Slashdot Mirror
In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor
ananyo (2519492) writes "Overall working hours have fallen over the past century. But the rich have begun to work longer hours than the poor. In 1965 men with a college degree, who tend to be richer, had a bit more leisure time than men who had only completed high school. But by 2005 the college-educated had eight hours less of it a week than the high-school grads. Figures from the American Time Use Survey, released last year, show that Americans with a bachelor's degree or above work two hours more each day than those without a high-school diploma. Other research shows that the share of college-educated American men regularly working more than 50 hours a week rose from 24% in 1979 to 28% in 2006, but fell for high-school dropouts. The rich, it seems, are no longer the class of leisure. The reasons are complex but include rising income inequality but also the availability of more intellectually stimulating, well-remunerated work." (And, as the article points out, "Increasing leisure time [among less educated workers] probably reflects a deterioration in their employment prospects as low-skill and manual jobs have withered.")
Not starving to death on the street certainly, but most bachelors degree holders aren't tooling around on their private yachts either. Calling these sorts of people rich by the standards set it most developed countries is a load of crap.
If all you need to be rich is a college degree, then hot damn I'm already rich! When do I get my mansion, limousine and trophy wife?
It sounds more to me like "the educated now work longer hours", or maybe "the middle class now works longer hours" if you want to keep it related to income.
If I reply to an e-mail or write code at night, is that considered work? It's not like I can serve McDonald's or sweep floors or tighten a bolt just after waking up and rolling out of bed. I had yesterday off (I'm in MA) but still put in a few hours of work because there was stuff I wanted to get done.
Most of the higher paying jobs tend to be salary, which 40 or 50 hours pays the same.
Companies are cutting back on overtime, so the lower paying jobs are kept at 40 hours or less.
Often part of being poor means having your hours cut on top of already low pay.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
This submission brought to you by someone who's probably reading /. when they're supposed to be working.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Anyone who thinks it does is pretty ignorant. I don't really care what your definition of rich is.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
with telecommuting you can work from anywhere, including home
VPN, Citrix, web apps all make it easy to work at home. plus side is you can pick your kids up from school and not pay for after school child care
And have to ride the bus it's kind of hard to get those extra hours in the rich people do.
Fuck you and your political baiting, libertarian fantasy world, clickbait, NON-TECH bullshit this last year.
Where are the smart techies hanging out these days? I enjoy hearing them talk shop.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
That article has more holes than my old socks, and it even smells way worse.
Determining "rich" and "poor" by education is, well, rich. One could also say that the workload on college educated people went through the roof, while low skilled labour was laid off (which is one of the reasons why college boy gets to work overtime since he now has to write his own letters, clean his own desk and empty his own basket).
Of course that results in way more leisure time for the uneducated. Hey, if you have no job, you have 24 hours of leisure time a day, beat that when you're employed!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have more than a few friends on the low end of the pay scale who've been pushed down below 30 hours a week by their employers so their employers stay clear of Obamacare insurance mandates. (e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/wor... ) It usually comes across as a double-whammy: now they have less money in their pockets, and they're still up a creek in terms of health insurance.
Poor people may only work 20 hours per week, but i assure you its not fucking apathetic leisure they revel in. These hours have been intentionally redacted by large multinational corporations so as to create a permanent underclass of part time workers that is forced to take on two or three jobs in order to create a normal work week capable of sustaining basic rent and food. their total time spent at different jobs can easily total more than 50 hours per week. They spend long, odd hours standing at bus terminals waiting on neutered public transit systems to get them to starbucks after they work their walmart shift and then later, hopefully, back to mcdonalds to their fry cook job. their 'downtime' is sometimes spent figuring out how to balance getting their kids clothed and their bills paid without taking food off the table.
The economist is so detatched from the concept of poverty and the culture of indentured servitude in the service sector of the United States as to be bad comedy.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Being educated doesn't make you rich.
It is not news that people are being required to do more so that the real rich people don't have to hire more workers --- this way they can keep more for themselves!
The actual rich people that I know do very little if any productive work. They do spend a lot of time talking, delegating all actual work, and pretending they are very smart, though.
