Slashdot Mirror


Wage Growth Slows Across the Country (axios.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Wages in the United States are going up, but their growth is shrinking, says Glassdoor chief economist Andrew Chamberlain. Wages should be rising an average of 3%-4% given the tightness of the job market, Chamberlain says. According to official data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, wage growth was a lower 2.6% in February. Glassdoor data -- based on a survey of 100,000 salaries posted by the jobs site every month -- show even lower growth, shrinking to just 1% last month.

173 comments

  1. H1B Program a success by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If wages are stagnating or dropping, then the H1B program is doing exactly what it was designed to: keep IT wages low. After all we can't expect our poor corporate overlords to simply pay us more because they have been reaping record profits. Everyone knows that the investor class and C-suite are the only ones that deserve any of the pie. If you want a raise, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and start your own multi-billion-dollar international corporation!

    1. Re: H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average raise where I work was a whopping .9% again this year.

      Year end reviews are basically, you had a great year again this year! Here's your pay cut! And, oh, we fired half your staff and gave you all the work of the three teams we laid off while you were in here.

    2. Re:H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The report is not about IT wages specifically, so your conclusion is likely (very) tainted by your bias against H1B workers, don't you think?

    3. Re: H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you work?

      Where I work (LA) we are having to do a considerable overhaul of compensation, especially for more junior people, because competition is hiring them away with higher salaries. This despite that we just increased all our salary ranges last year with on average 10%. And in case you think we're paying rock bottom wages, entry level candidates (and I mean straight out of school, with zero experience) were being offered on average $85k. This is likely to hit 95-100 this year. Senior engineers (5+ years experience) average around $140k, and usually get a 5k-10k bump each year.

      This is for developers. YMMV for different technology roles.

    4. Re: H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ben is that you?

    5. Re:H1B Program a success by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      According to the same source as TFA, H1B workers don't depress native wages. In fact, they are on average paid slightly above market rate.

      https://www.glassdoor.com/rese...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:H1B Program a success by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You T it up, I'll knock it out of the park. Batter up!!

      H1B was supposed to be about getting the Wernher von Braun's and Albert Einstein's of the world to be a part of the American all-star team of talent. But, that's not what it became, let alone used for. H1B is specifically about driving the cost of labor down. It's not that America has a shortage of STEM workers. It has in fact a shortage of cheap slave-wage applicants willing to take the job. For that kind of stress to pay ratio, there's better forms of employment that pay the same with a lot less stress. Meanwhile, the Fed keep printing money to pay for the benefits needed by those either under or unemployed. So the top 1% investor class reaps the rewards of slave labor, while the national debt payoff gets thrown to the middle class. Essentially, most American's are getting financially fucked in all orifices.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re: H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, H1B, H2B, and automation in general, then.

    8. Re: H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like that in the Bay Area, too. Competition for workers is pretty tremendous. There are some companies that do a fairly rigorous interview process, and they're starting to rethink their strategy bc it takes too long and it makes the candidates think that the companies don't have the wherewithal to ask a few difficult but salient questions to assess candidate suitability for the work.

      Now, outside of IT....well, that still sucks, apparently. But IT and biotech are riding very high right now....

    9. Re:H1B Program a success by outlander · · Score: 1

      It's cheap-labor capitalism at work....this is what the 1% have wanted since slavery and early industrial times.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    10. Re:H1B Program a success by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 2

      Well, Mr. Coward, I'd assert that it's an IT news site and it's probably okay to look at the story from an IT perspective. However, do I hate the H1B program? Absolutely! Am I supposed to be in love with a program designed to lower my wages?

    11. Re:H1B Program a success by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Oh, okay, I'll just live in San Jose on Bangalore wages. Great idea, Mr. Coward. BTW, I am definitely a nationalist and patriotic and I don't have to apologize for loving my country. I don't hate India or Indians, my real problem is against the bottom feeding fatcats who want to exploit their political ties to screw up the immigration system for their benefit and my loss.

    12. Re:H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But your whole premise is based on your assumption that H1B workers are paid bottom-of-the-barrel wages. The very report mentioned in the article refutes that. Do you have actual facts to the contrary or is it just your opinion? Where I don't work we don't have any H1B folks, the cost of managing that actually isn't negligible and we've been lucky to find permanent residents who (hopefully) will stick around longer than an H1B could. But the H1B candidates I have interviewed (the ones good enough to consider anyway) have certainly not given the impression that they would be willing to work for cut rate salaries. They all know what they are worth and are not going to accept earning less than the US citizen in the next cubicle.

      If you have actual data do prove me wrong, then I'm willing to concede. But until then, it just sounds like you're blaming your career woes on foreigners that are "taking our jobs", South Park style...

    13. Re:H1B Program a success by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The report is not about IT wages specifically

      TFA is a mishmash of BLS statistics about the broader economy, and survey data from Glassdoor which skews toward tech.

      The 2.6% figure is for the entire economy. H1Bs affect tech, but are negligible for the economy as a whole, so that is NOT the main reason for slow wage growth. Most likely reason is that labor availability is a lot more flexible than the official unemployment numbers predict, because there are a lot of long term unemployed being pulled back into the workforce.

    14. Re:H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H1Bs will come to the US, learn the skill, then go home and train a dozen others to do the job for pennies on the dollar. Then, entire departments are offshored wholesale. I've seen some salary info - an Indian data scientist is happy with $23,000/year.

    15. Re:H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is we already have a visa system for the "Albert Einstein's" of the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_of_extraordinary_ability

    16. Re:H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr. Those who oppose H1B will never want to educate themselves. Also, they keep spouting nonsensical conspiracy in hope to distort the truth. Insightful, really? If you have some times to understand the H1B issue, you should do some research and try to get to why this type of conspiracy emerged. Oh, and don't conflate "abuse" with the whole concept. They are 2 completely different things.

    17. Re: H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tired of winning already?

    18. Re:H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complaining about how much money investors and C-suite people make while desiring to reduce competition so your own profits go up. Hypocrite.

      On top of that your bitterness is completely useless. In a world where your production competes against another person's, productivity will always win out. You're jut priced out of the market. Choose a different occupation or get used to earning what a person in New Delhi would. Suck it up, whiner.

    19. Re:H1B Program a success by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      Everyone knows that the investor class and C-suite are the only ones that deserve any of the pie. If you want a raise, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and start your own multi-billion-dollar international corporation!

      And if you ever hear a C-suit suit at your company enthuse about the book _Crossing the Chasm_, circulate your resume immediately!

      That is EXACTLY what it prescribes. right at the end of one of the later chapters, and the key to both its success as a book and the crashing of the companies where execs try to follow its advice.

      The book says that the benefits of the company are due to the founders and NOT the early hires, whom they enticed with stock options and who actually did the grunt- and brain-work that built the company's success. The advice is to dump them, before their options fully vest, and keep the swag for the inner circle. It also says they have negligible bargaining power, work because they are driven by their inner compulsions, and will quickly find another position with another company (to be ripped off again, of course).

