers available for hire, and their work is less and less valuable because b) it's going to be automated soon as well and c) because of governmental regulations that make it increasingly hard to employ people in general and make automation even more attractive.
> Edit: more simply, anyone working full time in a first world country should not be living in poverty.
They are free to learn new skills. If they can't because of mental of physical problems, there are options available today.
These are bad examples, because all have functional robotic replacements already in the later stages of development or early production.
Better ones: Someone needs to educate your kids, someone still needs to provide physical therapy after your accident, someone still needs to defend you in court.
Better ones: Someone needs to educate your kids, someone still needs to provide physical therapy after your accident, someone still needs to defend you in court.
Historically, before the industrial revolution, business owners would be dragged into the streets and beaten to death when inequality reached a tipping point. Failing to understand history forebodes repeating it.
Somehow I seriously doubt that's where we're headed. Perhaps people can go to the polls and write their representatives instead.
We have a lack of growth and economic value added for the majority of the population. This was my original observation. I'm not saying I know what's next or what should be done.
We have a lack of growth and economic value added for the majority of the population. This was my original observation. I'm not saying I know what's next or what should be done.
There’s a quote I think is really profound: “A society is three meals away from revolution.”
You seriously doubt that’s where things are headed, and yet Venezuela is in that phase currently. Things are stable until they’re not. It is a result of leaving a populace with no other recourse.
You seriously doubt that’s where things are headed, and yet Venezuela is in that phase currently. Things are stable until they’re not. It is a result of leaving a populace with no other recourse.
If inequality continues to grow, it seems like eventually an economic crisis will trigger those today called antifa thugs, alt-right nazis, inner city gangmembers, intellectual jihadis, violent incels, etc. to unify against the thousand rich guys who own everything (and so nothing).
If they retreat to islands and citadels, perhaps instead retribution will be taken against the perceived proxies of the tech tyrants who ate the world, the tech workers.
If they retreat to islands and citadels, perhaps instead retribution will be taken against the perceived proxies of the tech tyrants who ate the world, the tech workers.
> Or they'll live in citadels and instead retribution will be taken against the perceived proxies of the tech tyrants, the tech workers.
Like Google busses being blocked in SF and Apple vans having their windows shot out on the highway? We’re closer to your prediction than you think.
Like Google busses being blocked in SF and Apple vans having their windows shot out on the highway? We’re closer to your prediction than you think.
[deleted]
Marie Antoinette lived her whole life on islands and in citadels. Didn't help her.
I see a middle area between these two processes now. The shop owner is not executed in the streets (he likely lives at least few towns away) - but he is being robbed more often.
There are more armed robberies around our town the past couple years, and many more thefts. Sometimes by those who can't afford the area using a rock in hand, sometimes by people working at the establishment.
Sometimes it's the cars and other property in the area, however I've seen more news lately where people are following managers from and to banks to hit the bigger deposits. (recent story shows video of woman being dragged by a car) - and more reporting on how to avoid being "jugged" (I think that was the term)
IT would appear that more and more people are going for higher up the business money chain. Having items fall off the truck and stealing the pittance in the cash drawer is not enough these days,
so indeed, the needle may be moving closer to the pitchforks that people really realize.
I think most people have figured out that it doesn't matter how much you write your politician, or which party you vote for, in most places the cost of living is growing faster than wages.
Squeezing friends and family for living funds only goes so far, and so many groups are going further to the criminal side to get theirs it seems.
There are more armed robberies around our town the past couple years, and many more thefts. Sometimes by those who can't afford the area using a rock in hand, sometimes by people working at the establishment.
Sometimes it's the cars and other property in the area, however I've seen more news lately where people are following managers from and to banks to hit the bigger deposits. (recent story shows video of woman being dragged by a car) - and more reporting on how to avoid being "jugged" (I think that was the term)
IT would appear that more and more people are going for higher up the business money chain. Having items fall off the truck and stealing the pittance in the cash drawer is not enough these days,
so indeed, the needle may be moving closer to the pitchforks that people really realize.
I think most people have figured out that it doesn't matter how much you write your politician, or which party you vote for, in most places the cost of living is growing faster than wages.
Squeezing friends and family for living funds only goes so far, and so many groups are going further to the criminal side to get theirs it seems.
you don't have to imagine anything, just look around outside the place you're living in. compare e.g. central america or middle east 10-15 years ago and now.