Slashdot Mirror

You can see nice graphs about the declining hourly wage, or get the data raw from the horses mouth -

BLS.gov

Punch in:
1 average hourly earnings, 1982 dollars
2 005000 Total private
3 seasonally adjusted (or not, it doesn't matter)
and then on the next page put the date range as 1972-2002.

Besides, it keeps unemployment down. You can't find a job? You can always pump gas.

Really? Does that explain why Oregon (the only other state I know of which has full-serve only laws) is currently leading the nation in unemployment? The vaunted New Jersey is also in the top half.

I've heard the claim, "Requiring full-service gas stations keeps unemployment rates down," many times, but I've never heard any supporting evidence and I just don't believe it.

You're full of shit. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the official unemployement rate in Oregon is scarecely better than it when 10 months ago, when it more than 8%. Data here. That's like 2% higher than the US as a whole, so get your facts straight.

Personally I know several Oregonians who have no visible tattoos or piercings and have been laid off from jobs in IT, and I know several more who are worried.

According to the Consumer Price Index, $4,000 in 1984 would be worth $6,979.79 today (their calculator made me use less than $10k).

This means that $40B would now be worth almost $70B. You ask me, those numbers are already too big to really be able to appreciate the difference between them. When you're standing between two fat women, it's hard to tell which is bigger.

According to the BLS, the average American inflation-adjusted wage is (slightly) below what it was thirty years ago. Americans work more hours per year than any industrialized workers, including Japan - as the years have gone by the hours worked keep going up. They make less per hour than they did thirty years ago. In the US, the wealth difference between the very, very wealthy and everyone else has been increasing every year. Forget class war "rhetoric", a class war has been waged over the past thirty years, with the workers losing while the heirs who sit on their ass collecting profits from them have been winning.

As far as programmers, programmers wages went down for the first time in a decade last year, with inflation factored in, that is not good. Programmer unemployment and underemployment is high, but of course, people can dismiss this with whatever, they're not skilled enough, it's a lot harder to explain why if everything is so rosy according to you why industry wages have fallen. Wages not going up with inflation is bad, wages going down is very bad.

Footnoting everything I said here with a link would take forever, the references are all over the place for anyone who takes a short amount of time. The most important one I think is the falling wages, and it takes a few clicks pass a simple link so here it is:
1) Go to the US government's BLS economic data page.
2) set the values so that it says:
- average hourly earnings, 1982 dollars
- 005000 Total private
- seasonally adjusted (or not, it doesn't matter)
3) Click the "Get data" button
4) Change the years to 1972 through 2002 and click "go"

You will see that, inflation-adjusted, US wages are slightly below what they were thirty years ago. And you claim this is a system that works "remarkably well", is a "successful economy" and people who say otherwise are advocating class war that leads to a basket case. Well to me, wages going down over thirty years combined with huge, long recessions every decade or so is not something to toot my horn over. It is true that the system works remarkably well, the question is, for whom?

Actually, the textiles industry STILL employs millions of Americans. More precisely, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 425,000 Americans working in textile mills and 537,000 producing other "apparel products". These figures don't include any jobs linked to retail, transportation, marketing, etc.

The sad thing is that most of these jobs WOULD have gone the way of the Dodo without union pressure for international textile quotas like the Multifiber Agreement. I'm personally pissed off because I *know* there is no way a pair of jeans should cost more than $10, and I feel gouged every time I buy clothing.

Any bets on how long it takes for someone to argue that massive software exporting is a security risk, or - as in airlines - pass legislation requiring all government software to be procured domestically? Bah!

"output per hour of all persons",

where

"Output measures for business and nonfarm business are based on measures of gross domestic product prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce."

and

"Quarterly output measures for manufacturing reflect indexes of industrial production independently prepared by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System."

A little clarification to my intentions is needed: of course if you were under worked, your business has fewer clients, etc. there should be layoffs. A business exists for one purpose- to make money; you can't be mad at a corporation when it legally acts in its' best interests and stated purpose. Certainly this thing of ours has had its' share of excesses in the last few years; I'm not talking about an end to frivolity and dot-com extravaganza.

