Flat Wages for the middle and working class - what to do?

[Conaeolos]

Downward pressures compared to the past:
1. Full inclusion of woman to the workforce (increase supply of labour)
2. Automation increasing production power per employee (reducing needs of labour)
3. Foreign trade (eliminating many local industries)
4. Higher specialized training thresholds (can’t just train new employees limiting labour choice)
5. Increased population especially in skilled foreign labour (increase supply of labour)
6. Increase competition (pushing down prices and available customers)

Upward pressures compared to the past:
1. Fast Rate of innovation (many new emerging industries and the rate only seems to be increasing)
2. Increase education have a more broder-minded labour force (adaptability in labour)
3. Availability of advance training (most people can be train in any speciality)
4. Opening of global markets (huge new consumer bases coming aboard)

Feel free to expand upon or talk about any particular area of upward or downward middle class wage pressures.

The next waves of the middle & working class are looking like it going to struggle to buy homes, retire, pay their bills on 40 hour weeks etc.

One major reason for this is wages are not going up like they use to be and buying power is not going up to make up the difference. Youth unemployment and longer required education periods is also leading to later and later entry into the workforce delying everying.

My question is what do you see as the policies (left or right) which will start to see either wages raising or prices dropping to allow for a comfortable middle class?

 

[UtahBill]

I was high tech blue collar all the way, but retired to a white collar world. The wife was a professional, spent many years teaching 8th grade language arts. If "Class" is to be used to describe only our financial condition, I guess we are upper class.

The wife and I know MANY upper class white collar folk who can't afford to live well in retirement because they insisted on living in whatever class was perceived to be above the class they can actually afford, using debt to project an image that only they care about.

 

[OlNate]

I think #2 on your downward pressures is the most alarming, because it has the potential for wiping out vast numbers of jobs (has already), starting with unskilled labor, meaning those with the majority of money and decision making power won't be affected until much later in the game. Prime example is autonomous vehicles, specifically transport trucks. With the first entirely autonomous shipment having been achieved by Uber already, and with the technology rapidly being adopted by major car manufacturers, ~3.5 million American jobs are at risk from this one technology alone. As the bottom drops out, there will be less money to support the top, and we are at risk of seeing our entire economic models disintegrating.

What's most disturbing is that there is no governance system, other than perhaps communism, which was demonstrated to be a failure, that addresses what happens when people can't earn money. regardless of whether they want to or not. Concepts like basic minimum income still require a vast number of people to earn above that income to support it, and a healthy economy to pick up the slack.

So...I think what you're looking for doesn't exist yet, and given the current climate of division and polarization, it's not likely that one will be found soon. As I've seen it, the choices are mass cooperation, or mass extinction, as unlike the Great Depression, there's no coming back from a scenario where all production, manufacturing, logistics, farming, etc., can be automated.

 

[cpwill]

...

Feel free to expand upon or talk about any particular area of upward or downward middle class wage pressures.

The next waves of the middle & working class are looking like it going to struggle to buy homes, retire, pay their bills on 40 hour weeks etc.

One major reason for this is wages are not going up like they use to be and buying power is not going up to make up the difference. Youth unemployment and longer required education periods is also leading to later and later entry into the workforce delying everying.

My question is what do you see as the policies (left or right) which will start to see either wages raising or prices dropping to allow for a comfortable middle class?

The premise of this thread is incorrect. In fact, the middle class has been shifting into the upper middle class.


American society is bifurcating, however. It is not that "the middle class" has stagnated - it is that the lower income reaching up to the lower middle class that has stagnated, especially relative to other portions of the economy.

For the low income and low-middle income, much of this has to do with the breakup of the family in this demographic. Consider, for example, a low income household in the 1980s with a working father, a home maker mother, and your standard 2.25 children, living on an income of $30,000. Now that household is split up into two households. The single father makes $40K and owes $10K in child support and/or alimony to the mother, who makes $20K. The average household income for this family is still $30K, despite the fact that they actually bring in twice as much (and, it should be noted, now have two house payments, etc). Strengthening marriage among our lower middle and lower income classes would go far towards raising the household incomes for those families (I have a modest proposal which I believe would help ease us towards that goal).


For the low-income (the low education, low skill, low connection to the workforce, low social capital demographic, mind you, not the upper-middle-income or upper-income teenager looking for a summer job), the mass importation of low-skill labor has (as you note) placed downward pressure on labor. Strictly enforcing labor laws, along with mandatory e-verify would go some ways towards relieving that in the future, but it is a short-term solution at best.


