From that Commie Liberal mag known as the Business Insider...

GameboyRMH wrote: The thing is they're not paying Gen. Y'ers that $19.71. PHeller was saying $12-14, which is not even the worst of it. I think a part of it is that the Bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma, to get paid like a Gen. X'er with a Bachelor's a Gen. Y'er has to have a Master's at least.

sadly, I think that is completely wrong, or it only applies if you go to school for something stupid. I could get any high school kid who is willing to take his or her lumps and work hard and have them making six figures in less than 10 years. All it takes is a couple of years of tech school and an apprenticeship. Unfortunately parents in particular seem bound and determined to get their kids into $50k worth of debt to get jobs everyone already knows only pay $30k a year.

Wxdude10 wrote: I think we need to pay a realistic wage to everyone. When there have been so many improvements over the years that have made us more productive as a workforce, shouldn't everyone see a benefit from the increased output, including the workers who are actually producing the output?

Then we (the royal we) have to define a "realistic" wage.

Does it cover basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, transportation or minimal access to health care? Or does it need to cover things that people have decided are necessary but truly aren't.

People are still going to make bad choices with a "realistic" wage and they will still fail. WTF are we going to do what that happens again and again?

Setting a realistic wage is ridiculous; NYC, LA(all of SoCal), Chicago or any other metro area are going to run you 2x the cost of living. Live in Toledo; and that $40k is pretty much a princely sun that will cover you.

So is the realistic wage 100k in the metro and 40k in the Podunk; and if so is that worker in the metro "better" than the worker in the Podunk?

i wonder what Mike Rowe would say if he was to stumble across this thread?

ultimately, it comes down to each individual to decide what kind of a life they are going to lead... if you can't afford the lifestyle you want at the place you choose to live, then you either need to figure out how to afford the lifestyle, reel back your expectations of what you need, or move to where you can afford what you want and need.. it's not the responsibility of the evil fat cat rich people that own the companies to make your life better- it's up to you to make your life better... and who knows, if you play your cards right maybe some day you will find yourself in the position of those evil rich fat cat company owners..

In reply to novaderrik:

Except as the stats show, those evil fat cat rich people have gotten 10x richer and eviler over the last 50 years. Which makes it a whole lot harder to get ahead anymore.

I'm gonna get out of school ~80k in the hole, just so I have a sure shot at a decent job that isnt backbreaking labor on an oil rig, welding underwater, or something to that effect.

Was that true 50 years ago? No.

Datsun1500 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: $40k a year = $2100 a month take home? If you aren't putting anything in your 401k.

According to this calculator, putting in OK as a home State, take home is $2700, I will say $2500. No way its $2100 a month.

I live somewhere cheap and it could be tough. Mortgage, property tax, insurance on a $99,000 in the suburbs of Tulsa is $825. I know, that's my mortgage situation currently. And rent on a similar house is more expensive.

so $1675 left...

Say you drive a relatively new-ish Accord, $300/month, another $100/month for insurance/taxes, another $150 for gas (assuming 1 tank a week approx.)

so $1125 left....

We have a small house with all CFL bulbs and recent appliances, cable internet but no cable TV. The utilities come out to around $375 a month on the average plan.

so $750 left....

We are now down to $325 a month to cover food, savings, retirement, emergencies, entertainment, GRM subscription.........getting pretty tight.

More than $325, but I get what you are saying. However it does still show that the average guy can live an average life on an average wage. You are also saying "we" so I assume it's 2 of you in the house (so double food, etc.) There is not much left over at the end, however there was not much left over at the end in 1965 either, which is what my point is. If the average guy can be OK on the average wage, it is not relevant what others make. Don't want the average wage? Do something about it. If you don't want to be the average worker bee, you don't have to. Start a company, go to school, make a product, whatever. It will not be easy, there are plenty of excuses why you can't, and the average guy will not do it. The above average guy will, and he will make above average money....

On the previous page you mentioned, "a pretty good lifestyle" on that salary.

I wouldn't consider the previous example as "pretty good" especially since we aren't accounting for 401k or insurance contributions. That's more like "just getting by".

I make a good wage and my self-employed wife does even better than I do. So I'm not arguing from a pissed-off, college grad with a $13/hr job position. I'm saying let's be realistic.

A lot of these low paying jobs HAVE to be filled by someone. We have to have garbage men, servers, guys who dig ditches and put roof's on houses. Should the guy at Burger King make $17/hr?