What I'm referring to is a general trend in the economy. Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the two figures that should jump out at you are that employment is up (now at 5.7%) and productivity is up 4.0% in Q3 alone; both of these trends are continuing upward. With low inflation a company is not making money by raising prices so an easy alternative have fewer people do the same amount of work or do the same amount of work for less (salary, benefits, etc.)

On a totally unrelated topic there was a time in this country when corporations only existed to further the public good; our founding fathers feared and were fleeing the religious and corporate tyranny. I feel that this forgotten legal decision is one of the most important in our history; it essentially empowered corporations as what we know today: semi-autonomous beings capable of owning property, being wronged, and having the rights of a citizen (where comes the term 'corporate citizen'). It established that: "Corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States". For all those and bitch and rave about globalization, corporate power, corporate abuse, the pedaling of political influence, and the like and wonder to themselves 'how did we get here?', this is a good place to start. I would love to discuss this sometime on slash, another day, another topic...

My 2 cents.

Why are Americans in debt more than they were thirty years ago and not saving money? Household debt has gone from 65% of post-tax income to over 100% in the past thirty years and saving rates have dropped. Well, one reason is that the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage is below what it was thirty years ago. You can see the raw data at the government's BLS web site, or check out LBO's nice graphs of the same data. This is a very important piece of economic information, but one rarely, if ever, mentioned in the news. The fact that Americans are making less money per hour (inflation-adjusted) than they were thirty years ago sheds a lot of light on why savings are down and debt is up - they are making less money and thus have less to save and thus by food and clothes and so forth on credit cards.

Some people, for whatever reasons, would rather stick to their own conclusions about how people are indulging themselves too much and this will cause them repercussions. This seems to be a tenet of Christian thought, and since Christianity dominates American society so heavily perhaps that's why people prefer their "faith" view over the scientific and logical conclusions one would draw from economic data. Or perhaps, as I said before, they and their circle are all white collar Java professionals and they apply what happened to them as what's happening to the Gen X janitor who sweeps up late at night in their offices, however falsely. Even in this case I'd disagree, as Microsoft, IBM, Intel etc. bankrolled the ITAA to modify laws such as the H1-B cap, FLSA overtime provisions, section 1706 IRS tax codes etc., in an attempt to lower IT wages. An attempt which was largely successful. Of course, that just played a part in lower IT wages and higher unemployment, the bigger tidal wave of the economy helped lower wages as well. But again, to hear some people talk about it, it sounds like "the economy did it" is like we're all farmers and our crops were flooded and people say "it was just the weather". The economic system is not some foreign, alien force we have no control of, like the weather. The millions the ITAA spent on lobbying efforts, plus larger scale forces manipulating the economy are what caused this. All I hear here are a bunch of people whose solutions to everything is to tighten their belts (and increase their skill level so they'll be more valuable specialists). It sounds a lot more meek and submissive than what the dock workers in San Francisco have been doing - men who have more secure jobs and are paid more than a lot of IT techies, and who probably used to beat these meek little techies asses and could this day still probably beat the meek, submissive techies asses. Quite often reading comments here, I get disgusted by the attitude of many of the posters. The important thing is, those of us who think as we (or I) do have to band together and push things forward, as these toadies never will. Efforts are already being made - Washtech/CWA, the Programmers Guild and so forth, they just need more people on board to start reaching critical mass. We can't wait around for the pansies, we have to get out there and get things moving ourselves.

Figures here.

What is George Bush doing about the economy?

Why, war, of course.

The unemployement figures dont count people who stop looking for various reasons. The link suggest over three million may have stopped looked already in the current recession. A more accurate way is to look at Bureau of Labor total payroll figures which seems to be falling.

Why should an idea be accorded less value than a thing?

If I spend time writing a song, why shouldn't I be able to profit from my effort?