I would also (see proposal above) get rid of welfare cliffs and above-50% effective tax rates on federal benefits by transitioning all federal welfare programs to a single Negative Income Tax program, which would encourage school, work, and marriage, instead of punishing our low-income workers for these things.


If you want to improve education (and I do) for our low-income and lower-middle income populace, then we need to create competition in our education industry. Money is not our problem; it's ineffective use is. Give low-income kids a chance; all of them won't take it, but those who do will succeed, and create standards for others to emulate (worth noting due to the heavy overlap: the social science suggests this is particularly important for minority students). This gets beaten to death, but we also need to expand post-high school choices to include stronger pathways into the trades. Of the kids who go to college, half of them drop out, meaning they have wasted years of productive work and gone into debt for nothing. We would have done them better had we made trade schools an equally acceptable and available option for them.


If you aren't willing to adopt the simple changes to the tax/welfare structure linked to above, but do want to increase income for the low/low-middle income without waiting decades for students to come into middle income earning years, however, a good way to do that would be to sharply reduce the number of professions which require licensure. State licensing of professions can be justified in few, narrowly defined instances (medical or law enforcement, for example), but not in the vast majority of them (flower arranging or hair braiding). In those cases, license laws serve to keep poorer providers locked out of the marketplace, in order to reduce supply and increase prices that can be charged by vested interests.


For those of you interested in bipartisan solutions, The Brookings and American Enterprise Institutes got together and authored a Report on how to deal with poverty in ways that both members of the left and right can get behind.

 

[Conaeolos]

I think #2 on your downward pressures is the most alarming, because it has the potential for wiping out vast numbers of jobs (has already), starting with unskilled labor, meaning those with the majority of money and decision making power won't be affected until much later in the game. Prime example is autonomous vehicles, specifically transport trucks. With the first entirely autonomous shipment having been achieved by Uber already, and with the technology rapidly being adopted by major car manufacturers, ~3.5 million American jobs are at risk from this one technology alone. As the bottom drops out, there will be less money to support the top, and we are at risk of seeing our entire economic models disintegrating.

I would add a lot of people don’t even see the full impact of that particular example(driving automation). It is still a net benefit for society but it going to be HUGE for Main Street. We are not just talking truck & taxi drivers which is a lot of people to begin with, with automation comes the end to a lot of the barriers of electronic vehicles.

So at the same time there are huge reductions in:
- Large scale gas stations networks
- Car dealership (make more sense to join a car service)
- Postal worker / couriers
- Autoworkers / Mechanics (electronic motors are a lot simpler and take a lot less specialized knowledge)
- Small-stop food industry
- Emergency services (that’s not such a bad one lol)
- Flaggers
- Swapper and warehousing staff
- Construction drivers
- Garbage men
- Farm Hands

And the jobs it creates mainly have to do with
- Software design
- Technicians
- Emergency system operators
- Risk management systems
- Finance & marketing sector

All which require certain fundamental natural abilities that bar a lot of the old workers from crossing over.

What's most disturbing is that there is no governance system, other than perhaps communism, which was demonstrated to be a failure, that addresses what happens when people can't earn money.

Family units can support quite a few non-formally working members. So I wouldn’t be so sure. Communes and co-ops have also been able to absorb huge unemployment within their membership without killing capitalism and still supporting their members with a good quality of life.

That said biggest barrier to entry: personal debt. And guess what we just loaded on the next generation in record amounts?

Concepts like basic minimum income still require a vast number of people to earn above that income to support it, and a healthy economy to pick up the slack.

Yeah definitely which is why we’re seeing more calls for guarantee income at this point.

So...I think what you're looking for doesn't exist yet, and given the current climate of division and polarization, it's not likely that one will be found soon.

My only goal in life is to leave the world better for my daughter/future grand children so at least she’s got her Trust if she can't work - that if you don’t all steal it in taxes - J/k (maybe)

As I've seen it, the choices are mass cooperation, or mass extinction, as unlike the Great Depression, there's no coming back from a scenario where all production, manufacturing, logistics, farming, etc., can be automated.

