New Study Confirms That American Workers Are Getting Ripped Off

[barbos]

No, they get paid much less now than before the shit hit the fan in 2008. And as someone who actually starved and was homeless while having a full time job with university degree (not the american B.S. degree, an actual science degree) I don't give a fuck about these fat and stupid union asses who were getting $100K salaries and still complained.

So you are quite worried about ordinary workers earning incomes of around $100k but not very concerned with salaries that amount to millions per annum being enjoyed by those at the top of the heap? That's OK, eh, but Heaven forbid that an ordinary worker gets anywhere near $100k because that would be greedy?

I am on record as worrying about both. The difference is, taking money from $20m/year CEOs will make no overall difference.
And you on other hand is not worried about assembly line workers getting $100K/year, or scientists getting shit wages. Yes, post-docs were lucky to get $40K jobs while UAW were getting $83k/year average.

 

[DBT]

No, they get paid much less now than before the shit hit the fan in 2008. And as someone who actually starved and was homeless while having a full time job with university degree (not the american B.S. degree, an actual science degree) I don't give a fuck about these fat and stupid union asses who were getting $100K salaries and still complained.

So you are quite worried about ordinary workers earning incomes of around $100k but not very concerned with salaries that amount to millions per annum being enjoyed by those at the top of the heap? That's OK, eh, but Heaven forbid that an ordinary worker gets anywhere near $100k because that would be greedy?

I am on record as worrying about both. The difference is, taking money from $20m/year CEOs will make no overall difference.

But that's not the whole picture of wealth distribution. High Corporate income is only a part of the problem of inequity. Worker income of around 100k hardly registers on the scale of both social (power imbalance) and economic inequity.

And you on other side is not worried about assembly line workers getting $100K/year, or scientists getting shit wages. Yes, post-docs were lucky to get $40K jobs while UAW were getting $83k/year average.

Sorry, I haven't even suggested such a thing.

 

[barbos]

I am on record as worrying about both. The difference is, taking money from $20m/year CEOs will make no overall difference.

But that's not the whole picture of wealth distribution. High Corporate income is only a part of the problem of inequity. Worker income of around 100k hardly registers on the scale of both social (power imbalance) and economic inequity.

Again, corporate income is meaningless number, you can't take it away from them and make your life better, these money are not real, they all have to go back and reinvested one way or another. What you have to look at is consumption, which is where ordinary wages go. And $83K UAW workers are taking money from minimum wage workers as well as 40K postdocs. You can take consumption from $20mil CEOs but it would not make a dent in overall picture.

And you on other side is not worried about assembly line workers getting $100K/year, or scientists getting shit wages. Yes, post-docs were lucky to get $40K jobs while UAW were getting $83k/year average.

Sorry, I haven't even suggested such a thing.

You just did, here let me help you:

Worker income of around 100k hardly registers on the scale of both social (power imbalance) and economic inequity

First, it registers, at least indirectly, otherwise UAW would not have allowed to be forced to reduction of wages. Second, it pisses people like me off. In fact, I can attest, it generally pissed people in academia a little, not publicly of course but they were not on UAW side at all. Come on. $100K/year, you seriously think $100K professor who still remembers his/her time as graduate student/postdoc would feel sympathy?

 

[DBT]

Again, corporate income is meaningless number, you can't take it away from them and make your life better, these money are not real, they all have to go back and reinvested one way or another. What you have to look at is consumption, which is where ordinary wages go. And $83K UAW workers are taking money from minimum wage workers as well as 40K postdocs. You can take consumption from $20mil CEOs but it would not make a dent in overall picture.

As I said, CEO salary packages are only a part of a larger problem.

For example;

Key Facts
The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation's wealth.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.

The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.

Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.

CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker.

30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.

The largest contributor to increasing income inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

And you on other side is not worried about assembly line workers getting $100K/year, or scientists getting shit wages. Yes, post-docs were lucky to get $40K jobs while UAW were getting $83k/year average.

Sorry, I haven't even suggested such a thing.

You just did, here let me help you:

Worker income of around 100k hardly registers on the scale of both social (power imbalance) and economic inequity

First, it registers, at least indirectly, otherwise UAW would not have allowed to be forced to reduction of wages. Second, it pisses people like me off. In fact, I can attest, it generally pissed people in academia a little, not publicly of course but they were not on UAW side at all. Come on. $100K/year, you seriously think $100K professor who still remembers his/her time as graduate student/postdoc would feel sympathy?