No, I think that's a bit steep, but should he get paid enough that he doesn't have to be on public assistance (ie our tax dollars) to have a roof over his head or buy groceries? That's a better question, unfortunately in this country, the desire to be pedantic and "uncompromising" (As though that is admirable) is preventing any discussion about real world solutions.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to novaderrik: Except as the stats show, those evil fat cat rich people have gotten 10x richer and eviler over the last 50 years. Which makes it a whole lot harder to get ahead anymore. I'm gonna get out of school ~80k in the hole, just so I have a sure shot at a decent job that isnt backbreaking labor on an oil rig, welding underwater, or something to that effect. Was that true 50 years ago? No.

times change... lead, follow, or get out of the way. you get out of life what you put into it and no one forced you to go $80k into debt straight out of high school, but you chose that path.

i think my best year in the 20 years or so that i've been in the work force was right around $50k gross, which is plenty to live a decent life in this area. i could make more if i wanted to work more, but i get by and am happy with what i have and think that giving up 40 hours of work and 10 hours of commuting every week is plenty for what i desire out of life.

Datsun1500 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: $40k a year = $2100 a month take home? If you aren't putting anything in your 401k.

According to this calculator, putting in OK as a home State, take home is $2700, I will say $2500. No way its $2100 a month.

I live somewhere cheap and it could be tough. Mortgage, property tax, insurance on a $99,000 in the suburbs of Tulsa is $825. I know, that's my mortgage situation currently. And rent on a similar house is more expensive.

so $1675 left...

Say you drive a relatively new-ish Accord, $300/month, another $100/month for insurance/taxes, another $150 for gas (assuming 1 tank a week approx.)

so $1125 left....

We have a small house with all CFL bulbs and recent appliances, cable internet but no cable TV. The utilities come out to around $375 a month on the average plan.

so $750 left....

We are now down to $325 a month to cover food, savings, retirement, emergencies, entertainment, GRM subscription.........getting pretty tight.

More than $325, but I get what you are saying. However it does still show that the average guy can live an average life on an average wage. You are also saying "we" so I assume it's 2 of you in the house (so double food, etc.) There is not much left over at the end, however there was not much left over at the end in 1965 either, which is what my point is. If the average guy can be OK on the average wage, it is not relevant what others make. Don't want the average wage? Do something about it. If you don't want to be the average worker bee, you don't have to. Start a company, go to school, make a product, whatever. It will not be easy, there are plenty of excuses why you can't, and the average guy will not do it. The above average guy will, and he will make above average money.... It's like the other thread on pro ball players, people say they shouldn't make as much as they do. My neighbor is a pro baseball pitcher, he can throw a ball well above the average guy, so he gets paid well above average money. He started training for it when he was 12 though....

I would also like to point out that in 1965, you had a pension for your retirement as part of your benefits. Now, if you are not taking that 10-20% off the top to put into your 401k, you are gonna be in trouble. Social Security isn't going to be there for our generation (Gen X, let alone Gen Y). So that is another slice taken out of the average worker's salary....

novaderrik wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to novaderrik: Except as the stats show, those evil fat cat rich people have gotten 10x richer and eviler over the last 50 years. Which makes it a whole lot harder to get ahead anymore. I'm gonna get out of school ~80k in the hole, just so I have a sure shot at a decent job that isnt backbreaking labor on an oil rig, welding underwater, or something to that effect. Was that true 50 years ago? No.

times change... lead, follow, or get out of the way. you get out of life what you put into it and no one forced you to go $80k into debt straight out of high school, but you chose that path. i think my best year in the 20 years or so that i've been in the work force was right around $50k gross, which is plenty to live a decent life in this area. i could make more if i wanted to work more, but i get by and am happy with what i have and think that giving up 40 hours of work and 10 hours of commuting every week is plenty for what i desire out of life.

I hate to put words in your mouth, but I cant think of any other way to say it.

So what you're saying is, you're happy with the current status quo, its currently projected future, and all that? Because it hasn't personally bit your ass yet? Or just plain "ignorance is bliss" type logic? What you have IS NOT the norm anymore.

chandlerGTi wrote: Setting a realistic wage is ridiculous; NYC, LA(all of SoCal), Chicago or any other metro area are going to run you 2x the cost of living. Live in Toledo; and that $40k is pretty much a princely sun that will cover you. So is the realistic wage 100k in the metro and 40k in the Podunk; and if so is that worker in the metro "better" than the worker in the Podunk?