      The way it breaks companies: The execs who fall for this fire them TOO SOON, when the secret sauce recipes and corporate lore are still mostly in their heads, rather than dumped into documentation, procedures, and wage-slaves. So the people who are still making the company go are gone, the machine grinds itself into non-function, and nobody left really understands why it's broken or how to fix it.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    20. Re:H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, putting productivity and H1Bs anywhere near each other. You deserve what's coming.

    21. Re:H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you can't compete in a global market then it's time to switch careers.

      Wait, you think if a global corporation like Intel cuts 10,000 US jobs and hires 10,000 Indians in Bangalore, the price of your CPU is going to drop 2 to 5%? Nope. The price stays the same, just as you pay ridiculous prices for Nike shoes created by child labor in the third world.

      All the money saved from cheap labor goes to executives and investors.

    22. Re:H1B Program a success by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      According to the same source as TFA, H1B workers don't depress native wages. In fact, they are on average paid slightly above market rate.

      https://www.glassdoor.com/rese...

      They certainly do depress wages for tech jobs, as your own citation states:

      By contrast, there are many examples of jobs where H1B workers usually earn less than U.S. workers — despite legal requirements that employers pay “prevailing wages” to H1B workers. Four examples of these types of jobs are shown in the table below: data scientist, financial analyst, programmer analyst, and software engineer. In these cases, H1B workers usually earn less than otherwise similar U.S. workers. For example, among software engineers, H1B workers earned less than or equal to U.S. workers in every city we examined, ranging from equal median salaries in Seattle to -17 percent less in Chicago. Similarly, H1B salaries for programmer analysts were lower in nine of the 10 cities we examined, ranging from -1 percent in Atlanta to -28 percent in Chicago and Washington, D.C. (H1B pay for programmer analysts was 7 percent higher in one city: Philadelphia).

    23. Re: H1B Program a success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to tell you, but $170K in San Diego is equivalent to $120K in Minneapolis after you consider cost of living.

      But, our wages across the country have been stagnant. Want a higher standard of living? Move.

  2. Take your lumps for Trump by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like the stock market losses due to recent attempts to initiate a trade war and the wealth transfers to the 1% through tax "reform," this downturn is just part of Making America Great Again, and you should accept your losses with pride for the glory of the Dear Leader. Things will get better...real soon...any day now...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      ... you should accept your losses with pride for the glory of the Dear Leader. Things will get better...real soon...any day now...

      Are you talking about the 40% increase in the stock market since he took office, your reduced taxes, or the 5% increase in wages since he took office? We don't even have to wait for any of those things, they already happened. I will fault him for failing to deliver on his promise to land Hillary in prison.

    2. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) There's every indication that this is a huge stock market bubble, also the stock market isn't the economy.
      2) Lowering taxes isn't always good; it's going to lead to cuts in services and a huge deficit (if you care about that sort of thing).
      3) 5% wage growth in 2 years isn't good; if wages were growing at the nominal 3-4% each year, in two years they should have grown 6.09-8.16% due to compounding.

      So, uh, yeah give him credit for doing things poorly and setting up a big stock market bubble? Sure.

    3. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you talking about the 40% increase in the stock market since he took office

      The Dow was 19,826 on the day Donald Trump took office, and it's 24,005 as of a few minutes ago. Now math is not my best subject, but I'm not sure that's a 40% increase.

      Oops, make that 23,963 as of 10:58am PST.

      For the record, the economic growth during the Obama Administration was faster and steadier. He was the first president since before WWII to not take us into a recession at any point in his presidency.

      Oops, make that 23,941 as of 11:01am PST.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Time will tell, but so far, we are still on a trajectory which is much improved over the last administration's. Remember that.

      Not an improved trajectory, just further along the same trajectory (at least until recently). To bring this article up to date:

      http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/1...

      The bull market is 109 months old. Trump owns 17 of them.

      Including these months:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re: Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Turning the economy around". You do understand that we had 7 straight years of strong improvement under Obama, right? Turning the economy around would mean tanking it. We can all be glad he hasn't done that.

      The rest of your point is well taken. Just because he's the closest thing to a comic book villain real life has to offer does not mean that every breath he takes is in service to evil.

    6. Re: Take your lumps for Trump by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Turning the economy around would mean tanking it. We can all be glad he hasn't done that.

      Give the guy some time, he's showing a lot of "progress" on that front recently.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by bigwheel · · Score: 1

      Here is a graph of historical US wage growth https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

      Based on the 5 year chart, wage increases steadily dropped from 2014 until around November 2017, when increases bottomed out at close to zero. Since the election, wages have recovered nicely. There are dips and peaks in the chart, but the current trend is very encouraging.

    8. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40% increase in the stock market since he took office

      When he took office, Dow was just under 20,000, now it's just under 24,000. Can you explain your calculation that makes that 40%?

      Also, by that standard, would you please stand up and hail the great President Obama, since the Dow went from ~7,000 to almost 20,000 on his watch?

      If you're going to shill for Mango Mussolini, at least stick to alternative facts that aren't easily verified (if you can find any)

    9. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by bigwheel · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant November 2016 - not 2017. Wages have been increasing nicely since around Nov 2016.

    10. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting interpretation. To me it looks like wage growth ranges from 4~6% from 2014 to 2016 before it begins to drop. It takes 2 big falls, one in early 2016 and one in late 2016, before it begins to recover. It eventually recovers to about 5% before beginning the drop mentioned in TFS.

      If you look at the 10 year chart, wage growth generally stays in the range of 2~6% from mid 2010 to late 2016. So the current trend is still well within that range, although I don't see how a drop toward what appears to be an average number since recovery from the great recession can be encouraging.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't even begin to understand the mind of a person who thinks any of that is true. What curves has he "bent upwards"? Stock indexes and unemployment curves look identical before and after his inauguration, the slope barely changes from what was happening under the Obama administration. If anything, he has managed to cause some big drops in stocks with the stupid tariff fight with China he pulled out of his ass.

      I get it that you want your side to "win", but at least take a moment look at the facts with an attempt at objectivity. Claiming that Trump is "ultra successful" is just stupid.

    12. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Wow - how are you editing your posts?

      Also, not much reason to update it so often. It usually does fluxuate a bit during the day

    13. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at the long term and you will see a very disturbing trend of decreasing wages increases.

    14. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Also, not much reason to update it so often.

      Oops, make that 23,783, as of 12:01 PST.

      It usually does fluxuate a bit during the day

      The Dow has dropped 724 points and it's still a ways to go before the bell.

      This has been the longest the Dow has gone without reaching a new high in five years. Since Trump's tax bill passed, the DOW has lost 3000 points.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the 40% increase in the stock market since he took office

      The Dow was 19,826 on the day Donald Trump took office, and it's 24,005 as of a few minutes ago. Now math is not my best subject, but I'm not sure that's a 40% increase.