Yet how does a automated world not seem amazing ~ I an average Joe get to live like a emperor

 

[OlNate]

I would add a lot of people don’t even see the full impact of that particular example(driving automation). It is still a net benefit for society but it going to be HUGE for Main Street. We are not just talking truck & taxi drivers which is a lot of people to begin with, with automation comes the end to a lot of the barriers of electronic vehicles.

So at the same time there are huge reductions in:
- Large scale gas stations networks
- Car dealership (make more sense to join a car service)
- Postal worker / couriers
- Autoworkers / Mechanics (electronic motors are a lot simpler and take a lot less specialized knowledge)
- Small-stop food industry
- Emergency services (that’s not such a bad one lol)
- Flaggers
- Swapper and warehousing staff
- Construction drivers
- Garbage men
- Farm Hands

And the jobs it creates mainly have to do with
- Software design
- Technicians
- Emergency system operators
- Risk management systems
- Finance & marketing sector

All which require certain fundamental natural abilities that bar a lot of the old workers from crossing over.


Family units can support quite a few non-formally working members. So I wouldn’t be so sure. Communes and co-ops have also been able to absorb huge unemployment within their membership without killing capitalism and still supporting their members with a good quality of life.

That said biggest barrier to entry: personal debt. And guess what we just loaded on the next generation in record amounts?

Yeah definitely which is why we’re seeing more calls for guarantee income at this point.


My only goal in life is to leave the world better for my daughter/future grand children so at least she’s got her Trust if she can't work - that if you don’t all steal it in taxes - J/k (maybe)


Yet how does a automated world not seem amazing ~ I an average Joe get to live like a emperor

It DOES seem amazing...been having this chat with someone here in PM for a while...but only if we change how we think. The last time we even approached this level of detachment from toil was when we developed agriculture and domesticated animals, and that took a couple thousand years to roll out.. With the added time, we developed concepts like art and medicine and alphabet and science and urbanization and religion and government. With freedom from toil comes evolution, and I'm excited to see what comes next...but we live in a society where toil is valued above all else in every class other than the so-called "1%". Aligning hearts and minds to move to the next step is going to take some doing, especially in this climate. Because, basically, we're on the precipice of a cashless society - money is meaningless if there's no way to earn it - and I don't think we know what to do with that yet. Our tech has become smarter than we are, it would appear.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The premise of this thread is incorrect. In fact, the middle class has been shifting into the upper middle class.


American society is bifurcating, however. It is not that "the middle class" has stagnated - it is that the lower income reaching up to the lower middle class that has stagnated, especially relative to other portions of the economy.

For the low income and low-middle income, much of this has to do with the breakup of the family in this demographic. Consider, for example, a low income household in the 1980s with a working father, a home maker mother, and your standard 2.25 children, living on an income of $30,000. Now that household is split up into two households. The single father makes $40K and owes $10K in child support and/or alimony to the mother, who makes $20K. The average household income for this family is still $30K, despite the fact that they actually bring in twice as much (and, it should be noted, now have two house payments, etc). Strengthening marriage among our lower middle and lower income classes would go far towards raising the household incomes for those families (I have a modest proposal which I believe would help ease us towards that goal).


For the low-income (the low education, low skill, low connection to the workforce, low social capital demographic, mind you, not the upper-middle-income or upper-income teenager looking for a summer job), the mass importation of low-skill labor has (as you note) placed downward pressure on labor. Strictly enforcing labor laws, along with mandatory e-verify would go some ways towards relieving that in the future, but it is a short-term solution at best.


I would also (see proposal above) get rid of welfare cliffs and above-50% effective tax rates on federal benefits by transitioning all federal welfare programs to a single Negative Income Tax program, which would encourage school, work, and marriage, instead of punishing our low-income workers for these things.


If you want to improve education (and I do) for our low-income and lower-middle income populace, then we need to create competition in our education industry. Money is not our problem; it's ineffective use is. Give low-income kids a chance; all of them won't take it, but those who do will succeed, and create standards for others to emulate (worth noting due to the heavy overlap: the social science suggests this is particularly important for minority students). This gets beaten to death, but we also need to expand post-high school choices to include stronger pathways into the trades. Of the kids who go to college, half of them drop out, meaning they have wasted years of productive work and gone into debt for nothing. We would have done them better had we made trade schools an equally acceptable and available option for them.