I am not saying that realistic means a simple flat rate for a given job. It is not black and white. The worker in tne metro is not inherently more valuable then in the podunk. The difference is caused by pressures for the regional job market.

My point is that because of the improvements in productivity, my 40 hours per week is now worth a lot more to my company now then it would have been 30-40 years ago. But wages do not reflect that my output is more valuable. I know the global economy is moving faster than it did 40 years ago. But has the CEO's productivity and contributed value increased as much as the worker's? Enough that the CEO's salary has gone up over 10x while the workers have stagnated at best?

Here is an interesting thing when you talk about what CEOs make. The highest paid CEO in Germany only made 23million. That is a far cry from what a lot of US CEOs make

Highest paid German CEO

I have no issue with companies making a profit. And I think a good CEO is worth his weight in gold if he can bring his company a profit.. but letting them get a multiple million bonus if they make or lose money is stupid, and I have a real problem when a CEO's pay is greater than -all- the worker's pay combined

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

novaderrik wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to novaderrik: Except as the stats show, those evil fat cat rich people have gotten 10x richer and eviler over the last 50 years. Which makes it a whole lot harder to get ahead anymore. I'm gonna get out of school ~80k in the hole, just so I have a sure shot at a decent job that isnt backbreaking labor on an oil rig, welding underwater, or something to that effect. Was that true 50 years ago? No.

times change... lead, follow, or get out of the way. you get out of life what you put into it and no one forced you to go $80k into debt straight out of high school, but you chose that path. i think my best year in the 20 years or so that i've been in the work force was right around $50k gross, which is plenty to live a decent life in this area. i could make more if i wanted to work more, but i get by and am happy with what i have and think that giving up 40 hours of work and 10 hours of commuting every week is plenty for what i desire out of life.

I hate to put words in your mouth, but I cant think of any other way to say it. So what you're saying is, you're happy with the current status quo, its currently projected future, and all that? Because it hasn't personally bit your ass yet? Or just plain "ignorance is bliss" type logic? What you have IS NOT the norm anymore.

oh, it's bitten me in the ass... and getting bitten taught me a lot about what i need to be content with where i'm at and what i've got..

but you're right- my situation isn't the norm any more because i'm happy with where i'm at. everyone seems to think that they have to have more and more and better and better everything in order to be happy. i'm not wired like that- i grew up poor and was raised by my single mother after my dad died. we didn't have a lot, but we had enough. we didn't have nice stuff, but we didn't live in a dump, either.

i worked for and earned everything i've got right now, and if i decide that i want more, i'll work harder. it's that simple.

In reply to novaderrik:

I'm not talking about the mcmasion and 6 new suburbans in a gated community E36 M3. I'm talking about a family of 4 with nothing extraordinary about the parents being able to feed the kids and keep up with the light bill in their hopefully paid for house.

Seems every other household I know has deteriorated to that in the last 10 years. Good hardworking people, all of them.

if they can't afford where they are at, then they should move... McD's is paying $15 an hour in Williston, ND.. but the housing supply is short so it costs more to live there. but there are plenty of rural/semi rural areas in flyover country where $40k a year gives a family a decent living..

otherwise, figure out a way to make more where you are at.

Yeah because if you're living pay check to pay check, you clearly have the time and money to move.

And please lets not play the "We'll you shouldn't have gotten yourself into that situation" game. I should know. I've been in that situation. Having to decide whether you buy insulin or use the money for gas to get to the better job 1200 miles away, you stay put and stay alive.

people move to where the money is all the time... it's been going on since the dawn of civilization- and actually even before that when humans were nomads that followed the game that kept them alive. if people can find a way to get from third world hell holes where indoor plumbing and electricity are abstract concepts to a country half way around the world to make a better life, then someone in a major metro area of the most prosperous nation in the history of the world can move 100 miles to a more rural area looking for opportunities..

you don't need to move across the continent to find a better living situation- get 100 miles from any major metro area and things start to get cheaper..

people can also do without the latest and greatest iWhatever and give up the movie channels on your cable plan.. if you need a cell phone- or just like the convenience of it- a prepaid cell plan is cheaper than a contract plan.. learn to use that metal box in the corner of your kitchen that makes food warm instead of going to a place where they cook the food and bring it out to you. accept the fact that a 10-15 year old car can be plenty reliable for daily driver purposes instead of getting stuck in the never ending cycle of buying or leasing a new (or newer) car every few years... $15 Wrangler jeans from Wal Mart are actually more durable and hold up better in every way than the $50+ jeans at other stores.. and on and on...

most of the rest of the world envies the problems we have here, so take advantage of where you are and make your own life better if you feel the need.

