US Economy, part 2

[Pakuni]

You and I agree on very little financially/politically, but I find you to be earnest and sincere, so I say this respectfully, but you really need to supplement your online browsings with real world evidence, and probably get outside the online bubble in general when it comes to this kind of stuff.  And this is from someone who can often fall into the trap of grounding far too much of reality in online musings.

Online personalities would have you believe that millions of corporations and small businesses are paying near minimum wage (not remotely true) and a true living wage is $80K+ per year.  Hell, my wife just saw in a Mom group she is in on Facebook (I know, lol) that posted an article with a study that said the living wage in Florida was $93K. 

Meanwhile MIT's Living Wage calculator places it much closer to the mid 50Ks in most of the country for a family of 3.  By that metric, the vast majority of corporations are paying that rate for many many jobs.  You can argue nuance or actual wage levels by another $10K or whatever, but the idea that all these companies don't pay living wage is just silly and based in nothing but feels.

The median wage in the U.S. last year was about $48,060.
If you're saying the living wage is $55K, that means a pretty substantial majority of Americans don't earn a living wage.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/14/median-annual-income-in-every-us-state.html#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20median%20annual,the%20other%20half%20earned%20more

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Ah yes, the vibe-cession.

It is interesting to see how by almost any objective measure, the US economy is very strong and yet everywhere you look on the internet people are convinced the economy is terrible. Or my random group of politically-aggrieved friends on a text thread who are convinced that the economy has never been worse. It's all vibes man. All vibes.

Propaganda works.

Rupert Mudoch is, I would argue, the most poisonous man in U.S. history, with Limbaugh jockeying for 2nd.

[Skatastrophy]

What's the definition of "living wage"? How many companies actually pay that?

Just in case you (or anyone else) is actually curious

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp

And also: In reality I'm in favor of a $20+ federal minimum wage pegged to inflation. I also think we should be taxing highest earners at 70% for the highest bracket like we were when America was great in the 40s through the 80s. And I think we need to fund the everliving crap out of social security, medicare, and medicaid because those programs save us SO much money compared to the hidden costs of caring for the indigent.

That being said, I'm a capitalist and I'm going to continue arguing capitalist points mostly in this thread. My mask just slipped for a sec and I apologize for that. Eat the poor.

[The Sultan]

The median wage in the U.S. last year was about $48,060.
If you're saying the living wage is $55K, that means a pretty substantial majority of Americans don't earn a living wage.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/14/median-annual-income-in-every-us-state.html#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20median%20annual,the%20other%20half%20earned%20more

Yeah. He said $55,000 for a family of three. My guess is that in most households of three, there are multiple wage earners.

[JWags85]

The median wage in the U.S. last year was about $48,060.
If you're saying the living wage is $55K, that means a pretty substantial majority of Americans don't earn a living wage.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/14/median-annual-income-in-every-us-state.html#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20median%20annual,the%20other%20half%20earned%20more

I misread.  Basically anywhere outside of the coasts was under $50K.

https://research.zippia.com/living-wage.html

And again that's also talking household, not a single person, unless the argument shifts to everyone should make enough for a single income to support a household.

And, FWIW, that median income factors in myriad jobs and salaries that aren't "corporation/business". Again, not excusing away any income disparities or other factors that affect lower wage workers in this country, just the idea that "what corporations are actually paying a living wage" like it's a rarity is just a silly excessive statement.  It's just not a good faith argument

[MU82]

Ah yes, the vibe-cession.

It is interesting to see how by almost any objective measure, the US economy is very strong and yet everywhere you look on the internet people are convinced the economy is terrible. Or my random group of politically-aggrieved friends on a text thread who are convinced that the economy has never been worse. It's all vibes man. All vibes.

But to throw a bone in the direction of the "who is paying a living wage" folks, there are certainly companies that have elected not to pay their workforce adequately. Wal-Mart comes to mind as one employer that famously paid their employees so little they qualified for social safety net programs. Whether that remains true in today's tight labor market or not, I can't say. There is also a reasonable logical conclusion that in many high cost of living areas that a larger swath of potentially "living wage" type employment no longer is. Even back when I was a kid and visited NYC, I wondered where the people who worked in McDonalds for minimum wage lived. $25/hr (aprx $50k/yr) might be a living wage in Milwaukee, but is it in San Francisco?

I still wonder how fast-food franchises, retailers and other such companies can find enough employees in the most expensive cities.

So much of this discussion needs to be made on a local and/or regional basis because there is such a significant difference between what it takes to get by in Raleigh/Omaha/Oklahoma City vs. Boston/Washington/LA.

[Pakuni]

Yeah. He said $55,000 for a family of three. My guess is that in most households of three, there are multiple wage earners.