If you aren't willing to adopt the simple changes to the tax/welfare structure linked to above, but do want to increase income for the low/low-middle income without waiting decades for students to come into middle income earning years, however, a good way to do that would be to sharply reduce the number of professions which require licensure. State licensing of professions can be justified in few, narrowly defined instances (medical or law enforcement, for example), but not in the vast majority of them (flower arranging or hair braiding). In those cases, license laws serve to keep poorer providers locked out of the marketplace, in order to reduce supply and increase prices that can be charged by vested interests.


For those of you interested in bipartisan solutions, The Brookings and American Enterprise Institutes got together and authored a Report on how to deal with poverty in ways that both members of the left and right can get behind.

In reference to the proposal you made back in '12 (link you provided), I'm pondering the ramifications and trying to think up possible negative unintended consequences, but on the surface - nice idea!

I'm a little concerned that the poverty threshold is, in reality, different depending on where you live, but that could be worked out. BTW, the previous sentence alludes to my reasons for being against a national "living wage" or a high national minimum wage.

 

[cpwill]

In reference to the proposal you made back in '12 (link you provided), I'm pondering the ramifications and trying to think up possible negative unintended consequences, but on the surface - nice idea!

I developed it much later in the thread to include work/volunteer requirements, partial allowance for hours spent on education, and required child-support payments for non-primary-caregiver parents. There is a lot of meat later in the thread, if you are interested, and I am definitely interested in informed critique (it's the only way to make the proposal better).

I'm a little concerned that the poverty threshold is, in reality, different depending on where you live, but that could be worked out. BTW, the previous sentence alludes to my reasons for being against a national "living wage" or a high national minimum wage.

I concur with both of those points. We don't help the poor by pricing them out of the labor market, even if it does make us feel good about ourselves.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I developed it much later in the thread to include work/volunteer requirements, partial allowance for hours spent on education, and required child-support payments for non-primary-caregiver parents. There is a lot of meat later in the thread, if you are interested, and I am definitely interested in informed critique (it's the only way to make the proposal better).



I concur with both of those points. We don't help the poor by pricing them out of the labor market, even if it does make us feel good about ourselves.

I have the tread marked and will read through it when I have the time. Thanks.

 

[Conaeolos]

For the low-income (the low education, low skill, low connection to the workforce, low social capital demographic, mind you, not the upper-middle-income or upper-income teenager looking for a summer job), the mass importation of low-skill labor has (as you note) placed downward pressure on labor. Strictly enforcing labor laws, along with mandatory e-verify would go some ways towards relieving that in the future, but it is a short-term solution at best.

Right! But the wage problem is pretty much across every class….so high middle is just further down the pipe.

I would also (see proposal above) get rid of welfare cliffs and above-50% effective tax rates on federal benefits by transitioning all federal welfare programs to a single Negative Income Tax program, which would encourage school, work, and marriage, instead of punishing our low-income workers for these things.

I wish…that was on the table. Every way I’ve seen it tabled they’ll want more government services, higher taxes and a negative income tax :-|

If you want to improve education (and I do) for our low-income and lower-middle income populace, then we need to create competition in our education industry. Money is not our problem; it's ineffective use is. Give low-income kids a chance; all of them won't take it, but those who do will succeed, and create standards for others to emulate (worth noting due to the heavy overlap: the social science suggests this is particularly important for minority students). This gets beaten to death, but we also need to expand post-high school choices to include stronger pathways into the trades. Of the kids who go to college, half of them drop out, meaning they have wasted years of productive work and gone into debt for nothing. We would have done them better had we made trade schools an equally acceptable and available option for them.

Personally, I have just given up on the education industry and promote everyone I influence into self education and choose branding over certification.

Trades has a hard limit on how much it can absorb. So all I see any government push into it doing is decreasing wages in that sector. Although certainly opportunity for someone just coming into the employment market and intervention will surely kill that opportunity.

High education people are often just as unemployable as they have no marketable skill and I am even talking engineers, technicians, accountants….those in and of those selves are simply fields of study and not necessarily employable skills even if more practical in nature than psychology, poly-sci, English, woman studies etc.

If you aren't willing to adopt the simple changes to the tax/welfare structure linked to above, but do want to increase income for the low/low-middle income without waiting decades for students to come into middle income earning years, however, a good way to do that would be to sharply reduce the number of professions which require licensure. State licensing of professions can be justified in few, narrowly defined instances (medical or law enforcement, for example), but not in the vast majority of them (flower arranging or hair braiding). In those cases, license laws serve to keep poorer providers locked out of the marketplace, in order to reduce supply and increase prices that can be charged by vested interests.