      If 24,005 is not 40% more than 19,826 to you, you're obviously doing fake math then or not using alternative statistics. You probably don't think Trump had a record turn out at his inauguration either do you.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has been ultra successful ...

      At having the weakest job growth in six years? New jobs numbers out today, too. Spoiler alert: they're well below expectations. It is true that there has been some positivity in the markets due to the tax cuts, but he's trying to F that up with the trade war he's starting.

      GDP up to levels the last administration claimed was impossible

      Uh, no. 2.3% GDP growth (which is what 2017 was) is pretty weak, actually. Obama did worse most years, but he did start out with the shit pile that was the busted housing bubble, which actually drove losses (negative growth) to GDP in '08 and '09, if you recall.

      Of course, most of that is just pissing in the wind since presidents don't have that much control over the economy anyway and other factors typically dominate. For instance, the Clinton tax increases might have slowed an economy that wasn't being turbocharged by PCs, dotcoms, mobile communication, etc.... Though deliberately starting a trade war with the world's second biggest economy and the U.S.'s biggest trading partner could cause a much larger than normal -- one might say yuge -- presidential impact.

    17. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Keynes said, "In the long term, we are all dead." ;-)

      But your point is well-taken. The decrease in real wages is very real, and it's been going on since the mid-70s.

    18. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by TheSync · · Score: 1

      What you really need to look at is real compensation per hour because of all the non-wage compensation going on (health insurance, etc.). It is pretty flat since 2015.

      The civillian labor force flatlined from 2008-2012, then start to a weak climb. Labor force participation rate only stopped falling in 2015 (the same time that total compensation flatlined).

      My thought is that despite the low and flatlining unemployment rate, there are still people who are being sucked back into the labor force by availability of jobs. Many people marginally attached to the labor force are not high-productivity workers, so they can actually bring down average wages when they are hired.

      Existing workers who are highly productive are seeing compensation increases so companies don't lose them, but new/inexperienced/less productive workers may be being hired at lower compensation levels.

    19. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was ok with the taxes I was paying because I'm not a poor fagg0 who has to troll the internet for pennies and rubles. The stock market has lost a ton of value and at least by technical analysis it will continue to lose a great deal of value. er I mean "value"

    20. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a nice tax cut... I guess 50K is now 1%

    21. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 0

      He was the first president since before WWII to not take us into a recession at any point in his presidency.

      Nobody seems to remember all the Affordable Care Act fallout starting in mid-2010. If it wasn't for the amount of fear and uncertainty, the recovery that started to materialize in July would have took off. Instead, small businesses stopped hiring, and wages continued to fall until 2013 and didn't start rising until 2014.

      And yes a lot of people who don't know any business owners pooh pooh it like fear of regulation has no effect, but look at the tariff fear today and tell me that doesn't matter, even though nothing is being levied right this moment.

    22. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      It occurred to me today that Trump may not feel he can deliver sustained growth, but he may feel that he can engineer a dip in the middle of his term to make the indicators look like they are trending upward toward the end. Rather like managing the plot of a movie, the hero usually has to be in crisis about 2/3 of the way through.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    23. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Nobody seems to remember all the Affordable Care Act fallout starting in mid-2010. If it wasn't for the amount of fear and uncertainty, the recovery that started to materialize in July

      Apparently, you don't seem to remember it either. Job growth, wage growth and GDP growth started in 2010 and did not stop going up for six years.

      and wages continued to fall until 2013 and didn't start rising until 2014.

      Wow, you really don't remember that time at all, do you? Wage growth started rising in 2010 and continued going up throughout the rest of Obama's term. In fact, wage growth was not negative at any point in Obama's term in office. From 2010, wage growth continued to accelerate and didn't start a downward trajectory until the month Trump was elected and has continued to fall. Wage growth now is lower than it was in at any time in 2016, and to find wage growth as low as it is today, you have to go back to December of 2014.

      https://www.frbatlanta.org/chc...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      19,826 x 0.40 = 7,930.4
      19,826 + 7,930.4 = 27,756.4

      24,005 < 27,756.4

    25. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dow was 19,826 on the day Donald Trump took office, and it's 24,005 as of a few minutes ago.

      For the record, the economic growth during the Obama Administration was faster and steadier.

      19,800 to 24,000 in 1 year and 75 days. Or 9.54 per day for Trump.

      For your second statement to be true, the Dow would have had to start at 8057 when Obama entered office. The Dow was at 7,949.

      True, but barely so. With everyday market fluctuation, tomorrow it might not be. Recently it certainly wasn't.

      Why would someone bring up this specific point today, one of the only days it has been true over the last year? It's like all the people harping about the murder rate of London being higher than New York. True, but barely so, has not been for very long, and will likely not be true again very soon.

    26. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 21% not 40%.

    27. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure his 5% reference is for one year, Trump took office at the end of January 2017. Feb 2017 to Feb 2018 = 4.47% wage growth in the USA. Where do you get two years from?

    28. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's closer to 40% since Trump was elected (not took office). I'm guessing that's what he actually meant, but he'd still have to cut off some of the recent drop to get all the way there.

    29. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the market, read between the lines, amigo.

      The wall-street insiders have all cashed out with ~40% net. Now POTUS is fake newsing a trade war to drive stocks down. Once things have fallen 25%, or so, insiders will buy back in, trade war will evaporate, and stocks will again surge....rinse....repeat.

      Didn't you get the memo?

    30. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dow was 19,826 on the day Donald Trump took office, and it's 24,005 as of a few minutes ago. Now math is not my best subject, but I'm not sure that's a 40% increase.

      I know integrity and intellectual honesty are difficult for liberals, but let's have a go at trying to train you anyway. This was (until you decided to move the goalposts) a conversation about how Trump has impacted the market. I know you'd like to start your measurement after removing the 8% increase from election day to inauguration day, and you'd like to ignore the peak of 26,616.71 on January 26 before the tariff talk, which is what makes you dishonest. Now, let's do the real math - election day stock close to January 2018 peak:

      26,616.71 ÷ 18332.74 = 45.19%

      So, in an amazing plot twist, it turns out that some facts liberals try to discount with "fake news", or "alternative facts" labels, are actually true. I'm sure you or CNN will be here any minute to declare that I'm a Russian bot. If only you were capable of feeling shame.

    31. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 24,005 is not 40% more than 19,826 to you, you're obviously doing fake math then or not using alternative statistics. You probably don't think Trump had a record turn out at his inauguration either do you.

      Anybody can cherry-pick data to fit their preferred version of reality (you guys still running fantasy sites where Hillary wins?), but if we're going to talk about the effect Trump has had on the market, let's start with his election victory and take it until the tariff talk started at the end of January.

      Election day stock close: 18,332.74
      January 26, 2018 peak:26,616.71

      In case you find yourself too busy labeling me a Russian bot to do the math, the math checks out:

      26,616.71 ÷ 18332.74 = 45.19%

      I don't know. Maybe you grew up educated with common core, or maybe you have Autism which stunted your mathematical abilities, but it turns out that the math is actually real and correct.