So two people need to ve working in order to earn one living wage?
I'm not sure that's great evidence for the position that wage earners are decently compensated.

According to the article linked below, living wage for a single person in most states is in the mid 40s to low 50s. If the median wage nationally is $48k, that still means about half of wage earners aren't getting a living wage for a single household.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/living-wage-single-person-needs-112802048.html

[The Sultan]

So two people need to ve working in order to earn one living wage?
I'm not sure that's great evidence for the position that wage earners are decently compensated.

According to the article linked below, living wage for a single person in most states is in the mid 40s to low 50s. If the median wage nationally is $48k, that still means about half of wage earners aren't getting a living wage for a single household.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/living-wage-single-person-needs-112802048.html

Yes I think it is fair to say that a lot of dual income households would not do too well if the couple separated. But that's probably always been the case - a lot of single people historically have had roommates or lived with family.

[jesmu84]

You and I agree on very little financially/politically, but I find you to be earnest and sincere, so I say this respectfully, but you really need to supplement your online browsings with real world evidence, and probably get outside the online bubble in general when it comes to this kind of stuff.  And this is from someone who can often fall into the trap of grounding far too much of reality in online musings.

Online personalities would have you believe that millions of corporations and small businesses are paying near minimum wage (not remotely true) and a true living wage is $80K+ per year.  Hell, my wife just saw in a Mom group she is in on Facebook (I know, lol) that posted an article with a study that said the living wage in Florida was $93K. 

Meanwhile MIT's Living Wage calculator places it much closer to the mid 50Ks in most of the country for a family of 3.  By that metric, the vast majority of corporations are paying that rate for many many jobs.  You can argue nuance or actual wage levels by another $10K or whatever, but the idea that all these companies don't pay living wage is just silly and based in nothing but feels.

Thank you.

I think I made the mistake again of not setting up definitions before asking questions.

Appreciate the thorough response.

[MU82]

First item in the WSJ's afternoon e-newsletter:

U.S. hiring and wages were up last month, reinforcing the economy's resilience.

While the U.S. added 272,000 new jobs, the unemployment rate ticked up to 4%, offering a mixed view of a labor market that has generally been cooling while staying hotter than many anticipated. Average hourly earnings rose 4.1% from a year earlier, beating forecasts, the Labor Department said. Economists predicted 190,000 new jobs in May. The unemployment rate, which was 3.9% in April, extended a steady climb, though it is still low by historical standards and has shown little sign of making a big jump. Despite high interest rates and stubborn inflation, businesses keep hiring, wages keep rising and consumers keep spending.

[Jockey]

Don't forget that the 4% includes people who are not looking for work.

You get a job. You get a job. You get a job. Anyone who wants to work can get a job.

[rocket surgeon]

  what needs to be separated however, are the jobs that were never really intended to pay 'living wages" and are rather, entry level positions.  for some to expect entry level positions to pay ~$50k is ludicrous.  the people overseeing the entry level positioned employee however, are a different story and should be subject to market forces. 

    you get what you pay for

[SoCalEagle]

Don't forget that the 4% includes people who are not looking for work.

You get a job. You get a job. You get a job. Anyone who wants to work can get a job.

I don't think this is accurate. 

[lawdog77]

I don't think this is accurate.

Correct, unemployment numbers are actually those who have filed for unemployment

[dgies9156]

I also think we should be taxing highest earners at 70% for the highest bracket like we were when America was great in the 40s through the 80s.

Here's a true story about what happens with a 70 percent marginal tax bracket.

Rudolph and Daisy were married in the 1950s, when you say America was "great". Rudolph was an accountant and Daisy was a primary grades educator. Both were pretty sharp folks.

Shortly after they were married, Daisy became pregnant. Like many couples in the 1950s, they had multiple children in comparatively short order. Rudolph and Daisy agreed that Daisy should stay home when the children were young to care for their ever growing family (back when you could choose to do that!).

By the mid-1960s, Rudolph and Daisy's youngest child was approaching the age at which many children went to kindergarten. Their older children had started school and Daisy was disappointed that neither their state's public nor their Roman Catholic schools offered kindergarten. As a primary educator and a devout Catholic, Daisy thought it might be a good idea to develop a kindergarten for the local Catholic school.

So Daisy sat down with Rudolph to discuss her idea. Rudolph by then was a partner in his accounting firm and, because his firm was an "S" Corp Partnership (or the 1960s equivalent thereof), he was in this 70 percent bracket of which you speak. Daisy, who was focused on education rather than economics, was excited as she believed in the need for enhanced early childhood education. Rudolph patiently listened to Daisy, only to take the wind out of her sails very quickly.