Nothing of the sort. You are aware of the scale of inequity between those at the top and the rest of us?

 

[barbos]

As I said, CEO salary packages are only a part of a larger problem.

For example;

Key Facts
The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation's wealth.

We have been over this a million times. that fact is bullshit. OK, for 1 million first time: You need to look at the consumption, not how much "wealth" people have.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.

for 1 million first time 1950s and 1960s are the stone age compared to today, you can not compare capital requirements between today and stone age. And nobody, I repeat nobody paid 91% income tax.

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.

The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.

Because they income consists of capital gains. As far as I am concerned capital gain tax should be zero. But consumption/luxury tax should 40% and higher for rich folk.

Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

As I said it should be zero rate.

1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.

Yep, fine with me, tax their Ferraris and mansions. Would make Jay Leno unhappy

CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker.

I can live with that.

30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.

So? what's your point here? You want zero inequality? everybody gets the same wage, is that what you want here? fine with actually cause I would get more

The largest contributor to increasing income inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

You are repeating yourself.

Sorry, I haven't even suggested such a thing.

You repeatedly and continuously did not care about issue of postdocs getting shit wages all the while whining about CEOs versus workers

You just did, here let me help you:

Worker income of around 100k hardly registers on the scale of both social (power imbalance) and economic inequity

First, it registers, at least indirectly, otherwise UAW would not have allowed to be forced to reduction of wages. Second, it pisses people like me off. In fact, I can attest, it generally pissed people in academia a little, not publicly of course but they were not on UAW side at all. Come on. $100K/year, you seriously think $100K professor who still remembers his/her time as graduate student/postdoc would feel sympathy?

Nothing of the sort. You are aware of the scale of inequity between those at the top and the rest of us?

I am aware, but are you aware that if all these CEOs were paid just $20K/year it would make no more than extra $20/year for the rest of the people?

 

[ZiprHead]

According to the article:
"the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour."
And according to your own damn post wages topped at $39/hour. Sorry dude, they were getting more than $83K. And this average includes everybody, even 20 year olds who were lucky enough to get the UAW job.

that's $83k. That means that top wage was higher than $83K.
If you ask me this is pretty incredible for someone with no education.

My father had to be educated and pass tests to obtain his journeyman's licence. It is considered a profession. Many college educated people work in the shops because of it's better pay and benefits.

And nobody asked you if you thought it was incredible or not.

Well, I guess we are done here.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is so bad about it. You've dodged the question twice now.

Nobody asked you to ask me a question.

You clearly said "Average wage was $40/hour," Now you are walking it back to include benefits. If that was what you meant to say in the first place, you should have said it.

 

[barbos]

You clearly said "Average wage was $40/hour," Now you are walking it back to include benefits. If that was what you meant to say in the first place, you should have said it.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
average wage was $40, that's what article said and that is what I said and keep saying.
wage+benefits according to article was $55

 

[ZiprHead]

Wages and benefits are not the same thing.

 

[barbos]

Wages and benefits are not the same thing.

Remarkable, do you have any other wisdom to share?

 

[ZiprHead]

Wages and benefits are not the same thing.

Remarkable, do you have any other wisdom to share?

It is you that is calling benefits wages. You just cannot admit you were wrong, can you?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wages and benefits are not the same thing.

Remarkable, do you have any other wisdom to share?

Comparing wages to wages+benefits only makes sense on the condition that there were no benefits in the first instance. In this case, it makes no sense. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Everyone lurking and reading the thread such as myself can observe this. You should just admit it and move on or silently drop off at this point.

 

[barbos]

Wages and benefits are not the same thing.

Remarkable, do you have any other wisdom to share?

Comparing wages to wages+benefits only makes sense on the condition that there were no benefits in the first instance. In this case, it makes no sense. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Everyone lurking and reading the thread such as myself can observe this. You should just admit it and move on or silently drop off at this point.

OK, I admit, you and ZiprHead both are both full of shit and talking complete nonsense.
I have never done what you and ZiprHead claim I did.