    32. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      election day stock close to January 2018 peak

      And it's been downhill ever since.

      And you know, of course, that during the same period of the Obama presidency, the Dow went up by a larger percentage, right? Sixty-one percent, in the first year, in fact.

      Overall, the total increase in the Dow during the Obama administration was 231%.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re: Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give the guy some time, he's showing a lot of "progress" on that front recently.

      Still up by 30.5% since his election win until today. That's an annualized return of 20.84%. If Obama had that kind of trajectory, the market would have closed on November 8, 2016, somewhere around 4.55x the 9,139.27 close on the day of his election victory. Since the market didn't close anywhere near 41,549 on the last day of Obama's term, it's fairly certain that Obama didn't do better.

    34. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      People were still bitching about the shitty economy back in 2013, or can you not remember back that far? Does the phrase "jobless recovery" ring a bell? Charts and fancy math are not actual reality

    35. Re: Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did say himself that we would get tired of winning.

    36. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump did have a record turnout, a record low turnout.

      Fuck you numbnut Trumpanzees. You shitheels should be jailed for supporting a traitor.

    37. Re:Take your lumps for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

      numbnuts

  3. Re:Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why does Pelosi get a pass at the nicknames?

  4. Huh, wonder why by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wages should be rising an average of 3%-4% given the tightness of the job market, Chamberlain says

    What do you expect when most of the political establishment is fighting Trump's efforts to reign in immigration and the exploitation of arbitrage by corporate America? We have a state--California--engaging in rhetoric and action that would make John Calhoun's heart swell with pride for its open defiance of any federal policy that might limit the flood gates that are swamping the labor market. Heck, we just had the governor of Oregon boast that she would try to start what is tantamount to a mutiny in the National Guard by ordering them to disobey a federal deployment order.

    You scratch through the rhetoric, it all comes down to a defense of the organized business and capital interests that profit from a depressed labor market.

    This is just another variation of the underlying sin that lead to slavery: the "I'm gonna get mine and I don't care if I have to cheat another man of his due to get it." That's how we got slavery. It's how we have this massive "compassionate" labor exploitation system based on importing tons of people, legally and illegally.

    1. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait, so the wealthy are pulling strings to keep their wealth but we can fix this by stopping immigration?

      I...don't think that's the solution you're looking for.

    2. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so the wealthy are pulling strings to keep their wealth but we can fix this by stopping immigration?

      Exactly! Finally someone who understands that the laws of supply and demand apply to the labor market, too. Coincidentally, the wealthy understand this, which is exactly why they almost universally support open borders. They know that wage suppression requires a constant flow of destitute workers. Proponents of unrestricted immigration play right into that agenda of exploiting the world's poor to maximize their riches.

    3. Re:Huh, wonder why by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a Libertarian, I have NO problem with free and open immigration. I would accept just about anyone who wants to work in the US here. I would limit immigrants from social welfare programs for a period of 15 years or until they complete all requirements and become full citizens of the US. I would also allow fast tracking people who serve in the military or guard.

      What I have a problem with is people sneaking in. But that seems to be a hard distinction for some people to make.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if we just get rid of immigrants, wealthy people will stop hording their wealth. Because a living wage has elastic demand; just don't work if you don't like the wages!

      (your ideas are bad)

    5. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What I have a problem with is people sneaking in. But that seems to be a hard distinction for some people to make.

      Nope. Ain't nobody saying let the borders be free. That's simply not true. The difference is how we belive illegal immigrants should be treated.

    6. Re:Huh, wonder why by tomhath · · Score: 1

      What TFA is saying is that given the current low unemployment, we should expect higher wage inflation - but that's not happening. An increase of 3-4% each year is not desirable and would draw a strong response from the Fed.

    7. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand that the National Guard serves the state to which they reside and not the Federal government. So it is in no way mutiny and is firmly entrenched in states' rights.

      Immigration that you're talking about has zero effect on wages of IT or just about any Office worker. You can argue that it depresses wages of construction works and landscapers but those aren't the people being surveyed at Glassdoor. You are conflating two issues perhaps on purpose.

      H1-Bs have an impact but Trump is literally doing nothing there despite his early chest thumping. Dismantling public education even further is only going to increase demand as it becomes impossible to find anyone qualified.

      Make no mistake, Trump is all about getting his at the cost of everyone else. He has a long history of doing just that and there is no reason to think a man his age is suddenly going to have an epiphany and change 180. Greed is his game.

      Calling the illegal immigration issue a flood gate is also vastly overstating the issue since illegal immigration is significantly slowed and has been for several years as Obama was actually pretty hard on illegal immigrants despite all the talk from the right. Trump is continuing the trend by making it an openly hostile environment for immigrants whether they are legal or not.

    8. Re: Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please consider that if illegal immigrants weren't forced to hide, you wouldn't be able to pay them less than minimum wage and get away with it. You wouldn't be able to use them as slave labor. Which means they're a lot less desirable to employers and you can compete with them again.

    9. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope. Ain't nobody saying let the borders be free. That's simply not true. The difference is how we belive illegal immigrants should be treated.

      So what are sanctuary cities saying then when they actively try to promote and defend open borders?

    10. Re:Huh, wonder why by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      The buck stops somewhere else.

    11. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if we just get rid of immigrants, wealthy people will stop hording their wealth. Because a living wage has elastic demand; just don't work if you don't like the wages!

      (your ideas are bad)

      Jobs pay the lowest wage the market will accept. If that's modern day slave labor (illegal immigrants) or indentured servants (H1Bs), that's what they'll pay.

    12. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You understand that the National Guard serves the state to which they reside and not the Federal government.

      False. NG serves a dual role, and are deployable by either the governor of their state (because they are organized at the state level and function as a state militia when needed in that capacity), or the federal government (because they are, in fact, a reserve component of the U.S. armed forces , under the department of defense).

      Calling the illegal immigration issue a flood gate is also vastly overstating the issue since illegal immigration is significantly slowed and has been for several years....

      You are correct on this point. Illegal entry is at a 40 year low. Further, the biggest issue currently in illegal immigration is not people sneaking across the border. It is foreigners getting perfectly legal student or tourist visas, then staying in the country (and often, attempting to get work) illegally after they expire. In other words, something troops on the border or a wall has zero effect on.

    13. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Ain't nobody saying let the borders be free. That's simply not true. The difference is how we belive illegal immigrants should be treated.

      So what are sanctuary cities saying then when they actively try to promote and defend open borders?

      They are promoting treating people who aren't causing trouble, and who pay taxes, with dignity and respect.

      My core value is treating other people well regardless of who they are, and I am disgusted how that is now considered evil and wrong these days by my conservative friends.

    14. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with most of your comment but the NG thing. The order is title 32 which gives the governor rights to send or not to send troops. Its her decision.

