Slashdot Mirror
Millennials Set To Earn Less Than Generation X (bbc.com)
Reader AmiMoJo writes: Millennials are set to become the first generation to earn less than their predecessors, new research suggests. The Resolution Foundation found that under-35s earned 8,000 pound ($10,600) less in their twenties than Generation X workers. If wages for millennials follow the same path as Generation X, average career earnings will be about 825,000 pound ($1.1m). That would make them the first generation to earn less than their predecessors over the course of their working lives. Research found that some of the pay squeeze was due to under-35s entering the job market as the recession hit, but it also concluded that generational pay progress had ground to a halt even before the financial crisis struck in 2007/8.
They are bitching and protesting instead of working.
The only social nets I can spot currently are keeping banks and other "important" entities propped up. Can't identify any normal people in there.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Top Marginal Income Tax Rate, 1950: 90%
Top Marginal Income Tax Rate, 1970: 70%
Top Marginal Income Tax Rate, 1990: 29%
Top Marginal Income Tax Rate, 2000: 39%
Top Marginal Income Tax Rate, 2010: 35%
Top Marginal Income Tax Rate, Today: 39%
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Citation on the "two times more" bit, please.
You're out by a factor of ten.
$4 trillion (4,000,000,000,000) / ~ 400 million Americans (400,000,000) = ~ $10,000
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752
"Sweden has always been a solid market economy", states the present right-wing government on its website. And that is certainly true. Sweden has never been a socialist society - based on public ownership of production, workers’ control and management, social equality and a democratic plan of production. Neither has Sweden been a ‘mixed economy’ or provided a ‘third way’ - an alternative to both capitalism and socialism, if such a thing were possible.
The social programs have been raised to the maximum sustainable level - really, they couldn't be any higher without creating a positive feedback loop, eliminating more of the private sector in favor of benefits, as some argue already has happened to some extent.
That's funny, because around here we have much more extensive and well-funded social programs. Oddly enough, no such positive feedback loop has happened. Rather the opposite, in fact.
Eat the rich.
It does, though. College students who graduate into a recession earn 10% less starting out and their salaries don't recover to "normal" salary levels for a decade or more, at which point they're at a huge standard of living disadvantage because of the time value of money.
Think about it: that 10% is at the margin. It's the difference between being able to save for a down payment on a house (which in turn would lead to building wealth by accumulating equity) versus being condemned to being a long-term renter. Or the difference between starting to save for retirement in your 20s versus starting in your 30s. Or the difference between having an emergency fund versus having an unexpected emergency cause a spiral of debt leading to bankruptcy.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
How are the minnelials worse off?
They don't have these burdens compared to the previous:
They don't have to pay for long distance calls.
They can email, text, tweet, or communicate with people all over the world. They can share your opinion instantly with many people at the same time.
THe Nintendo of 1985 sucked compared to the current Xbox One.
You can rent or watch nearly any movie at home you like instantly online (don't have to rent a VHS tape).
You have access for FREE to everything you need to master any subject, including all the coursework to get degrees for top universities like MIT and Stanford.
Just about any fact can be looked up instantly.
The violent crime or murder amount and rate is drastically lower.
AIDS is not going to melt from their insides and make you die.
They have better access to healthcare.
How are they worse off?
If minimum wage kept up with inflation, maybe we wouldn't have so many people on welfare.
Except for the people who will be earning $0, which is the minimum wage you get when you can't get a job.
It's a joke that someone can put 40 hours in per week with one employer and still need to work a 2nd job or require government assistance simply to pay the bills and put food on the table.
Minimum wage increases are usually met with price increases as well, meaning that the gains seen by minimum wage earners is minimal. However, the people earning more than minimum wage are actually hurt.
Consider this scenario. Suppose you've been working a job for 5 years and you started out at minimum wage, $7.25. Now you're making $15 an hour due to annual increases from good performance reviews. That's a 107% increase over that time. Suddenly, the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour. What's the likely outcome? You know you're not going to be getting a 107% increase again to $31.03. More likely, you'll get a $3-$5 raise, meaning that after 5 years of hard work, you're going to be making about 20% to 33.3% more than a person who was just hired. In addition to that, most thing you'd like to buy are now going to cost more.
Essentially, a minimum wage increase is a wage decrease for everyone else. It doesn't hurt the rich, who will barely notice the increase, but it especially hurts the working lower & middle-lower class people who were making slightly more than minimum wage, which is a lot more than those who earn just the minimum wage.
The one exception to this union employees, since their contracts are usually tied to minimum wage. They're always in favor of minimum wage increases because they'll get the full proportional raise, making them slightly better off than before, because everyone else is being dragged down.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The only social nets I can spot currently are keeping banks and other "important" entities propped up. Can't identify any normal people in there.
I'm pretty sure it's not the banks who are signed up for Obamacare. Or GW Bush's prescription drug benefit expansion. Companies pay into Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, not receive money from them.
I know it's cool and hip to say that the US government helps nobody except banks or something - usually not a charge leveled at Democratic administrations, but whatever - but it's not true and contributes nothing positive to the discussion. In the 2015 US Federal budget including discretionary and nondiscretionary spending, 53% of all spending goes to Health and Human Services or Social Security. (Education accounts for 3% and veterans spending accounts for another 4% if you want to consider those as part of the social safety net, which would bring the total to 60%.) By contrast, the military and homeland security receive 16%. So, yes, the "social safety net" is alive and bigger by percentage of spending than before.
"95% of all Slashdot
Top Marginal Income Tax Rate...
Top marginal rates really aren't that informative, because relatively few pay them... and when they were really high almost no one paid them.
For a better comparison, look at the middle quintile (or median, but middle quintile works). Unfortunately the source I found only has data from 1979-2011:
Middle quintile total average federal tax rate, 1980: 18.9%
Middle quintile total average federal tax rate, 1985: 18.0%
Middle quintile total average federal tax rate, 1990: 17.7%
Middle quintile total average federal tax rate, 1995: 17.1%
Middle quintile total average federal tax rate, 2000: 16.5%
Middle quintile total average federal tax rate, 2005: 13.8%
Middle quintile total average federal tax rate, 2010: 11.5%
Of course, that's federal only. I should say that the trend there is the opposite of what I thought it was, since my tax rates have been steadily increasing over that time range, but that's clearly because my income has been steadily increasing.
The trend of all quintiles is pretty steadily downward. Here's a chart I threw together: https://docs.google.com/spread...
So I'd have to say the claim that we're being taxed twice as much is blatantly false, at least in terms of federal taxes. And I don't think state taxes have gone up much, but I'll let someone else find that data.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Totally valid point, glad someone already modded me down.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Minimum wage increases don't usually cause price increases. Prices are usually mostly unrelated to labour costs, being set by what the market will stand. The lower the margin the more mass production the item, generally speaking, so the less connected to wages the cost is.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think the main problem is that people are going into jobs that there isn't any actual demand for. For example, I've actually met somebody who majored in History and then complains that he can't make a living wage. And I've seen many more art majors who think that the world is going to hell because not enough people care for the moronic crap art that most local art districts produce.
The same is true for some majors that actually paid a lot in the past, and otherwise may still pay a high hourly rate, but there are so fucking many people in that career that your odds of finding steady work are crap. Case in point, lawyers.
Meanwhile there are lots of jobs that pay no less than $20/hr that can't be automated and have plenty of positions that need filling: HVAC, plumbing, auto and aviation mechanics (good mechanics can easily pull a 6 figure sum, by the way) construction workers, electricians, landscapers, maintenance contractors, and many more.
I personally went to community college to become a network engineer, and I didn't borrow a cent for school either.