In a previous job, I've worked directly with and for multi-millionaires, and this is pretty close to right. Perhaps it was just my employer's clientele, but I've rarely seen anyone as dedicated to their professions. It was not uncommon for our office to get calls from 7AM to 11PM from a single client working on a project. For many of our richest clients, the idea of "off the clock" was something that everyone else cared about.
It helps that most of our clients had enough money to choose their profession, so their work was usually their passion. Interestingly, that was partly what led me to quit that job, and move my career closer to the kind of work I would do for fun.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Currently I work around 62 hours a week with a 45 minute a day commute. Presently I consume more than 72 hours of my week either working, traveling to or from work.
So... when do I get the money? I suppose I could get an extra job on the weekends and see if I could get a full 80 hours a week, but for right now, from 6:30AM to 11:30PM, Monday through Thursday and 6:30AM to 4:00PM on Friday, I am pretty damned busy.
Not rich by any standard. Have a used car, 60 year old 800 sq ft home, no wife, no kids.
How others do it on less, I don't know.
Place something witty here
Okay, first off, if we're talking college educated salaried middle-class workers. We are NOT talking the RICH.
We're talking about those who basically, live near the same quality of life as the working class, except they receive no government assistance, and basically have more assurances and insurances (ie: have newer cars, have basic life insurance policies, have health insurance, etc). And get to take a vacation once a year.
That's NOT rich...
***
The rich, are working less and less. I remember reading an account of a wealthy 1% lambasting how many hours he had to work and how that was why he was rich.
He logged as time worked: his commute, his time at the gym (must look professional folks), business lunches, dinners, and cocktails (that's right, eating and drinking on company dime is so so so much work - mind you, even when an average joe worker has a company dinner such as a retirement party. That time is on your dime, no pay, deducted from your hours.) By the time I extracted all the lame and weird add-ons, the guy basically was working 35 hours a week at best.
That is the "rich"...
Many of the people I work with might be called "high achievers". Whether it is work or school or sports, these people tend to work the hardest and get the best results. Being the best at something requires a commitment - not only of effort but of time. So they work overtime. Not because they are expected to but because they want to. For them the reward is not the overtime pay but the satisfaction in knowing that they have put forth their best effort.
As others have mentioned, non-degree jobs are often hourly. So any overtime has to be approved. There is a direct link between pay and performance. So you may tend to see fewer people working "off the clock" in these sorts of occupations.
Personally, I'm in a college educated job but with an hourly rate rather than salary. I have been salaried before and I prefer hourly. Why? Because it is my observation that many companies take advantage of salaried by asking them to work overtime without any compensation. You might get some vague promise of "we'll take care of you down the road" but that rarely pans out.
To the high achievers I would say this: If you want to work all kinds of overtime because it makes you feel better then knock yourself out. Just don't expect everyone else to follow the same path. Some of us have other priorities.
You're evaluating the middle income as equivalent as the middle class. This is incorrect thinking.
Middle Class is not the middle of average income, it is the class level in the middle of the working/incomed classes. To explain further, what you are saying is like stating the top 33% of of Americans are the rich, the middle 33% the middle class, the bottom 33% the working poor class.
With that logic, the income gap between someone in the working poor and the rich class is a few tens of thousands. Clearly something is inaccurate with your logic. You're essentially saying a $75,000 income puts you into the rich category that includes folks earning $500K - $500 million a year.
Classes are not defined by quantity, in other words, a feudal system had 3 classes. Peasants, Lords, and field lords (knights and such middle-class). In the break down, 95% or more fell into the peasantry.
Likewise today,...
Working Class is by far one of the largest.
Middle Class is also large, but shrinking. Middle class is defined by a quality of life factor. Usually defined by owning home, reasonably functional somewhat newer vehicles, being able to take a moderate vacation (Disneyworld, international travel, cruise, etc, periodically), having a safety net, retirement accounts, etc. Upper end may have a small vacation home.
Wealthy Class, usually has multiple homes, travels first class, may own private air or yachts, or other high end expensive recreational items in the $100K+ mark. Often do not have to do work, simply manage investments and resources. Often pays a low margin on taxes due to ability to maximize loopholes, capital gains, etc.
It takes three things to make money:
1. Work
2. Ability/Skill
3. Luck
Without all three, you do NOT get rich.