      Title 10 is a federal order and if she did this under those orders well then that would be sedition. But, she's not. It is a title 32 order.

    15. Re:Huh, wonder why by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What distinction is made between illegal immigrants and those that are here legally?

      What distinction is made between illegal immigrants and those waiting to come here legally?

      The net result is that illegal immigrants are often given preferential treatment to those waiting to get in. They are here after all, while those waiting for legal status are not allowed in at all.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:Huh, wonder why by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I am saying the boarders should be open, but with a gate for people to register and check in as they enter legally. We pretty much already have open boarders right now, except for those that want to come here legally. Those people are screwed while we give preferential treatment to those that cross our boarders without permission.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to arrest and deport people simply for immigration violations?

    18. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah Kamala Harris would like to have a word with you. She wants open borders, and is likely a future presidential contender.

    19. Re:Huh, wonder why by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Who aren't causing trouble"

      Being here illegally is causing trouble. Why? Because it encourages others to do the same, bypassing our laws. They all aren't paying taxes. They all aren't behaving themselves, They all aren't doing what you're claiming all of them are doing.

      Hell you can be arrested for felonies and be released back into the public in sanctuary cities. You can be deported multiple times and sneak back in and commit crimes and be release back into society.

      You are block grouping a variety of people together, conflating them as a single unit and giving them a pass in doing so. You're partially why, as a group, they are causing problems, because people like yourself make no distinction between breaking the law, and not breaking the law.

      At least my solution gives no excuses for crossing the boarder without permission. You're just excusing it as if it were nothing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:Huh, wonder why by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like the rhetoric of the 30s. Traitors to the country, opposing the great leaders attempts to protect the nation from the existential threat of immigrants.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Huh, wonder why by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Now I'm confused... Was this discussion about immigration policy or bed-and-breakfast policy?

    22. Re: Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surf's up!

    23. Re:Huh, wonder why by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Why we don't deport actual criminals in California. So that isn't really accurate either. Nice try though.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    24. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True you CAN do all those fear mongery things you mention but if you're an immigrant of ANY sort you generally do them at a lower rate than the citizen population of the US. The immigrant population is up 120% in the past 30 years while violent crime is down ~35% (npr). But don't take that into consideration while crafting your baby rapist narratives because....you won't of course. Carry on going only with your gut, where all the shit is.

    25. Re:Huh, wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless there aren't any willing to do the job, then you have to pay more if you want the job done.

    26. Re:Huh, wonder why by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Being here illegally is causing trouble. Why? Because it encourages others to do the same, bypassing our laws.

      1) Illegal immigrant, noun: a term used by the descendants of invaders, living on stolen land, to refer the the descendants of native inhabitants.

      2) Every latin american country south of Texas has been overthrown by the United States at least once, invaded, or suffered CIA-backed death squads. Or all of the above. You want your taxes raised to the stratosphere to pay reparations, or do you want the victims of US policy to be able to cross the border and get a job at a 7-11?

    27. Re:Huh, wonder why by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      I guess you went to school in Tucson or somewhere like that, to get so screwed up about basic definitions?

      1. Let's try Wikipedia: "Illegal immigration is the illegal entry of a person or a group of persons across a country's border, in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country, with the intention to remain in the country."
      2. If they have an issue, they can take it to the UN or the World Court or something. Individuals breaking the law isn't "reparations" for unproven accusations.

      Like the OP, I'm fine with massive immigration into the United States via increased and streamlined processes which put the risks where they belong, but it should be done legally. The whole amnesty paradigm has been proven to just encourage more law-breaking in the future and it cheats people who are immigrating the right way.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    28. Re:Huh, wonder why by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I guess you're willfully obtuse. The entirety of the United States is land built on that which was stolen from the native populace, including pretty much every treaty ever signed. So nativists can fuck right off on the entire subject of "illegal immigration".

      If they have an issue, they can take it to the UN or the World Court or something.

      1) As if the ability to take a cause to a higher court has fuck-all to do with the justification of a cause. Palestinians have a right to move back to all the homes stolen from them by colonialist invaders and lands stolen in the '67 war started by Israel, but we all know that's not happening any time soon.

      2) The U.S. has a veto pen to use against any resolution against the United States - which they've made frequent use of to defend the aforementioned Apartheid Israel.

    29. Re:Huh, wonder why by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Guess what? The "native population" also "stole" various lands from each other in the same manner. So you have no real point.

      The United States is a country. It has laws. Violating them is literally the definition of illegal. You can't alter that basic fact.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    30. Re:Huh, wonder why by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The "native population" also "stole" various lands from each other in the same manner.

      Tired bullshit excuse is tired. And willfully ignorant - do you honestly think that every single tribe was forcing other tribes off their land? Many of them had been in the same place for thousands of years at total peace until invaders showed up.

      The United States is a country. It has laws. Violating them is literally the definition of illegal. You can't alter that basic fact.

      And again, you can fuck right off on your fake concerns for legality, given that the formation of the U.S. was impossible without violating pretty much every treaty every signed with a native tribe, and how your government has spent the last 200 years screwing over every other country in the hemisphere.

    31. Re:Huh, wonder why by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      You should really get something for that rage of yours before you break something.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    32. Re:Huh, wonder why by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You really should pull your head out of your ass before it gets stuck there, permanently.

  5. Glassdoor has the worst possible data for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, are we now looking to a site that voluntarily collects sketchy salary data to provide accurate stats on wage growth? That's about as smart as trusting google or facebook with your data. Glassdoor is probably the worst source of this data you could possibly have. I'm sure their 'data scientists' scrub and make sure it's statistically valid, etc...no thanks - I think I'll stick to stats from a payroll company - you know, the ones that actually process salaries that get deposited in people's bank accounts.

  6. Measured by job postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So people aren't even getting the 1% "inflation adjustment" raises?

    1. Re:Measured by job postings by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The article is FUD. Wages went up enough last year that the Fed is tightening the reigns. Of course the increase salaries from job postings reflects that.

  7. Re:OBMAMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right.

    **HUSSEIN**.

    He's a MUSLIM FROM KENYA and you can go FUCK YOURSELF.

  8. Pee Pee Pie Pie Po Po Pum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bookin midey dood
    here's my bum

  9. Re:Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would have modded up. But no nickname for Pelosi.

    I was full MAGA until you left Pelosi out of the nicknames. Now I am full SJW libtard snowflake larping for the DNC.

  10. Re:KKK robe is a full body dunce hat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mueller disagrees with you.

  11. Re: Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please note that not all of us on the right are like this dipshit. We hate these guys, too.

  12. Low unemployment is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The official numbers are garbage and always have been. There are millions of people that should be in the workforce that aren't.

    Good job, government. Keep creating that need for dependence.

    1. Re: Low unemployment is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should consider not being lazy sacks of shit, then. Unemployment is very low. Anyone who wants a job can get one at this point. But it's easier to just get your doctor to claim you're disabled.