If I record my song and offer it for sale, and someone "shares" my recording with tens, hundreds, or thousands of people, how am I rewarded for my work?

Remember, most musicians are not wealthy. they are trying to make a living, just like everyone else.

FWIW, this table may provide some incentive to complete your degree. Note the median $13k per year premium for a bachelor's degree v. high school and additional $8k per year premium for a master's degree. Doing a little arithmetic, the average median income for people in the IT industry according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is around $55,505; quite how the premiums for higher education are affected by this is hard to tell, I can't seem to find statistics for middle 50% salaray by industry and education. But hopefully this will give you some incentive...

From the source of the BLS productivity reports
Question: How are labor hours calculated for productivity measures?
Answer: The primary source of hours and employment data is the BLS Current Employment Statistics (CES) program , which provides data on total employment and average weekly hours of production and nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments.
Question: Do hours and earnings statistics include overtime?
Answer: Yes, employers report payroll and hours including overtime. Overtime hours are published separately for manufacturing industries only.
More clues are available if you click on the words that are underlined.

From the people that measure it at The US Dept. of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics:

How is productivity measured by BLS?

Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.

What is the most commonly used productivity measure?

Output per hour of all persons--labor productivity--is the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. For the U.S. business sector, labor cost represents about two-thirds of the value of output produced.

Saying that productivity went up becasue more hours were worked is analogous to saying your ran faster because you ran longer.

Okie doke, forgive me if I'm missing something here, but is Fermat's Last Theorem the same as the conjecture mentioned in the article? The one that took Dr. Andrew Wiles seven years to solve? If so, why would $1 million not be worth much in 7 years?

There's two ways to look at this. The first is, how much money do I expect to make in the next seven years? I calculated mine, assuming I continue to get the same percent pay raise for each of the next seven years, and let's just say, I won't have made my first million for a few years after that unless we get another dot-com boom or some other such aberation.

The other way is, how much will a million dollars in today's money be worth seven years from now? Assuming the inflation rate for the next seven years matches that of the previous seven years, it'll be worth approximately $850,000 (see this inflation calculator).

So, why will $1 million dollars be a paltry sum in seven years?

Interesting given that the US census population clock currently pegs US population at 289 Million.:-).

I noticed this, too. After poking around a little bit on the site quoted in the report, I found that the number 319 was essentially correct for pre-packaged software jobs, but the multiplier was thousands, not millions. Details, details...

Interestingly, the same site gives a number for the computer programming services industry as 574.4 thousand, even though the report implies that "the software sector" is synonymous with pre-packaged software developers.

When a software product is sold, it represents the efforts of a diverse team of individuals. The revenue from software compensates engineers, graphic artists, database programmers,hardware specialists, debuggers and a multitude of contractors, partners and vendors. In the U.S., the software sector accounted for approximately 319 million jobs in 2001 (see Appendix 8). Software development usually reflects very thin operating budgets and small margins for mistakes. Even after a software application is released, it is often not profitable until its second or third version. The developer must finance both the initial development phase and later modifications. Modifications

According to the BLS Computer and Mathematical Occupations employ 2,932,810 total employment. Of those 374k are employeed in the development or the customization of applications.

* Good CEOs are very scarce.
* Good CEOs build companies and produce profits.

Therefore, good CEOs are worth a lot of money.

There's two problems with this:

1. Even poor CEOs are paid extremely well.

As seen in the article Edward E. Whitacre has led SBC for the past 12 years, his results? Below average growth. Now he may have done good things for other companies in the past, but he's simply been mediocere for SBC, yet doesn't receive a mediocere CEO salary.

When the board actually does wise up and fire a CEO, the exCEO receive multimillion dollar severence packages. And what did they do to earn this? Balance sheets with wonderful red accents.

2. When a company does well, those in the company should be rewarded. From top to bottom. But this isn't what happens. In 1999 CEO salaries increased 37%, while the average worker's salary increased a measly 2.7%.