OMG you don’t understand how much I would support talk of that or even opening higher professional schools without the bachelor requirement…but again that means a push down in wages in those industries.

So is the solution than a reduction in wages for a decrease in foreseeable unemployment?

For those of you interested in bipartisan solutions, The Brookings and American Enterprise Institutes got together and authored a Report on how to deal with poverty in ways that both members of the left and right can get behind.

Cool I’ll give it a look.

 

[cpwill]

Right! But the wage problem is pretty much across every class….so high middle is just further down the pipe.

On the contrary, I would argue life is getting better for all income strata; it's just that monetary compensation is increasing slower for some, and for the lowest income, barely at all. When you look at things like standards of living, the differences become immediately apparent.

I wish…that was on the table. Every way I’ve seen it tabled they’ll want more government services, higher taxes and a negative income tax :-|

You might be surprised - I've had some bipartisan support for the notion. I agree, however, that it is only effective as a replacement for our current, sclerotic structure, rather than an add-on.

Personally, I have just given up on the education industry and promote everyone I influence into self education and choose branding over certification.

That's fine for those who are uniquely self-starters. For the masses? This is still a program we need to work on.

Trades has a hard limit on how much it can absorb. So all I see any government push into it doing is decreasing wages in that sector. Although certainly opportunity for someone just coming into the employment market and intervention will surely kill that opportunity.

Hm.

1. I don't have the relevant numbers in front of me, but my assumption is that many of those people end up in trades already - they simply waste time in College first. So we may be increasing the number of folks headed to trades, but not overwhelmingly so.

2. The demand for trades is increasing. In fact, I think we are actually in a bit of a shortage right now, whereas we have a glut of humanities' majors.

3. It is, however, possible.

High education people are often just as unemployable as they have no marketable skill and I am even talking engineers, technicians, accountants….those in and of those selves are simply fields of study and not necessarily employable skills even if more practical in nature than psychology, poly-sci, English, woman studies etc.

High Education people don't have no marketable skills. They have, for example, demonstrated impressive information-processing capability (or, rather, they should have). They simply don't often have marketable skills commensurate with the investment made in developing those skills, due to poor areas of focus.

OMG you don’t understand how much I would support talk of that or even opening higher professional schools without the bachelor requirement…but again that means a push down in wages in those industries.

So is the solution than a reduction in wages for a decrease in foreseeable unemployment?

Don't forget that temporary decreases in upper-middle incomes will be dramatic and permanent wage increases for lower and lower-middle incomes; but that those decreases in turn will be offset by reduced cost of living.

To the extent that current higher-income businesses use protectionism to lock out the low or middle-low income from competition, they basically are taking part of their current income from the poor and the taxpayer anyway. I'm fine with them not being able to do so in the future.

Cool I’ll give it a look.

Thanks

 

[cuban smokes]

real wages peaked in 1979, the same year I graduated high school

back then a pass book saving account yield was 3.5% ................ now banks some times charge a customer to keep $$$$$ in the bank :shock:

in the past 40 years medical cost & medical insurance cost have decimated disposable incomes

the working class, middle class & the working poor in America are disappearing, soon to be a thing of the past


What to do? .............. serf city baby, that's where we are headed ............

 

[Conaeolos]

On the contrary, I would argue life is getting better for all income strata; it's just that monetary compensation is increasing slower for some, and for the lowest income, barely at all. When you look at things like standards of living, the differences become immediately apparent.

I would certainly agree we are currently in a period of the rich getting richer and the poor getting richer[just at a slower rate] at least in terms of the average(otherwise we’d be in crisis); but, I also would argue every indicator says that balance is shifting downward and unless you see a new American-advantaged industry on the horizon to grab this huge demographic it's not good. Also, you can see this growing effected demographic today (people losing wage and buying power) even if they remain not the average, agreed?

Inflation as a factor of buying power is not in check. Globalism is real and Americans are off market rate and can only compete if they have skills/services the other countries don’t or artificial barriers enforced so we don't have too. Lower prices certainty will grow and counter the effects of lower wages; which is why we need to measure in buying power not dollars but that does not mean the phenomenon follows to the point where lower wages in generally will be countered by a lower cost of living. Possible surely but far from a guarantee.