    2. Re: Low unemployment is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've applied for hundreds of jobs in the past two weeks. I don't have one yet. I have a master's degree in STEM and fifteen years of experience. Maybe you're just delusional?

    3. Re: Low unemployment is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up, you trolling piece of shit. Every fucking article about jobs, you shit out a comment about record low unemployment, because you're a lying asshole troll.

    4. Re: Low unemployment is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're incompetent?

      numbnuts

  13. More tax cuts needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need more tax cuts.

  14. Re:Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumps a faggot, just like you!

  15. GlassDoor touts cheap workers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe its website says (or at one time said) that employees hired through Glassdoor.com cost 10% less or something like that.

    Their statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. I believe they are focused on a particular industry (tech) and probably aren't the most popular job/hiring site out there.

  16. Exactly as should be expected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's multiple cases in the conferences leading up to the recent tax cuts, where the crowd of business managers and owners were asked casually if they planned to increase hiring if they were given a massive tax cut. Very few indicated they would.

    And so, that's what we're seeing. Folks are getting more money, but not really using it to expand... so much as they're using it to capture and control the mechanisms of the market to guarantee income WITHOUT having to make a business case for it.

    At least on the high end.

    On the low end, folks are dumping it into the market - which is where the market spike happened over the last few months, which isn't panning out anymore at least for the moment.

    But there's only a token increase in demand, since they really only just need to replace folks getting out of the market. Wages can stagnate, since there's very few real new projects that will be thwarted by an employer rejecting a demand for a raise.

    All of this is in aggregate of course - but it shows the emphasis of what's at play here. Folks that have power see an easy path to easier power, and if any person in any time on earth represents that particular kind of lazy corruption - it's Donald Trump.

    Which is especially ironic, given the rhetoric pushed by his supporters, and what they think of the disruption that they wanted. Drain the swamp... right into a bigger swamp, Further entrenched, with fewer jobs.

  17. Where's all that tax cut money by mark_reh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that the rich are supposed to be using to pay Americans higher wages?

    1. Re:Where's all that tax cut money by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Informative

      Caymens, Switzerland, Panama, [offshore destination of choice]. Oh, and for some of them it's a down payment on a bigger yacht.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Where's all that tax cut money by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of companies gave one-time bonuses to employees, while themselves getting a year-after-year benefit. They probably see this as a bribe to employees to convince them that the tax cuts are what they want too.

    3. Re:Where's all that tax cut money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most of them SAID they were giving bonuses but only a small handful actually have. Plenty of those bonuses that did get paid out were pre-negotiated and actually had jack schitt to do with the tax cuts.

    4. Re:Where's all that tax cut money by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

      that the rich are supposed to be using to pay Americans higher wages?

      Caymens, Switzerland, Panama, [offshore destination of choice]. Oh, and for some of them it's a down payment on a bigger yacht.

      Is that down payment being paid to other rich who are handcrafting yachts out of gold bars and stock certificates? If the grandparent post is dividing the population into "rich" and "Americans", where is the dividing line?

      I would have thought that buying a yacht qualifies as "rich" paying wages to "not rich", via a yacht building company whose owner might be either.

      Maybe the grandparent expects the "rich" should literally toss bundles of cash at random. It seems to me that creating luxury items, and especially frivolous and/or disposable luxury items is a great way for "not rich" folks to transfer money to themselves from "rich" folks.

      If the "rich" simply stash cash offshore and never buy anything with it, that simply increases the buying power of the cash in the hands of the "not rich" (basically via supply and demand, all the cash that's out of circulation is not being used to buy goods and services, so that's essentially lower demand than if it was being used to make purchases. For a given level of supply, lower demand results in lower prices.)

      If the "rich" buy luxury goods, especially (as in your example) a "bigger yacht" (implying that it's not their first yacht) or extra houses or cars or other big ticket items for which they can't actually use more than one at a time, that drives wages by increasing demand for "not rich" to build all those expensive extra items.

      Why should the "rich" simply give away money for nothing when they can instead use it to employ "not rich" yacht builders? The "rich" gets a nice new yacht and the "not rich" get wages that they wouldn't have gotten if the yacht was never bought. In what way is that not "win-win"?

    5. Re:Where's all that tax cut money by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize that the only input to a yacht was manual labor! It's not like it takes expensive materials, involves payments for IP, uses automated machinery (ala capital) or anything else. Boat creation is not a heavy job creator.

      Maybe the grandparent expects the "rich" should literally toss bundles of cash at random.

      I don't expect the rich to voluntarily do that, no. Whether it makes sense to force them to is a different question.

      If the "rich" simply stash cash offshore and never buy anything with it, that simply increases the buying power of the cash in the hands of the "not rich"

      Why do you think the cash is buried outside the US in a way that keeps it from circulating. "In a bank account in Panama" is, in reality "in a set of US stocks/bonds owned by an anonymous Panamanian company for tax reasons"

      If the "rich" buy luxury goods... that drives wages by increasing demand for "not rich" to build all those expensive extra items.

      That's only true if there are a few boat builders who are able to earn those wages and the rich people compete to rise those wages. Since that's not the case (among the individual workers), there's no wage pressure. Besides, it's saying that some resources go to luxury goods. Which means those resources aren't going to, I dunno, feeding poor people.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:Where's all that tax cut money by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

      it takes expensive materials, involves payments for IP, uses automated machinery

      You've just dramatically increased support for my point. It's not just a wealthy yacht maker getting rich off the sale of that yacht because that yacht maker has lots of suppliers. Those suppliers employ miners, refiners, forgers, skilled craftsmen for the expensive materials (hint, the reason they're "expensive" materials is that they involve a lot of labor to create. Those "payments for IP" go to companies that employ designers, lawyers, salespeople, receptionists, security guards, cafeteria workers, and on and on. The same goes for the companies that make the automated machinery.

      If building a yacht only required the work of a handful of low wage boat builders then everyone could buy one. The reason you associate yachts with the ultrawealthy is precisely because of the vast number of people who got paid directly or indirectly for parts of the yacht. People who wouldn't have gotten paid if that yacht wasn't built.

      "in a set of US stocks/bonds owned by an anonymous Panamanian company for tax reasons"

      Now that's accurate, but obviously doesn't mean the same thing as "stash cash offshore". Those US stocks/bonds represent actual companies that employ actual people and pay them actual wages. Those people can certainly demand higher wages if demand for their skills exceeds supplies, but not if there are too many equally capable people for the amount of jobs. Who owns the company and what the market cap of the company is or how much debt (i.e. bonds) it has is simply not relevant to the question of whether it can meet its sales commitments at its current staffing and wage level.

      Which means those resources aren't going to, I dunno, feeding poor people.

      So if the yacht was never built, which parts of it (or the raw materials or IP or automated machinery you astutely pointed out are pre-reqs) were those poor people going to eat?

      Or are you suggesting that we have a shortage of farmers? Perhaps you want the yacht builders, miners, refiners, forgers, tool makers, IP lawyers, and so forth to quit their current jobs and go find some land on which to grow vegetables for the poor.