Between 1990 and 2000 CEO pay has increased 571%. By comparison, the US's GDP over the same time period only increased 3.7% anually, or 37%. Since average corporate performance couldn't possibly outstrip the GDP growth by 15 times, something is wrong. Think of it this way. If the minimum wage increased along at the same rate as CEO salaries, a janitor would be making $25.50 an hour, instead of a measly $5.15.

There are very real economic issues to be considered. I suggest you read up about how The Market actually works. For starters try United for a Fair Economy.

Managerial and professional 40,887 (thousand)

Tech, Sales and Admin Support 39442

Service 18278

Precision Production, Craft and Repair 14882

Operators, Fabricators and Laborers 18319

Farming, Forestry, Fishing 3399

I doubt it has changed all that much, read the report for more details.

Over time, the big machines became more able to take care of themselves. Daily motor brush adjustment was eliminated. Better oiling systems were developed. Refrigeration compressors became sealed units. Automatic controls ran the plant most of the time. Fewer stationary engineers were needed. A lot fewer.

There are still stationary engineers. Not that many, and fewer of them every year. A stationary engineer today is usually someone who's responsible for the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning in a large hotel or hospital. It's not an exciting job, it doesn't lead anywhere, and there's a good chance that when the equipment gets upgraded, it will need fewer people and you'll be laid off.

That is the future of the "sysadmin" as a career.

Check out April 2002's Unemployment Numbers http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t03.htm Is college worth it... yeah, I think so...

Also note that 1999 was a record year for just about everyone, RIAA included. betwteen 1998 and 1999, the largest category increase in consumer spending was in entertainment, an 8.3% difference (PDF) according to the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average US citizen spent $1,891 on entertainment in 1999. In 2000 (most recent year for which stats (PDF) are available), there was a -1.5% change from the previous year -- avg. total of $1,863.

Gee. People spend less on entertainment -- because of a bad economy or because of file trading? Your guess is as good as mine, but file trading sure as hell was around in 1999 -- a record year for the RIAA.

Also note that 1999 was a record year for just about everyone, RIAA included. betwteen 1998 and 1999, the largest category increase in consumer spending was in entertainment, an 8.3% difference (PDF) according to the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average US citizen spent $1,891 on entertainment in 1999. In 2000 (most recent year for which stats (PDF) are available), there was a -1.5% change from the previous year -- avg. total of $1,863.

Gee. People spend less on entertainment -- because of a bad economy or because of file trading? Your guess is as good as mine, but file trading sure as hell was around in 1999 -- a record year for the RIAA.

But a teaching credential is different. Basically, a teaching credential means taking some classes on "how to teach," and on subjects like how to deal with the needs of minor students, and the legal obligations of teachers (e.g. reporting knowledge of molestation). The requirements for a teaching credential differ for the age group being taught, in a fairly logical way, at least in California. (See the links, below.)

I have a B.A. degree in journalism, plus a J.D. (law) degree, plus a number of years of respectable work experience. I'm confident that I could probably get a job teaching college classes if I wanted, and for a couple years I even taught a class in the local school district's "adult education" program. But I absolutely believe that I would need special training to be qualified to teach to children.

What is disturbing to me, is that school districts are permitted to hire uncertified teachers, who can continue employment for up to five years while making NO effort toward certification. Until recently, these 'teachers' could be dropped into classrooms without ANY training (some were even permitted to skip orientation sessions), and when they "timed out" in one school district they could simply start the clock again in another school district.

And where did this happen most often? In inner-city schools, where the obstacles are so plentiful that we need the very best-trained teachers.

What is involved in getting a teaching certification? Spend one summer at a local college's intense program, or night school for a couple nights per week for two semesters or three quarters. Read, do the homework, pass the exams.

Nobody pretends that it is difficult to get a teaching certification: the classes can be easy, the exams a breeze. It is only "difficult" for those who want to cut corners and try to teach kids without ever learning "how kids learn" and how to deal with situations that arise in the classroom setting.