I’d actually argue there is more than enough jobs/money especially theoretically. The problem though is the labour market is supply and demand: the demand side needs creative entrepreneurship (limits aplenty, but we do ok) and the supply needs niche high quality employees (which are on the downslide when measured by the needs of today and get scary when projected on the needs of tomorrow)

You might be surprised - I've had some bipartisan support for the notion. I agree, however, that it is only effective as a replacement for our current, sclerotic structure, rather than an add-on.

I may be. In the process of getting my head around your proposal case. I plan to respond to it in that thread.

That's fine for those who are uniquely self-starters. For the masses? This is still a program we need to work on.

:-| I hope you're wrong but your probably not.

1. I don't have the relevant numbers in front of me, but my assumption is that many of those people end up in trades already - they simply waste time in College first. So we may be increasing the number of folks headed to trades, but not overwhelmingly so.

2. The demand for trades is increasing. In fact, I think we are actually in a bit of a shortage right now, whereas we have a glut of humanities' majors.

3. It is, however, possible.

Those are interesting points to look into the data on, sad if true, even if not surprising. My main point though is it not a big part of the solution, although there is labour shortage in that sector, the sector as a whole has hard limits, comes with a career length limitation due to physical cost and is easily killed with immigration/automation as its not a shortage globally(from what I understand) not to mention that modern maintenance systems are already reducing the number forecasted and increasing the complexity and niche of who needs to be hired. By that I mean if you do a skills comparison of the auto mechanic of yesteryear compared to the growing need for computer techs needed today. The aptitudes are completely different even if the area the same. Can one simply be the other with a little training? No in many cases.

High Education people don't have no marketable skills.

No only that, the numbers of cases this is true increases by the hour.

They have, for example, demonstrated impressive information-processing capability (or, rather, they should have).

A skill base that at this very moment we are testing computer software to replace big league.

This is like trying to be stronger than a machine in terms of lifting capacity or quality replication. In the short term maybe but its a battle lost before it even begins. Computers do information-processing at exponentially better rate and have a far lower error rates.

The high-skills of today/tomorrow require very human talents, but ones which still need to be practiced and mastered. Universities as they are do very little to develop human talents be them social or technical (creative).

They simply don't often have marketable skills commensurate with the investment made in developing those skills, due to poor areas of focus.

I wish that was the only issue…

 

[pdog]

Downward pressures compared to the past:
1. Full inclusion of woman to the workforce (increase supply of labour)
2. Automation increasing production power per employee (reducing needs of labour)
3. Foreign trade (eliminating many local industries)
4. Higher specialized training thresholds (can’t just train new employees limiting labour choice)
5. Increased population especially in skilled foreign labour (increase supply of labour)
6. Increase competition (pushing down prices and available customers)

Upward pressures compared to the past:
1. Fast Rate of innovation (many new emerging industries and the rate only seems to be increasing)
2. Increase education have a more broder-minded labour force (adaptability in labour)
3. Availability of advance training (most people can be train in any speciality)
4. Opening of global markets (huge new consumer bases coming aboard)

Feel free to expand upon or talk about any particular area of upward or downward middle class wage pressures.

The next waves of the middle & working class are looking like it going to struggle to buy homes, retire, pay their bills on 40 hour weeks etc.

One major reason for this is wages are not going up like they use to be and buying power is not going up to make up the difference. Youth unemployment and longer required education periods is also leading to later and later entry into the workforce delying everying.

My question is what do you see as the policies (left or right) which will start to see either wages raising or prices dropping to allow for a comfortable middle class?

- pay all overtime with an increasing multiplier (reducing labor supply) - why do all productivity gains go only to the bottom line and not to overall quality of life - this is way automation/globalization is looked at as bad.
- use public sector employment to ensure every person that wants one has a job (reduce private sector labor supply)
- eliminate minimum wage (allow it to float with these new pressures of supply and demand)
- limit management salaries to a multiplier of employee pay (productive improvement as a society should be shared)
- make college the new high school - if automation is going to continue to reduce labor need, our dollar requires that we create things that only a 1st world country with a lot of R & D can do - we cannot compete with the world on widgets
- welcome globalization, but only for countries that meet our labor standards.

 

[Nuber]

I was high tech blue collar all the way, but retired to a white collar world. The wife was a professional, spent many years teaching 8th grade language arts. If "Class" is to be used to describe only our financial condition, I guess we are upper class.