The non-rich the artcle refer to typically can't get full time so companies don't have to pay for health benefits. Most the poor have more than one job, so add up the hours. This article is the fantasy the rich tell themselves.
Realize the average blue collar worker picking up an extra 10-20 hours a week in the 70's, likely made $35,000 a year, equivalent today to $100,000.
So actually no, the real thing is that when adjusted for inflation, we are likely making far less than yesteryear for the amoun of work we do.
Mod Up
A study in 2006 revealed that Americans with a household income of more than $100,000 indulged in 40% less “passive leisure” (such as watching TV) than those earning less than $20,000.
I'd rather work for free rather than sit on a couch watching television.
Like the CFO for Yahoo? I think not....
"A study in 2006 revealed that Americans with a household income of more than $100,000 indulged in 40% less “passive leisure” (such as watching TV) than those earning less than $20,000."
I can attest, that I work 40, commute 2+ hours a day. While those under $20K receive Section-8, Food Stamps, etc. And yes, they often have more free time to watch TV than I do. I get to watch Game of Thrones & maybe one other weekly show.
Heck, we had friends who fell on rough times stay in our guest bedroom the past year. And I can personally attest that they've probably watched as much TV in a week or two as I have all year.
Define "rich". Lets get the definition strait here. The only number they threw out in over $100,000 which is pretty vague. Anyone making under 200k/year is not rich. They are in my opinion, comfortable. You are only really rich when you have true wealth such as owning/running a profitable business or real estate that generates income. You are not rich if you are a low level employee who depends on a wage to survive, even if you are making 100k to 200k/year.
You think my boss works? Of course not. He comes in when he pleases maybe 4 or 5 hours a day. Takes whatever day off he pleases. Takes multiple vacations per year for one or two weeks at a time. His business is firmly rooted in the industry and will continue to make money. He is *RICH*. Not the poor schlubs (like me) working 50+ hours a week and certainly not the low wage help getting 10-12 an hour. He is like one of those wealthy English aristocrats they speak of. A top dog calling the shots who's hard working underlings produce his wealth for him. I believe he makes around 500-800k/year and has over a million in the bank (accidently saw his bank statement when I worked on his PC).
And the reality is those living comfortably are working their asses off as in order to justify their 100k+ salary. No employer wants to pay big money unless they feel they are getting their moneys worth. That may mean large work loads, 50+ hour work weeks, unpaid overtime and coming in on weekends to finish up backlogged work. At 100k+ you aren't hourly unless you are union or very lucky. Salary demands a certain number of hours per week to justify your pay grade and some of that includes unpaid overtime. Its not the same for everyone but everyone I know working in tech put in long hours for their 100k plus salaries.
The "poor" people they speak of have social safety nets in the form of health care, food stamps and rent subsidy and/or low income housing. But I believe they are being unfair as I know plenty of "poor" people who are struggling just to buy food and pay rent. A friend of mine had a tough life growing up, mother threw him out when he was 16, father doesn't give a damn about him, etc. No college and not the sharpest tool in the shed but he is an honest, good hearted person who is a hard worker. He works two minimum wage part time jobs for 60 hours a week with no days off as the two shifts overlap each other. He rents and shares a room at a "frat house". Place is more like a flophouse complete with drug dealer and rowdy parties which he winds up playing bouncer so the cops don't raid the place. Its a rough life for him but he works and doesn't give up. Many others are in the same boat making shit pay and having to work multiple jobs because employers don't want to pay benefits to full timers.
Benefits are about a third of that. Office space, management and computers the rest.Then you make existing employees work more instead of hiring additional ones.
mod parent up!
There may be correlation with salary employees earning less than hourly employees overall or something, and relating that to education or whatever, but clearly salary employees are, in general, expected to put in overtime without extra pay when they need to - or need to do that with hopes of getting better pay in the future / better performance reviews...whereas wage employees are scheduled for 8 hours and put in 8, employers are less likely to ask them to work overtime due to time and a half or whatever. Not sure why the other correlations even matter.
This Slashvertisement brought to you by the Koch Brothers. Remember to watch Fox News tonight and be reminded again that the poor live a life of luxury and leisure on your dime! Yeah, the poor are the reason you have to work 75 hours a week. Because the government takes all your money and gives it to the poor, so they can live high on the hog.