I worry for the future of not only our country but others who attempt to mirror it. If you look at the richest people in the world, quite a few of them are from developing or underdeveloped nations. I find it amazing that even in poor African, South American, Central American, Asian countries, mining operations, telecoms, manufacturing, oil and gas can underpay labor while their owners live on millions. They've got the cheapest living wages in the world and they still get underpaid, or worse yet, outsourced to Chinese labor.

I still think average wages and unemployment should be tied to personal income taxes. If you own or are invested in a company, it should benefit you to hire more people and pay them better, not the opposite.

In reply to novaderrik:

I really think you are just proving the other side's point here. You are able to live a decent life by living in a rural area where cost of living is inexpensive, and by being as thrifty as possible. I get that, heck I live that way too, as I'm sure many here do.

But if you make 40 to 50k a year, you should realize that you're making more than 50% of the households in this country. Heck, 25% of all households make less than $30k.

I think that's the argument here. the income gap between the middle class and upper has grown, and the wages of the middle class have decreased even without adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, economic mobility, the ability to better your own situation, has fallen dramatically.

When the numbers are as skewed as these, you're looking at powerful market forces that are depressing average incoms, not just simple individual laziness.

What I don't get are the people who complain about paying workers too little and the CEOs too much as they walk out of Walmart . I believe that not all companies would benefit from paying their workers more. Walmart pays their workers very little because that aligns with their strategy. If they paid their workers 50% more, sure the service would be great, stores would be cleaner, people would be productive, etc but they wouldn't be able to sell products as cheap as they do. They pay E36 M3ty wages and have to deal with long lines, poor service, theft and all kinds of things. But they sell so much more that they can make up for it and make money.

Not happy with the CEO's pay? Don't shop there. Jealous about their pay? Go to school, make the contacts, get a little lucky and become the CEO. I don't like the wealth gap between the rich and poor but I don't blame the CEOs. I blame we the people for demanding it.

Enyar wrote: Not happy with the CEO's pay? Don't shop there. Jealous about their pay? Go to school, make the contacts, get a little lucky and become the CEO. I don't like the wealth gap between the rich and poor but I don't blame the CEOs. I blame we the people for demanding it.

We are in a vicious circle. The lower/middle classes see what the upper class has, and they want a part of that. So they look for the goods at the prices they can afford. A smart company finds a way to provide the desired goods at a more affordable price, which means cutting costs, including labor. Then the company is successful which rewards the CEO. He increases his lifestyle because he is doing better now. And the cycle repeats. It would be great to break out of the death spiral we are in. Unfortunately, the system (meaning media, advertising, societal expectations and pressures, etc.) is geared to reinforcing this cycle.

I like PHeller's idea about making the incentives to be focused on hiring people and paying them better. It gets to the point that the focus in the business world is not in the right place. It is to tightly concentrated on the quarterly results/dividends. Until this focus is changed or broadened to look at more than the latest results and how to game the system to make them better, we are not going to see the income gap improve.

There is always talk about 'The Greater Good" and "The rising tide lifts all boats". You can see that the tide isn't rising. 'The Greater Good" is not being helped. If you increase your peaks, sure you can bring up the average and say "Look, we are all doing better", but that is not the case.

how come it seems the people who are the first to complain about the "status quo" seem to want more of it...

Obviously letting the people think a basic "good" living is their birthright isn't working out for us.. This is NOT what "Life LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness means!!!!!!

For Gods Sakes... When doing the math for "the average guy"..... Someone figured in nearly a new car payment as a necessity... And implies somehow it is something owed to each 'Murican by society...

Come on people... That type of thinking IS the status quo... and IS the problem!!!!!