      If you'll allow me to switch the topic from yachts to houses: In my area the government requires builders to produce a certain percentage of "low cost housing" in order to get permits. These builders make their profit selling houses to the wealthy (probably not "rich" in the original poster's sense of "are supposed to be using to pay Americans higher wages", but at least middle and upper middle class) but in order to do so they are forced by the government to build a certain percentage of houses at a loss so that people who for whatever reason (be it lack of skills, lack of intelligence, disability, whatever) can't convince anyone to voluntarily pay them enough money to cover the cost of a house. This seems to me like a reasonable function of local (not Federal) government. If the local government cuts too deep the builders will build elsewhere. It doesn't say "you're rich, we're taking your money at gunpoint because you're rich", instead it says "if you'd like to spend some of your wealth to create more wealth for yourself, here are the terms and conditions" and allows the builders to decide whether the profit they'll make, taking into account building a number of houses at a loss, is worth the risk they'll take.

  18. Re: Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should start removing them like the roaches they are, then, and maybe us moderates would stop recoiling in horror at the GOP every other year.

  19. Not just the H1-B Program by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FedEx was about to open a new distribution center in Indiana but they skipped it because they'd increased productivity so much at their existing centers they didn't need it. We've become massively more productive.

    Also, anyone else find it telling that the phrase used to describe succeeding without help describes a physically impossible event? It's like a bad joke everybody ran with.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. Stop abandoning the working class by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Trump is a consequence of abandoning the working class. People like Hilary Clinton (and a lot of /.ers) tell guys in their 30s and 40s they need to retrain for skills they couldn't learn in their 20s with loans they can't afford and no money coming in to support themselves let alone the families they had before their jobs were automated/outsourced/replaced with an H1-B.

    I've noticed a trend where everybody's in support of the government stepping in to help out until it's somebody else. Then it becomes teh Socialisms. This needs to stop. The working class needs solidarity. We need to stop pretending we can make it on our own and that there's no class warfare going on. We're getting picked apart here. Fighting among ourselves for scraps while the ruling class laughs in our face.

    Policy wise this means:
    • Medicare for all
    • End the wars
    • New New Deal
    • Fix our infrastructure
    • College for everyone

    Nobody left behind. Everyone gets cared for and we stop complaining about having to pay for the occasional lazy surfer dude who doesn't work much or at all.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Stop abandoning the working class by outlander · · Score: 2

      +1

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    2. Re:Stop abandoning the working class by dryeo · · Score: 1

      College for everyone

      Shouldn't that be Collage for those that can pass the entrance exams and technological school for any who wants it? Lots of people like my brother where a collage education would have helped him less then the 2 years he spent learning how to be a glazier did. Plumbers, electricians, welders etc are usually in demand, especially for fixing the infrastructure, the trades pay decently and for some are a better career path then collage.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Stop abandoning the working class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most people don't need college. I have a BS and MA degrees. My current, self-employed job required no college education, only a few months reading books and listening to podcasts on the subject. I'm on track to retire by 50. If I didn't have 60k left in student loans, I'd be able to retire in my early 40s (I'm 31 now). The friends I have who stayed at their programming jobs plan to retire at retirement age. They're all making more money (80-95k range) than me, yet I'm saving over double what they are.

    4. Re:Stop abandoning the working class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... we could have freedom instead.

    5. Re:Stop abandoning the working class by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be Collage for those that can pass the entrance exams and technological school for any who wants it? Lots of people like my brother where a collage education would have helped him less then the 2 years he spent learning how to be a glazier did. Plumbers, electricians, welders etc are usually in demand, especially for fixing the infrastructure, the trades pay decently and for some are a better career path then collage.

      I completely agree with you. I'd mod you up if I had points. Not everyone needs to go to College to go into the various trades that pay very well.

    6. Re:Stop abandoning the working class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would prollie vote for you

    7. Re:Stop abandoning the working class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go live in the woods and be free you fucking pathetic numbnut

  21. Re:Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I won't bother to tell you you're wrong, because you almost certainly won't just believe what I, or anyone else, tell you.

    If you wanted to prove – to yourself, and to the rest of us – that you're not an ignorant hick and a rube in a fly over state (either that, or your name is Ivan, or Dmitri, or Sasha, and you're just here trolling), you could go look up wage statistics. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that you look back at least as far as 1980.

    Because at least some of know that wage growth took a real turn for the worse when Won Won Weagun slapped us with his Trickle Down Economics. A slap so hard that 16 years of Clinton and Obama in the middle couldn't undo.

    And your hero Twitler's tax break for the 1% certainly isn't going to make things any better. Just wait until the tax cut you think you got expires in a few years; but that tax cut for the 1% doesn't expire. (Ask yourself, why do the 1% get to keep their tax cut but you and I don't get to keep ours? I could tell you the answer to that too, but like above, I know you won't accept my explanation. So you think on it for a while and get back to us when you think you know the answer.)

  22. what a FUD article by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    so 2.6% is less than 3% so things are terrible, even as unemployment falls? and illegals are kicked out?

    yeah, this is whining

  23. Misleading, tendentious by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    To say "wage growth is shrinking" with the implication that "something is wrong" following behind is so misleading one would have to ask what was the real purpose of releasing such a statement?

    https://www.theatlas.com/chart...

    Wage growth (such as it is/was) is flatlining ... which is still shit-tons better than it's been since 2008 where it's basically been falling in constant dollars.

    --
    -Styopa
  24. pick me, pick me! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    I know, I know; the solution is to open the borders even wider to people who will work for peanuts!

    That will raise wages, because reasons!

    1. Re:pick me, pick me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, I know; the solution is to open the borders even wider to people who will work for peanuts!

      That will raise wages, because reasons!

      Since nobody in US politics from left to right has been advocating that, I'm not sure why you are wasting time shaking that straw man. Don't you have something more productive to do, like measuring your daily booger production?

  25. Re:OBMAMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right.

    **HUSSEIN**.

    He's a MUSLIM FROM KENYA and you can go FUCK YOURSELF.

    So, my last name is Dahmer WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? That I'm a serial killer?

  26. Re: Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who isn't a Democrat, let me affirm: you are an idiot.

  27. Trains on time in USSR by micahraleigh · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who cares.

    Look into the summary and you'll see how fleeting this metric is.

    Obama never cracked 3% economic growth over all his terms.

    The stock market has grown overall much higher.

    Things are growing, which the summary admits.

    This is just cherry picking a thin slice of time to help a political cause feel justified about itself in the middle of all the success its opposition is riding.

    But ... but ... what if someone yells "fire!" in a crowded theater!?!?!

    I'm sorry, but these are all very trivial reasons to make your life the personal property of government sprawl.

    1. Re:Trains on time in USSR by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      So you are cherry picking items to counter-argue against cherry picking.