"You do understand," Rudolph said, "that for every dollar you make doing this, the government will take more than 80 cents in federal, state and Social Security taxes."

"That's not fair," said Daisy. "But that's the law," said Rudolph.

Daisy went ahead with her idea and formulated a kindergarten curriculum that became widely used in her state. She did it by resorting to a small time version of what every would-be entrepreneur does: tax avoidance or tax evasion. Even though the statute of limitations long ago expired and both Rudolph and Daisy have attained their eternal reward, all I'll say is Daisy didn't follow the letter of the law.

Morale of the story: Enterprise, innovation and creativity are a lot harder in a 70 percent tax bracket. When you come up with that level of taxation, people find a way around it. Period.

[Jockey]

Correct, unemployment numbers are actually those who have filed for unemployment

Thank you for the correction. It was when the Liar-in-chief claimed there was 30% unemployment that my comment would be true.

[BM1090]

  what needs to be separated however, are the jobs that were never really intended to pay 'living wages" and are rather, entry level positions.  for some to expect entry level positions to pay ~$50k is ludicrous.  the people overseeing the entry level positioned employee however, are a different story and should be subject to market forces. 

    you get what you pay for

Can we agree that any position that asks for a college degree, and therefore requires a significant amount of debt, should pay a living wage?

[rocky_warrior]

"You do understand," Rudolph said, "that for every dollar you make doing this, the government will take more than 80 cents in federal, state and Social Security

Rudolph lied!  Daisy's income would have been taxed at a much lower rate.  It was Rudolph's excess income being taxed at the higher rate

You know this. Rudolph.  Don't be the reindeer nobody wants to play with

[The Lens]

Despite high interest rates and stubborn inflation, businesses keep hiring, wages keep rising and consumers keep spending

Yeah, it's terrible, this US economy. 

[The Sultan]

Can we agree that any position that asks for a college degree, and therefore requires a significant amount of debt, should pay a living wage?

Depends entirely on the industry and the requirements.

But I think rocket would be surprised at what entry level people are making these days.

[The Sultan]

Don't forget that the 4% includes people who are not looking for work. 

This isn't accurate. The unemployment rate is those who want to have a job but don't have one.

[jesmu84]

Can we define "living wage"?

[MU82]

Depends entirely on the industry and the requirements.

But I think rocket would be surprised at what entry level people are making these days.

Yep. The average entry-level salary for teachers in Mississippi is $57K.

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/posting/entry-level-teacher-salary/ms

And that's a notoriously low-paying job in a notoriously low-paying state.

Engineers and lawyers in California and Connecticut do much better.

But sure, entry-level burger-flippers, especially in the South, make squat.

[lawdog77]

Yep. The average entry-level salary for teachers in Mississippi is $57K.

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/posting/entry-level-teacher-salary/ms

And that's a notoriously low-paying job in a notoriously low-paying state.

Engineers and lawyers in California and Connecticut do much better.

But sure, entry-level burger-flippers, especially in the South, make squat.

Random stat and maybe not so accurate data, but OK. To the counterpoint, here is the actual data from Jackson Mississippi (the capital city, and largest population if some of you failed Geography).

https://www.jackson.k12.ms.us/cms/lib/MS01910533/Centricity/Domain/1272/SY2223%20TEACHER%20SALARY%20SCALE%20-APPROVED%20BY%20BOARD%20MEMBERS.pdf

Entry level with a Bachelors degree-a little under 44K. In order to make 57K in Jackson, you would need 20 years experience.

Edit: found the Mississippi state teachers schedule: Entry level -45K
https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/salary_schedule_for_fy25.pdf

I guess I am arguining just to argue, but:
1. Entry level teachers salaries suck
2. Entry level teachers salaries are a bad example to show that living wages are there for everyone

[MU82]

Random stat and maybe not so accurate data, but OK. To the counterpoint, here is the actual data from Jackson Mississippi (the capital city, and largest population if some of you failed Geography).

https://www.jackson.k12.ms.us/cms/lib/MS01910533/Centricity/Domain/1272/SY2223%20TEACHER%20SALARY%20SCALE%20-APPROVED%20BY%20BOARD%20MEMBERS.pdf

Entry level with a Bachelors degree-a little under 44K. In order to make 57K in Jackson, you would need 20 years experience.

Edit: found the Mississippi state teachers schedule: Entry level -45K
https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/salary_schedule_for_fy25.pdf

I guess I am arguining just to argue, but:
1. Entry level teachers salaries suck
2. Entry level teachers salaries are a bad example to show that living wages are there for everyone

Mine was meant to show that location and vocation matter when discussing this stuff.

And thanks for expounding on what I posted and making it a more thorough examination.