I occasionally think that I'd like to teach, but I really don't think I have the energy or stamina. Start my first class at 8am? Teach five 50-minute classes per day, with an average of 35 students per class (175 students!). Deal with career teachers and petty bureaucracy? Survive the intense emotional needs of children? Grade papers and exams while watching TV every night? Maybe I could teach one or two classes per day, or better yet nine to twelve hours per week of classroom teaching time (like a college professor).

Teaching is a very difficult job, and we don't pay teachers very well, hardly even a living wage unless they "play the game" of seeking out a master's degree in education and survive many years in a school district to work up the pay ladder. Yeah, they get 8 to 10 weeks of summer vacation, and maybe they work fewer hours than some of us who've ridden the dot-com roller coaster, but they are doing something we all agree must be done -- and done well -- and it is a job I know that most people couldn't do very well.

Some links:

• Tips for becoming a teacher
• Yahoo:K-12 Education
• Single Subject Teaching Credential (California), program at San Jose State Univ.
• California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, index page
• Education Week article: Teaching as a Profession
• US Dept of Labor summary of typical teaching requirements for K-12
• Becoming a Math or Science Teacher in California
• An Inner City School Teacher's account of the experience

Look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics page and see what the unemployment rate is. As of March 2002 , it was 5.7%. From 1974 through 1988, the US unemployment rate did not fall below 5.6%. 14 years. That's the job market I came into when I got out of college. The 'recession' of the early 90's wasn't one; it was merely a pause in the boom times.

Depending on who you listen to, it may even get worse before it gets better. So my only advice would be to hang in there and keep printing those resumes, and be prepared to ride this recession out; don't be discouraged because nobody wants your previously marketable skills, all that gets thrown out the window when times are like this.

Starting salary of $60K? Right. Starting salaries like that mainly exist in cities, such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, where the cost of living is oppressive. Make sure you put such data into its proper context before interpreting it.

...and it happens to people who are among the most employable there are: college educated, highly knowledgeable, well experienced and technical people with spectacular resumes. There are thousands of them, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM, AND THEY ARE UNEMPLOYABLE. UNEMPLOYABLE.

A little too far on the doom 'n' gloom side today, aren't we? Even for a Monday.

According to the latest unemployment statistics, national unemployment is around 8% for high school dropouts, and 3% for college grads (over 25 years old). Doesn't really seem like comapnies are "firing people at random." Oh, and the motivation of profits is what keeps them from firing at random.

BTW, the median wage for programmers is around $60,000. You should definitely be able to save some money and have DR plans in place when making that. Most Americans live at and slightly above their means, and so take it on the chin when things turn around unexpectedly. That's not necessarily the employer's fault, however.

...and it happens to people who are among the most employable there are: college educated, highly knowledgeable, well experienced and technical people with spectacular resumes. There are thousands of them, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM, AND THEY ARE UNEMPLOYABLE. UNEMPLOYABLE.

A little too far on the doom 'n' gloom side today, aren't we? Even for a Monday.

According to the latest unemployment statistics, national unemployment is around 8% for high school dropouts, and 3% for college grads (over 25 years old). Doesn't really seem like comapnies are "firing people at random." Oh, and the motivation of profits is what keeps them from firing at random.

BTW, the median wage for programmers is around $60,000. You should definitely be able to save some money and have DR plans in place when making that. Most Americans live at and slightly above their means, and so take it on the chin when things turn around unexpectedly. That's not necessarily the employer's fault, however.

According to the Bureau of Labor, inflation was 2.7% in 1999, 3.5% in 2000, and 3.7% in 2001. So, altogether, a $9.99 service should cost $11.01, a 10% price hike. If inflation is 4% from now on, then the price should hit $13 sometimes in 2006.

It's also worth noting that the CPI uses a fixed basket of goods, and therefore has a tendancy to overstate inflaion (if the price of beef goes through the roof, you'll probably eat more pork, but the CPI will still factor in the full impact of the spike in beef prices).

The huge variation in the cost of living among cities is why those "What Programmers Get Paid" surveys are one of my pet peeves.