The wife and I know MANY upper class white collar folk who can't afford to live well in retirement because they insisted on living in whatever class was perceived to be above the class they can actually afford, using debt to project an image that only they care about.

For anyone who can perform basic mathematical calculations, debt is a poor choice.

 

[ludin]

- pay all overtime with an increasing multiplier (reducing labor supply) - why do all productivity gains go only to the bottom line and not to overall quality of life - this is way automation/globalization is looked at as bad.
- use public sector employment to ensure every person that wants one has a job (reduce private sector labor supply)
- eliminate minimum wage (allow it to float with these new pressures of supply and demand)
- limit management salaries to a multiplier of employee pay (productive improvement as a society should be shared)
- make college the new high school - if automation is going to continue to reduce labor need, our dollar requires that we create things that only a 1st world country with a lot of R & D can do - we cannot compete with the world on widgets
- welcome globalization, but only for countries that meet our labor standards.

for hourly people overtime is where all their money is made up to a certain amount. I found that working more than 22 hours of OT in a pay period was not good. I actually started losing money after that.
who is going to pay for all those public sector jobs?
eliminating minimum wage has it's own issues.
limiting pay has never been a sound policy just as FDR it creates more issues than it is worth.
umm yea how is that going to work and who is going to pay for it?

 

[pdog]

for hourly people overtime is where all their money is made up to a certain amount. I found that working more than 22 hours of OT in a pay period was not good. I
actually started losing money after that.

Huh?? How did you loose money working more hours?

who is going to pay for all those public sector jobs?

Progressive taxes, mmt, take your pick. All I know that it is a waste of resources to have people sitting idle.

eliminating minimum wage has it's own issues.

I don't disagree, but my point is that I'd rather let it float with supply and demand in a (more)perfect world.

limiting pay has never been a sound policy just as FDR it creates more issues than it is worth.
I'm not limiting pay, I'm limiting disparity. A ceo/manager can pay themselves as much as they want as long as they also pay their employees well.

umm yea how is that going to work and who is going to pay for it?

Progressive taxes, mmt, take your pick.

 

[Renae]

Downward pressures compared to the past:
1. Full inclusion of woman to the workforce (increase supply of labour)
2. Automation increasing production power per employee (reducing needs of labour)
3. Foreign trade (eliminating many local industries)
4. Higher specialized training thresholds (can’t just train new employees limiting labour choice)
5. Increased population especially in skilled foreign labour (increase supply of labour)
6. Increase competition (pushing down prices and available customers)

Upward pressures compared to the past:
1. Fast Rate of innovation (many new emerging industries and the rate only seems to be increasing)
2. Increase education have a more broder-minded labour force (adaptability in labour)
3. Availability of advance training (most people can be train in any speciality)
4. Opening of global markets (huge new consumer bases coming aboard)

Feel free to expand upon or talk about any particular area of upward or downward middle class wage pressures.

The next waves of the middle & working class are looking like it going to struggle to buy homes, retire, pay their bills on 40 hour weeks etc.

One major reason for this is wages are not going up like they use to be and buying power is not going up to make up the difference. Youth unemployment and longer required education periods is also leading to later and later entry into the workforce delying everying.

My question is what do you see as the policies (left or right) which will start to see either wages raising or prices dropping to allow for a comfortable middle class?

Lower taxes, streamline regulations, control H1 style Visas, work to reduce burdensome dictates on businesses at the Federal level.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

For anyone who can perform basic mathematical calculations, debt is a poor choice.

No that is not true

Unproductive debt is a poor choice

Taking on debt to expand a business or start one is potentially productive. A reasonable level of student loan debt for an education that should result in a productive career is a smart choice

Debt to purchase a new 80 inch 4k curved OLED tv is a poor choice. Debt to go on a month long vacation in the tropics is a poor choice

Debt in the US to pay for expensive medical treatment, might not be a choice at all ( debt vs death?

 

[ludin]

Huh?? How did you loose money working more hours?

after so many hours of overtime it bumps you into a higher tax bracket on the withholding chart.
if you work and insane

Progressive taxes, mmt, take your pick. All I know that it is a waste of resources to have people sitting idle.

they do this in cuba you have 5 people sitting in a room doing nothing.
so the only thing you prospose is taking more money from working families.
sigh* I really get tired of people taking money I use to support my family just to give it to someone else.

I don't disagree, but my point is that I'd rather let it float with supply and demand in a (more)perfect world.

while the market could possibly set the minimum wage the consequences of such actions would be troubling for a lot of people.