      Logic in 2018.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Trains on time in USSR by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Who cares. Look into the summary and you'll see how fleeting this metric is. Obama never cracked 3% economic growth over all his terms.

      I guess this is true if you leave out 2010 (3.8%), 2011 (3.7%), 2012 (4.1%), 2013 (3.1%), 2014 (4.4%), 2015 (4.9%), and 2017 (4.1%).

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    3. Re:Trains on time in USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you can really say is that outside of the economic recovery act, Obama basically did not really improve or screw up the economy in any major ways(I blame the House for this, not Obama). His year over year percentage change is small after 2010 and was on a slightly downward trend(i.e. improvement was decelerating) heading into the elections. What this means is that after he fixed the recession, nothing he did was really focused on improving the economy. There are lots of things he could have done, but in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016, the economy was slowing down. What happened in 2012(election year) and 2014(Obamacare & tax increases came into effect)? Since then, the rate of increase has decreased.

    4. Re:Trains on time in USSR by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      When an item is big enough it is no longer a cherry.

  28. Re: Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One term president.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama will get a third term.

  29. Re:Glassdoor has the worst possible data for this. by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    It is a good thing that "Anonymous Coward" is a well respected source of reliable information! Take that GlassDoor!

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  30. Re:KKK robe is a full body dunce hat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -Please demonstrate one piece of evidence instead of parroting your DNC-sponsored talk show host like a lemming. Hint: None exists -Mexican isn't a race. Neither is Chinese. Speaking bad of a country or its inhabitants doesn't make one a racist.

  31. Re: Thank you nObama by Shotgun · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, the Democrat's have their own set of roaches that also vote. It's an arms race of who can hold on to the most roaches.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  32. Re: Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sounds terrible. I cannot imagine anyone wins with so many cockroaches around. Sounds like we need some sunshine.

  33. Averages - careful of assumptions by Catbeller · · Score: 2

    Wages up 2.7%? Not that I can see. That is an *average*. The well-paid have rising salaries, the crap-paid wages are shrinking, the average being a bit up. You also have to factor in that the poorly-paid have rents that are rising way faster than their 8.50 up to 9.05 bucks an hour, just about everywhere now. Housing for the poor and merely cash-strapped ain't being built, and probably never will be.

  34. Re: Thank you nObama by fortfive · · Score: 1

    Just embrace that the world is now joeâ(TM)s apartment.

  35. Re: Thank you nObama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even better is the fact that they blame the dems when all they really need to pass legislation is one democrat to agree with them. Its beyond shameful.

    Either your policy is so bad and unbendable, that not even one of your opposition's members is willing to work with you on it. OR Your leadership skills suck so bad you couldn't get a lunch order done with anything less than a boardroom full of Yesmen, let alone national legislation.

    You idiots need to get your act together, immediately, or get off the stage.

  36. What the fuck did he do? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    So, what exactly did this very stable genius do to make the economy so much better, in your estimate? Aside from allowing some big companies to pollute some more, I'm not aware that he has signed any meaningful legislation at all.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:What the fuck did he do? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Nothing? You've heard of nothing? Maybe you need to take a closer look at that claim because I think you are either being misleading on purpose or you are just swallowing what ever your media sources of choice have been feeding you.

      For example... The Tax bill... SURELY you remember that? After all, the media and the democrats told a pile of bald faced lies about that one. If you get a paycheck, You got a tax cut, check your check stubs.

      That's just ONE thing he got though congress, there is more... Not to mention, He's done a lot more working around a congress that isn't on board for his agenda.

      Also, don't forget the "bent the curves UP" criteria I pointed to above. The recovery was officially the worst recovery on record under Obama. It was technically a recovery, with a positive growth rate, but if you factor in inflation and population increases the recovery was basically flat. We where bumping along on the bottom with growth rates UNDER what it was going to take to keep treading water. Since the election of Trump and the promise of his economic policy of tax cuts and reworking trade agreements the trends have been more positive. The curves have bent up from Obama's (this is all we can expect) trends.

      So it's not all about signing bills....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:What the fuck did he do? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      You got a tax cut, check your check stubs.

      Most people got less than $1000/year in temporary tax reduction, paid for by debt. That doesn't do shit to the economy. Long term, every expert says that this tax change will significantly harm the economy.

      That's it? That's all you got? Rich people got lower taxes, so all of a sudden, the economy is awesome? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:What the fuck did he do? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Rich people? Is that all you have in your play book? Class envy?

      So you are saying a corporate tax cut won't have any positive effects on the economy? All it needs to do is 1% GDP growth improvemnt to break even.

      Guess what, we are getting that.... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... GDP growth under Trump has averaged above this target. The stock market has been doing *really* well overall. Unemployment continues to fall with the labor participation rate staying steady, after 8 years of falling under Obama.

      Things are getting better for a lot of folks jobs wise.... Under Obama things where getting worse because GDP growth wasn't enough to cover the population increases. Now we are breaking even or better under Trump.

      Not all is roses, but it's not a compost heap like it was, when Obama was telling us that 3% GDP growth wasn't in our future anymore. http://www.aei.org/publication... Well Under TRUMP it apparently IS here again.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:What the fuck did he do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That tax cut is going to generate a yearly $1 trillion deficit by 2020. Whatever crumbs the middle class gets today will be taken away with interest in a few years.

      Fucking numbnuts

  37. Yeah, by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    entrance exams are fine, but we're just splitting hairs. The point is to do away with tuition at public universities.

    Vocational Schools are fine as well, but that can be handled by the community colleges. What I don't want to see are a bunch of ITT tech style "schools" that drain money from the public coffers in exchange for not teaching. That's easy enough to avoid. Just fund the Community College's vocational programs.

    But again, we're getting into the weeds here. The point is that if people want to learn you teach them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yeah, by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It's not just splitting hairs, but rather avoiding the scenario where you need a collage degree to serve coffee at Starbucks. Even without tuition, going to university can be expensive, especially if you have to go any distance, and ideally a university education should only be required in cases where it is actually a requirement.

      Are 'ITT tech style "schools"' actually a problem where you are? Here (BC) the vocational/technology schools all seem to be run by the government. Though I do admit I haven't looked into it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  38. Re: OBMAMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That you are a faggit cocksucker taking it up your stupid butthole from a sand monkey.

  39. Life is about more than work by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the reason you want everybody to go to college is to get the kind of well rounded education that results in an informed electorate with critical thinking skills. Despite what you might think you _can_ teach critical thinking. It's best done in the humanities, since you can teach almost anyone to read Shakespear with enough effort but there are limits on how much math you can teach (around the time you get past Trig).

    As for why you want a well educated populace, well they're much less likely to make stupid decisions about politics that hurt you personally.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  40. You're looking at this all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're looking at the wages of the lower classes. Sure, those aren't going up. They shouldn't. Lower class people are, after all, lower class and not worth as much.

    Now, if you look at the upper classes, now there's a good news story. The rich are getting richer like never before. All thanks to The Donald and the Trumpican Party.

    #maga