I always feel a bit inferior--for a second--when I look at how underpaid I am relative to the statistics in these articles. However, I quickly realize that these statistics are mostly from people in places like Silicon Valley, where a pup tent in someone's back yard costs $150,000.

The fact is that these articles include naieve and misguided analyses of income. It is much better to just rely on a few real data points, such as those from recent job offers, and use local consumer-price-index numbers to scale the salaries accordingly. It is suprising how $40,000/yr. in a small south-east city can easily equal $60,000/yr. in Chicago, for example.

"Also, for a country supposedly lacking in education and intelligence, I think foreigners should stop and ponder the fact that the US has the best universities, is the current leader in technology, and has produced more than it's share of 20th century inventions"

As an American myself, I'd say most of us really are dumbasses. The reason we contributed more than our share of 20th century inventions is because there's 285 million people in this country and we don't need more than a few million smart people to pick up the slack and invent all this cool shit. Look here for the stats, about 1.5 million engineers, less than a million scientists.

For the daily dose of lies, damn lies, and statistics, here's a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which keeps tabs on the US unemployment rate, among many other numbers. The current rate (5.6%) is historically low; between Sept. 1974 and March 1988, it did not go below 5.6%. Now that's a dry spell for ya.

As for IT, I got out of consulting last year; when I had lunch with my firm's recruiter, I told her that IT consulting was a dying field, and when she mentioned something about going back to school to become a teacher I said 'go for it'. I think she did... more power to her.

Your argument would be valid if our unemployment rate was really all that high to warrant your kind of dislike. But, as I said previously, you changed your argument mid-racist-stance. You aren't all superior because you were born in America.

The reason why the unemployment rate is so high now, is because of economic recession. A recession that has a negligible impact by illegal immigrants.

You are so full of bullshit your eyes are turning brown, and heart is tainted black.

Interesting point but the Korean labor cost is not so cheap. Here is a list of various countries. Compare the $8.14 hourly rate in Korea with the $2.46 for Mexico.
Your point is well taken though.

While it didn't stay that high for long, it did hover at an average of about 5% for that entire period. if A1=100, A2=105...Then in 1990, what was worth 100$ in 1980 was now only worth only 45$.

Maybe you should break out a calculator. 5% inflation over 10 years is (1.05)^10 = 1.63, not 2.0 (or more, since you claim $45).

Beyond that, the Reagan tax cuts didn't take effect until 1982. Please review this chart of the Consumer Price Index. From 1980 to 1990, the inflation rate is (130.7/82.4)^(1/10) = 4.72% annualized rate. From 1982 to 1990, the inflation rate is (130.7/96.5)^(1/8) = 3.86% annualized rate.

The simpler way to look at it is that from 1982-1990, the CPI increased (130.7/96.5) = 35%, while government revenues increased 67% (which admittedly is also not 2.0).

Incidently, here's a Cato institute study that I googled. Lots of interesting numbers.

You seem to have very strong opinions, and expect people to believe them simply by insulting others, and being generally mean spirited:P

No, I expect people to believe them because they're right. :)

I believe the US Government would be completely right to invade Afghanistan with massive and overwhelming force.

Strong as my opinions are, I have to say that I simply don't know what the best strategy for Afghanistan is. My anger says that we should just go balls to the wall, invade the country and take care of business, but my brain says that it's probably prudent to surgical strike them to death. It should be extremely interesting to see how Bush handles this. The one thing you have to give him credit for is patience. He obviously knows that a lot of people think he's a dufus, and the easiest thing to do would be to order air strikes just to show people that he's "doing something" and try to enhance his image. I think it's remarkable that he obviously doesn't care about his image and is really taking the time and trying to do something that will actually be effective.

okay, your reading off the same script.

i have nothing left to say to your points except for the link that you sent me gave me a nice selection of hotjobs.com, monster, and the ilk. i can see you don't even research your links before you post them. Given that, here's some information.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics
The Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations Library homepage
National Statistical Coordinization Board - Yearbook of Labor Statistics page (needs to be ordered)
Duke University Library's Indexes and Databases for Researching Labor Unions and Labor History

Biased links:
AFL-CIO homepage
Union Resource Network

Even with comparing currencies through updated exchange rates, the real issue to look at here is not how much one would be making directly comparing two salaries from two different countries. Instead, it is much more important to consider the cost of living. Unfortunately, hard data on things like this is hard to come by. One should consider the income and property tax rate as well as the foreign consumer price index which compares the prices of a small number of products meant to represent products as a whole.