 

[barbos]

Wages and benefits are not the same thing.

Remarkable, do you have any other wisdom to share?

It is you that is calling benefits wages. You just cannot admit you were wrong, can you?

I have never done that,. You need to admit that you are full of shit again (as you were when you claimed I was wrong about timing of the crisis in the auto industry)

 

[laughing dog]

It is you that is calling benefits wages. You just cannot admit you were wrong, can you?

I have never done that,. You need to admit that you are full of shit again (as you were when you claimed I was wrong about timing of the crisis in the auto industry)

s Unfortunately for your position, your posts rebut your claim. In #178, you wrote

""the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour." Bonuses and paid time off are not part of wages, but compensation. Moreover, bonuses are not guaranteed nor can they be counted on, so it a bit slippery to include them as part of "wages", since wages usually refer to the usual hourly pay.

If one wants to argue that UAW workers who work auto-manufacturing are not screwed because their hourly compensation is better than most workers, one has a good argument. But when one inadvertently conflates wages with compensation, it muddies the waters.

Your $40 per hour wage clearly includes non-wage renumeration. It is fake news to claim otherwise.

 

[barbos]

It is you that is calling benefits wages. You just cannot admit you were wrong, can you?

I have never done that,. You need to admit that you are full of shit again (as you were when you claimed I was wrong about timing of the crisis in the auto industry)

s Unfortunately for your position, your posts rebut your claim. In #178, you wrote

""the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour." Bonuses and paid time off are not part of wages, but compensation. Moreover, bonuses are not guaranteed nor can they be counted on, so it a bit slippery to include them as part of "wages", since wages usually refer to the usual hourly pay.

If one wants to argue that UAW workers who work auto-manufacturing are not screwed because their hourly compensation is better than most workers, one has a good argument. But when one inadvertently conflates wages with compensation, it muddies the waters.

Your $40 per hour wage clearly includes non-wage renumeration. It is fake news to claim otherwise.

Bonuses are not benefits, and yes, I include them in wages and so did pro UAW article. Wages is actual pay one gets to spend. And average pay was $83k Postdocs don't get any bonuses.

 

[untermensche]

All this crying that some human is getting paid too much.

When the real problem is some other human is being paid too little.

 

[barbos]

All this crying that some human is getting paid too much.

When the real problem is some other human is being paid too little.

I distinctly remember some crying over CEOs pay being too large.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said, CEO salary packages are only a part of a larger problem.

For example;

Key Facts
The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation's wealth.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.

Fake news.

The top tax rate was 91%. However, it was riddled with loopholes you could drive a semi through. Few actually paid 91%. As most of those loopholes took the money out of "income" in the first place it's unlikely we will ever know what they really paid.

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.

I won't call fake on this because you could be using old data. By the 2017 tax tables it's not even possible--$75,000 in AGI only results in 19.2% and that's before you look the standard deduction and the personal exemption. (Yes, the self-employed would pay more on their 1040, but that's because the social security tax is collected there. It's not income tax.)

Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.

Overall the lower tax rate in investment income is fair, although some win and some lose. What's very unfair is taxing interest at income rates instead of capital gain rates. Note that this can easily be fixed with very little hiss and making it more fair to boot: Income is income, but you adjust the basis to constant dollars. (There's no way Washington would do this, though--they would take a big hit due to the lost interest income.)

30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.

[Citation needed]

 

[DBT]

We have been over this a million times. that fact is bullshit. OK, for 1 million first time: You need to look at the consumption, not how much "wealth" people have.

That you have declared it to be bullshit does not make it bullshit. As you should know, I provided multiple independent sources and studies that say much the same thing, wealth is highly concentrated at the top..... a drift of a few percent here or there doesn't change the fact of gross inequity between a small percentage of those on top of the heap and the rest of us.

That some union workers happen to get $100k doesn't tip the balance, nor does it mean that workers right across the board should not have better wages and conditions.....including your example of Professors.

The rest of your objections do not appear to be related to point of this issue, the sheer disparity of wealth between the very rich and the rest of us and the utterly shameful wages paid to those on the bottom.

 

[DBT]

Fake news.

Nah, I provided multiple sources and studies the last time this issue came up. It was not refuted then, yet now we appear to be back to base like nothing happened.