In reply to ronholm:

Ron,

I agree. The ideas of what is "necessary" is completely out of whack. I have family that me and my wife just stare at in disbelief. The cousin and her boyfriend live in her parents basement, have a daughter and have another baby on the way. She complains that they can't afford an apartment even though they both work because their bills are out of control. However, they are both leasing a brand new CUV and a BMW. And they eat out all the time because they have no where to cook.

I don't think people are OWED jobs by society. I actually think that we give people too much already. My argument is about fairness. Yes, a CEO or an owner of a company should be rewarded more than a worker. They have more responsibilities then the worker does, including caring about the well being of their workers. But when you see that, on average and adjusted for inflation, the workers have not seen the gain from the improvements that have come to be during the last 40 years. But the upper echelons have seen it. It is just a matter of equity. Everyone who contributed to the increased success and has skin in the game should see a benefit from it. Maybe not as much as the CEO's, etc., but you should have seen something.

Wxdude10 wrote: We are in a vicious circle. The lower/middle classes see what the upper class has, and they want a part of that. So they look for the goods at the prices they can afford. A smart company finds a way to provide the desired goods at a more affordable price, which means cutting costs, including labor. Then the company is successful which rewards the CEO. He increases his lifestyle because he is doing better now. And the cycle repeats. It would be great to break out of the death spiral we are in. Unfortunately, the system (meaning media, advertising, societal expectations and pressures, etc.) is geared to reinforcing this cycle. I like PHeller's idea about making the incentives to be focused on hiring people and paying them better. It gets to the point that the focus in the business world is not in the right place. It is to tightly concentrated on the quarterly results/dividends. Until this focus is changed or broadened to look at more than the latest results and how to game the system to make them better, we are not going to see the income gap improve. There is always talk about 'The Greater Good" and "The rising tide lifts all boats". You can see that the tide isn't rising. 'The Greater Good" is not being helped. If you increase your peaks, sure you can bring up the average and say "Look, we are all doing better", but that is not the case.

But whose fault is that? Maybe people shouldn't try to keep up with the Joneses as much and do what makes them happy....which is probably a nice work life balance, time with friends and family, hobbies, etc. Not the new 70" LCD or driving the previously mentioned brand new Accord.

There are too many people out there in our country and especially other countries that would love to take your job even at a pay cut. Until that supply of workers is diminished (which is going to take a heck of a long time with all the people in India/China/etc), the entry level jobs are going to continue paying less and less. Add in modern technology which creates great tech jobs for some but takes away much more entry level/low skilled jobs and all of a sudden it's not looking so hot for the new comers to the game/low skilled workers here in the US. That's why the newcomers are struggling, not because of the CEO's.

Wxdude10 wrote: In reply to ronholm: Ron, I agree. The ideas of what is "necessary" is completely out of whack. I have family that me and my wife just stare at in disbelief. The cousin and her boyfriend live in her parents basement, have a daughter and have another baby on the way. She complains that they can't afford an apartment even though they both work because their bills are out of control. However, they are both leasing a brand new CUV and a BMW. And they eat out all the time because they have no where to cook. I don't think people are OWED jobs by society. I actually think that we give people too much already. My argument is about fairness. Yes, a CEO or an owner of a company should be rewarded more than a worker. They have more responsibilities then the worker does, including caring about the well being of their workers. But when you see that, on average and adjusted for inflation, the workers have not seen the gain from the improvements that have come to be during the last 40 years. But the upper echelons have seen it. It is just a matter of equity. Everyone who contributed to the increased success and has skin in the game should see a benefit from it. Maybe not as much as the CEO's, etc., but you should have seen something.

Could you further explain "the improvements that have come to be during the last 40 years"?

If you mean things like automation, computers, software, robots...why should the workers gain from someone else's improvements?

Enyar wrote: If you mean things like automation, computers, software, robots...why should the workers gain from someone else's improvements?

Why should the CEOs gain from someone else's improvements? Why should the gain from the improvements be restricted to any one group?

PHeller wrote: I still think average wages and unemployment should be tied to personal income taxes. If you own or are invested in a company, it should benefit you to hire more people and pay them better, not the opposite.

Care to explain? Who's wages? Would you adjust the rates or offer some sort of tax credit?

For instance:

A) I own GRM and my minions make 10% over average. Do I now pay a 33% rate instead of 35%?

B) What if my minions make 10% under average? Do I pay 38% now or I just don't get the benefit the owner in A) gets?

What if I pay workers in China 50% better than the average there but it is still 600% less than workers in the US?