Important things to consider if moving into a country that's not in western Europe or United States/Canada is the rate of inflation and economic stability. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to try to find a trusted friend who lives in the country you're considering and find out how his/her expenses differ from your own.

You're just talking about transferring money from customers to employees.

Here's an interesting bit of math. Take the Gross Domestic Product, representing the total value of goods and services produced in the US: about $US 9,559,700,000,000 for 1999. Divide by the size of the American workforce: 137,673,000. You discover that the average American worker creates $US 69,438 of value per year.

All that value has to end up somewhere. Eventually it all ends up in the hands of a worker who made something - or, in the pocket of an investor, who didn't do a lick of work on making something but manages to get paid anyway.

The average American worker's gross pay, including benefits, is $US 18.50 / hour, or $US 38,480 / year. Leaving $US 30,958 of value going somewhere else.

In other words, the average U.S. worker gets about 45% of his or her productive worth diverted to the owning class. Welcome to capitalism.

In any case, remember that multinationals typically pay twice the going wage rate. Stop them from doing that, and you mire the Third World in poverty.

Just because you leave a group of people better off than before does not mean that you are not exploiting them.

Rather than assisting multinationals to come in and pay six cents a day rather than the locally prevailing three cents, how about assisting these nations in building their own domestically-owned industries?

You're just talking about transferring money from customers to employees.

Here's an interesting bit of math. Take the Gross Domestic Product, representing the total value of goods and services produced in the US: about $US 9,559,700,000,000 for 1999. Divide by the size of the American workforce: 137,673,000. You discover that the average American worker creates $US 69,438 of value per year.

All that value has to end up somewhere. Eventually it all ends up in the hands of a worker who made something - or, in the pocket of an investor, who didn't do a lick of work on making something but manages to get paid anyway.

The average American worker's gross pay, including benefits, is $US 18.50 / hour, or $US 38,480 / year. Leaving $US 30,958 of value going somewhere else.

In other words, the average U.S. worker gets about 45% of his or her productive worth diverted to the owning class. Welcome to capitalism.

In any case, remember that multinationals typically pay twice the going wage rate. Stop them from doing that, and you mire the Third World in poverty.

Just because you leave a group of people better off than before does not mean that you are not exploiting them.

Rather than assisting multinationals to come in and pay six cents a day rather than the locally prevailing three cents, how about assisting these nations in building their own domestically-owned industries?

Hmm...lawyers don't earn their keep, they simply get overpaid...

Sure a few lawyers make millions, but most don't. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the median annual salary for all attorneys in the U.S. in 1996 to be $60,000. See http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm# earnings. I know a lot of .com folks who make a whole lot more than that for doing didlysquat. And how many .com folks are required to give away any of their workproduct for free? Most jurisdictions require lawyers to do pro bono work for the community or for the indigent. Most of my colleagues (yes, I too am an attorney, and I make less than the median salary) work their butts off (60 to 80 hour weeks are not uncommon) to help people defend their rights. Most of us are also saddled with student loans (the average loan load is $66,000, with monthly payments averaging $750 to $1000). See http://www.lawnewsnetwork .com/stories/A5219-1999Sep7.html.

If you really think we are overpaid, then the next time some large corporation hauls you into court over something you have posted on the web, you just go ahead and defend yourself. And don't blame the corporation's lawyers either, slimy as they may be...blame the corporate management who instructed them to do it, and the shareholders who elected the management to maximize profit above all else.