Meanwhile, please ignore the fact that the 1 percent are robbing not only you, but the government, and the rest of the world. While you're arguing with your co-workers over foodstamps, the filthy rich are stealing billions every day and pocketing it, and the best part is, they have bought the government so what they are doing is legal -- by the letter of the law anyhow.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You are so wrong at so many levels.... I sincerily hope that you might never find how wrong you are.
What you describe is the ideal society based in merit and where everyone gets a chance.
The reality is completely different. The reality will show you that some people are more equal than others. That sometimes it is better to "sell" your achievements than actually work to achieve something.
Long live TUX!
"People that don't make a lot of money slack off a lot."
The poor are under/unemployed and the rich are trying harder and harder to make more of them under/unemployed.
Agreed. It's a shame; if the submitter did not use the word "rich" so inappropriately, we could have a meaningful discussion about why people with a degree used to work less and now have to work more, and maybe what could be done about that.
I think the reasons are the consumerism (also in regards to homes and college degrees) and unpaid overtime, and the solution is to actively run away from both if your time is valuable to you. Buy what you can afford, don't waste money excessively only because credit is available, and switch jobs until you find one with suitable time balance.
Look for the average hours to shrink further as more and more employers seek to avoid Obamacare costs.
If everyone stopped working 40 hours and instead worked only 32, we'd need 25% more employees to make up the difference. That would eliminate unemployment overnight. With unemployment eliminated, employers would have to compete for employees, which would drive up wages and result in more benefits like health insurance.
We already did it once during the great depression, when the standard 40 hour work week was invented. Before that, everyone worked 80 hour weeks, and they had no choice due to a mountain of people desperate for a job. If you didn't like it, you were immediately replaced by someone in the line of people literally sitting outside your employer's front door.
With automation continuing to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done, we're slowly returning to that situation. Obviously we need to reduce the standard work week yet again to get things back to where we want them.
Labor prices don't respond to the free market. If you pay people less, all that happens is that their spouses enter the work force as well, and now there are even more people competing for the job you're offering, and so you can reduce wages yet again.
Naturally.
We're fast moving into a post-scarcity economy with practially finished software doing all the work nowadays, running on hardware that has a cost approaching near-zero as we speak. A computer that can be bought for 20 hours of work at a fast-food joint today is the size of a book, can run on solar power and has enough processing power to do all the billing and taxes for an entire city. What's left to do for suits beside sitting in parlaments and passing stupid laws or selling the customers we service bloated shit that no one can operate with the sole purpose of producing more pointless work and billable hours?
Social contacts, knowledge and information are increasing in value, simple manual work beyond a certain threshold is decreasing in value, repetetive "knowledgework" is bascially disappearing entirely, unless required due to bad human planing (hence IT experts jobs are becoming increasingly tedious and boring).
That's all basically a Good thing(TM) I'd say. The problem is getting there will be a pain and yield the one or other new great depression along the way.
I personally rather would have a cheap all-in-one computer sitting in the corner of my room doing all the work for me my clients while I cook for friends, dance tango all night, sleep late and help the occasional customer update their content on a Joomla installation for 50$ and hour because they couldn't be bothered clickling their way through that luxurious web interface than build yet another Web CMS or hassling with other stuff that can be done orders of magnitudes cheaper by computers or service providers. Point in case:I recently set up the entire IT infrastructure for a client using only Google Drive, GMail and Squarespace in roughly 7 hours, 3 of which were taking photos and talking strategy and workflow. Even with potential downtime of the Intarweb and/or Google, that environment is orders of magnitude more productive than any MS PC, with all her shit automatically backed up and available from any PC around the world hooked to the internet. I don't expect her to get back to me until she wants to update her portfolio in a year or two and needs some handholding when clicking through squarespaces gallery options. Which I will gladly provide and ask 35 Euros per hour for.
With "knowledgeworkers" being put out of business by Google, Huawei and Co., no wonder they're working longer hours than the guy at the filling-station down the street. He's actually doing something usefull - until Teslas battery replacing robots come that is.
Our job as IT and software people is to make ourselves superflous. And we're getting good at it.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
That sometimes it is better to "sell" your achievements than actually work to achieve something.
Brown nosing the boss has been around forever. But the concept of working hard to get ahead isn't "wrong at so many levels".