Progressive taxes, mmt, take your pick.

then I choose neither.

 

[pdog]

after so many hours of overtime it bumps you into a higher tax bracket on the withholding chart.
if you work and insane

It only bumps those NEW DOLLARS into the higher bracket. Loosing money by earning more on a progressive scale is a myth and is impossible.

they do this in cuba you have 5 people sitting in a room doing nothing.

Evidence please?

so the only thing you prospose is taking more money from working families.

I propose redistributing money from those with a low marginal propensity to consume who obtained it thru unbalanced access to the economy to those that have a high marginal propensity to consume.

sigh* I really get tired of people taking money I use to support my family just to give it to someone else.

That's the nice thing about progressive taxes. If you are using that money only to support your family, then it's not likely to affect you.

then I choose neither.

Ok fine. I'll offer zero lifetime taxes. But a 100% death tax and no gifting.

 

[ludin]

It only bumps those NEW DOLLARS into the higher bracket. Loosing money by earning more on a progressive scale is a myth and is impossible.

No it isn't.

Evidence please?

Zero-percent unemployment Cuba's labor strife - Business - World business | NBC News

I propose redistributing money from those with a low marginal propensity to consume who obtained it thru unbalanced access to the economy to those that have a high marginal propensity to consume.

So you believe in stealing gottcha. you do realize that this has been tried and has never worked right?

That's the nice thing about progressive taxes. If you are using that money only to support your family, then it's not likely to affect you.

sure it will because the more I make the more I have to give away. I prefer to better myself to improve my families life.

Ok fine. I'll offer zero lifetime taxes. But a 100% death tax and no gifting.

again I choose neither.

 

[pdog]

No it isn't.

It absolutely is. Consider a system with two brackets at %5 up to 50k and 10% above 50K.

Your tax liability at 51k is NOT 5.1k, it is 2600 ie
50k * 5% = 2500
+ 1k * 10% =100

Zero-percent unemployment Cuba's labor strife - Business - World business | NBC News

Why did we jump to this extreme of 95% government employment? We're only at 10% right now? Surely you have a road or a bridge near you that needs some work?

So you believe in stealing gottcha. you do realize that this has been tried and has never worked right?

If a man buys the head of a river in which everybody downstream depends on, are you saying the country should be powerless to stop that owner from using all the water? Would it be stealing if the country said you can use the water, but you have to make sure most of it goes back into the river?

sure it will because the more I make the more I have to give away. I prefer to better myself to improve my families life.

who says that taxes have to start at the first dollar?

again I choose neither.

Your thoughts and suggestions are very thought provoking. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Absentglare]

It only bumps those NEW DOLLARS into the higher bracket. Loosing money by earning more on a progressive scale is a myth and is impossible.

Evidence please?

I propose redistributing money from those with a low marginal propensity to consume who obtained it thru unbalanced access to the economy to those that have a high marginal propensity to consume.


That's the nice thing about progressive taxes. If you are using that money only to support your family, then it's not likely to affect you.





Ok fine. I'll offer zero lifetime taxes. But a 100% death tax and no gifting.

Bold is so dead on, extremely well-said.

 

[ludin]

It absolutely is. Consider a system with two brackets at %5 up to 50k and 10% above 50K.

Your tax liability at 51k is NOT 5.1k, it is 2600 ie
50k * 5% = 2500
+ 1k * 10% =100

it is a fact and calculated that there are diminishing returns on working over time as it pushes your tax withholdings into higher brackets.
this is not federal income tax, but what they hold out of your pay check when you get paid. you are confusing the two of them together and they
are not one in the same.

Why did we jump to this extreme of 95% government employment? We're only at 10% right now? Surely you have a road or a bridge near you that needs some work?

You asked for evidence I gave it to you. I don't know what more you want.

If a man buys the head of a river in which everybody downstream depends on, are you saying the country should be powerless to stop that owner from using all the water? Would it be stealing if the country said you can use the water, but you have to make sure most of it goes back into the river?

not possible as we have laws that prevent this from happening. please see fair use and free travel laws. plus there are right of way laws.
again it helps to understand our laws and things.

who says that taxes have to start at the first dollar?

I never argued any such thing.

Your thoughts and suggestions are very thought provoking. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

you are not listing any option that I considered worth considering so I pick none of your options.