The legal system is just a reflection of the society it operates in. Greedy lawyers "harassing" people with lawsuits wouldn't be able to do it without greedy clients. A personal example: A relative of mine is a doctor. He constantly complains to me about "goddamn lawyers" driving up his malpractice insurance rates with their frivolous lawsuits. He was in a minor traffic accident that involved his car being hit from behind. His neck was sore (possible whiplash, but probably not). He immediately called me up and asked how much I thought he could get in a suit. I told him he could probably get any medical expenses and lost wages for any real injuries. He was really disappointed...he wanted "six or seven figures". Even when I pointed it out, he couldn't see that his attitude was one of the problems he had complained so vociferously about.

Lawyers and the law can do a lot of good. Without civil rights lawyers, schools, motels, and other public places would still be segregated. Without securities lawyers, corporate executives could manipulate insider information to make a killing in the stock market at the expense of the average investor. Without . . . well, you get the idea I'm sure.

I didn't bother quoting that because I know it's bullshit.

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/ empsit.t11.htm

The above link points to the recent employment statistics in the United States for the entire economy. Unless he defines "knowledge workers" as including people like legal secretaries, the entire motion picture industry, and people who work behind the front desk at various hotels across the country, and if he narrows the "service sector" down to "services/miscellaneous" (or 'services2' in the table), we don't even come close to that 50% mark.

The fact of the matter is that people who do software development or work for IT departments, or other "knowledge workers" who work in the computer industry comprises of slightly more than 10% of the entire service-producing economy. (That's the total of all engineering-related services and all business related services, verses the entire service-producing economy, which employs around 104 million people. And that significantly overestimates "knowledge workers", as the statistics I added up in the above categories also include secretarial support and the like--as the statistics are compiled by looking at employment at various companies verses it's NAICS category.)

The long and the short of it is that Katz's second-hand hearing about 50% of the people in the service sector are "knowledge workers" is a crock, and not supported by the statistics from the US Department of Labor Statistics.

>But not all software ought to be free. People have to eat.

Well, food should be free too. I mean it. Look, for example, at the last decade in the U.S.A. Right now the official unemployment rate is about four percent. In 1990 it was up to ten percent. The difference amounts to six percent of what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls the "cohort" of workers - right now, just short of 140,000,000 people. At the very least then we're talking about approximately nine million people, who were willing to work (as you can see by the fact that they are currently employed) but who were denied jobs by the wave-action of the American economic system. Should nine million Americans, together with their dependent children, have literally starved while the economy slowly readjusted itself?

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

• I don't know where the hell you get your data, but it's *way* off (I'm assuming you just pulled it out of your ass to defend your America sux d00dz position).

  As for the poverty line, that's complete BS, I've grown up below the poverty line, and I haven't had a very hard time of it. In fact the amount of money made at the "poverty" line in the US in a year($1300) is what someone working at a government factory in china would make in 26 years($500/y).

  btw, the unemployment levels in the US are about 3% just so you know

I don't know where the hell you get your data, but it's *way* off (I'm assuming you just pulled it out of your ass to defend your America ownz u position).

I don't know about the China figure (although it seems to ignore purchasing power), but a single US resident under 65 earning $8480/y is right at the poverty threshold.

Oh, and the unemployment rate for June was 4.3%.

Moral of the story is: either admit you're just estimating, or don't pretend your information is accurate. And never, ever flame someone for something that you yourself do.

-Imperator

What people want is lower prices on music. With places like the Warehouse charging as much as $20 for a single CD, the price of music has increased faster than inflation. In particular, the 1985 cost of a record was roughly between 6 and 10 dollars. The 1999 cost of a CD is roughly between 12 and 20 dollars. While the price of an album has gone up 100%, the consumer price index has only gone up 56% in the same time period.

The other thing people want is longer playing times. With the exception of portable models, single disc players are a rare item. Multi-disc changers, supporting anywhere from five to 200 discs, is the norm.

- Sam