There are various state and federal mandated benefits that must be provided to workers who work 35+ hours a week
The only federally mandated benefits I'm aware of, aside from the impending ACA regulations, are social security, medicare, COBRA, unemployment insurance, and workers compensation insurance and those have nothing to do with the number of hours worked. Some states require disability insurance, and that is not dependent on hours worked. Of course, the only ones that cost the employee nothing are workers comp and unemployment. The astute reader may have noticed that none of these benefits actually do anything for the employee until the employee either retires, loses his job, gets injured, or works past Social Security "full retirement" age.
The federal government does not require employers to provide vacation time, holidays, sick time, or any other form of paid leave regardless of the number of hours worked. The only federally mandated leave is Family and Medical Leave, which is unpaid.
On the other hand, there are long-standing requirements for health care benefits, ACA aside. Basically, this means that if an employer chooses to offer health insurance, that insurance must cover certain specific conditions. But until the ACA employer mandate takes effect, employers are not required to offer insurance at all, and if they do offer insurance, they can make up any eligibility rules they want, including minimum hours/week.
This is an article in The Economist. That publication is one of the very few that can honestly claim to be Progressive.
This could solve the other crucial problem of the day: declining interest in golfing. All we have to do is subsidize country club memberships for the poor under the Affordable Care Act. The rich are now too busy to golf.
An article in today's NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html) documents the dismal status of the middle class in the US. It looks like all of the gains in productivity in the past 20 years have gone to the "elites" whose income has increase dramatically while the middle class in the US has stagnated.
In the US, median income has only increased by 0.3% since 2000 while other countries (Britain, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, for example) have increased 15% to 20%.
This is the problem with capitalism which Piketty documents in his book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century". The US is getting there first as Krugman points out: http://www.nybooks.com/article...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
...also have an impact here, at least for the business owners or others in a position to hire help (aka the vaunted Job Creators) vs. doing that extra work themselves. With lower marginal income tax rates, folks at the margins are more likely to "hoard" the available work. The higher their marginal income tax, the more they'd value (relatively speaking) their free/leisure time.
That's why it's not necessarily the case that lowering the tax burden on Job Creators actually creates jobs (and could actually destroy jobs).
Not that I think the trend has reversed in the last 8 years, but still.. I haven't seen a present day Slashdot post citing info that was nearly a decade old in a way that makes it sound recent in a while!
Not sure if it is in the article as I didn't read it like every good /. does and just read the summary. Hours are being cut on almost all low paying jobs because once they breach the 35hour mark, the employers are required to provide benefits, such as healthcare...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
You are wealthy when you can live comfortably off the income of your income.
You're not really rich.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
having a 4 year degree does not make one "rich". This is more contempt at furthering the "middle class" concept, which is bogus.
middle class *is* working class.
I'd be very surprised if they didn't publish opinions from both sides of a topic. So sure, you'll see plenty of opinions on the editorial pages that you'll disagree with no matter where you stand. This isn't the Daily Kos.
Last week, CNN found a new issue they hoped would distract from criticism of their relentless Maylasian air crash coverage. CNN newsreaders took to the air to ask, "... what could the KKK do, to improve its approval rating? They actually had guests who discussed the question with straight faces.
This pretended study is another one of those strange, invented approaches on an ongoing tragic issue... an angle that sounds intelligent on its face until you think about it for just two or three seconds. Then you realize how perfectly insulting this phoney approach to a real issue really is.
Go ahead -- tell the maids down at your local Best Western Motel that rich people work more than they do. Then drive a few blocks down to your nearest Home Depot parking lot. Tell those unemployed men waiting at the nearest corner hoping to find a casual, sub-minimum wage job from you, that they are on "recreational" time.
The editors of the Economist magazine ought to be horsewhipped for printing this story. SlashDot ought to be purple with shame for reprinting it. Seriously. I don't come here to read quasi-Libertarian krap like this.
Wow, I must be part of the 1% with my Master's degree.
Not just software, machines as well. Gone are the days where we needed 50,000 people working in a manufacturing plant. Machines have replaced the vast majority of those jobs or it's been outsourced to Asia for the low skilled labor job such as the textile industry, which is changing soon as well with robotics.
The president of the company gets infinite vacation time, I think I'm approaching 3 weeks.
Yes there was, if not by country, by state in many states.
Join "WebEx".
The poor actually WORK. You know. Cook, clean, build, drill, pour, dig, etc.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Uncle Sam has seen fit to stipulate that all full-time employees must be provided benefits such as health insurance. Full-time is defined as "over 30 hours per week." So guess what? Companies that hire low wage workers limit their hours to less than 30 per week. So now they are WORSE off than they would have been without the law, because they can't make more money by working more hours!
Does everyone get a chance..no. Life is not fair. Do most people get a chance, absolutely. Success usually comes from working hard to make yourself valuable to other people. Often, such hard work is not rewarded. But if you keep it up and look for opportunities it can pay off. Saying that getting ahead is impossible is just wrong. It is possible. I know this because I came from nothing and now make well into six figures. I work 70-80 hours a week and always have. Even when I was making minimum wage. I'm not alone.
It is also possible to have 1 & 2, and never succeed in opportunity. In fact, some of the greatest folks. Likely would not have been anything if not for #3.
Steve Jobs is a great example, without #3 (Steve Wozniak), it is unlikely Steve Jobs would have gotten anywhere beyond mediocrity. The pairing of the two enabled success.
If I could do so with some semblance of security for my family. Maybe, cause well, working 70 hours and not seeing your family rather sucks.
It gets trashed within 3 years.
That has died for the common man. The middle class has no where to invest his wealth. One used to be able to put one's meager wealth into a bank or a bond and accue an easy 5% interest. Now, it's 0.02%
Rich can be defined either by assets (wealth) or by income (cash flow).
While it may be true that the rich, by reported income, work longer, it is not necessarily true that the rich, by assets or actual wealth, work longer.
Also, what do you mean by work? Some of my friends "work" by producing music, or by running a charitable foundation their parents created that has them doing what they want to do.
Other people might call that play. Especially the 20 hours spent on the golf course in Scotland, or the conference on their yacht in the Mediterranean, that looks like a giant pool party when you see it up close.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
False. Before the ACA, there was NO requirement to provide benefits to people working 40 hours, much less 30. Now there is. Hence companies cutting people to below 30 hours.
So they got no healthcare at all? You think that's a good situation?
...The poor are working less because about every company that pays at the minimum wage level has cut there hours to part time so they don't have to pay full benefits.
Blame Obamacare?!
Only if you are a moron.
If you bothered to read TFA you would see that The Economist is using data from 2006. I don't think Obamacare is so powerful that it changed working hours for the poor 3 years before it was written, and 7 years before it went into effect.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
that's the problem with America. I think it was John Steinbeck that made the point. In America, there is no poor, we're all just temporarily inconvenienced millionaires...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I saw a CNN article about hard workin' CEO types. One guy spent 4 hours a day hanging out minding his kids chatting up sales prospects on the phone. This is a damn sight different than 4 hours waiting tables.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why are we assuming that a bachelor's degree means the holder is rich? Why are we assuming that the rich work longer hours than the poor out of some devotion to the job or income?
Today's bachelor's degree is worth a bit less than a high school diploma in the 60's was. It is not a guarantee of riches, or even breaking into the middle class. Hell, even advanced degrees are no guarantee - there are plenty of PhD's out there making less than a store manager at McDonalds.
Today's rich person is rich because he actually *has* a job and is able to command a decent salary. Today's poor is working fewer hours because the rich assholes that employ him keep him at part-time status so they don't have to pay for benefits.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
1. The boss is your father 2. Marry the boss's daughter 3. Work your butt off, especially in your early years. Nothing hard to understand about this.
I don't think Obamacare is so powerful that it changed working hours for the poor 3 years before it was written, and 7 years before it went into effect.
Ahh, but you do not see what is obvious to conservatives - that Obamacare is so awful that it's awfulness warps the space-time continuum allowing it to go back in time as far as centuries back to make the world a horrible place. Especially for those horrible people who might use Medicare expansion services (or, as conservatives call them, freeloaders) or might be able to stay on their parent's policy or might not be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions by fine, upstanding insurance companies (aka "job creators"). Yes, they've made the world a horribly awful place for conservatives. And you don't want to know what the Libertarians think.
No, really, you don't want to know.
That is all.