More than Half of Americans Say They Didn't Get a Pay Raise this Year (marketwatch.com)

Although the economy saw new peaks in 2018, not all Americans report reaping the benefits. An anonymous reader shares a report: The majority of workers say they saw no salary increases this year, according to a new survey. More than 60% of Americans said they didn't get a pay raise at their current job or get a better-paying job in the last 12 months, according to a survey released Wednesday from finance site Bankrate.com. Meanwhile, executives have seen a surge in compensation, according to an August study from the Economic Policy Institute. The average chief executive officer at the 350 largest firms in the U.S. received $18.9 million in compensation in 2017, the study showed, a 17.6% increase over 2016. Despite those disparities, 91% of Americans say they have the same or greater confidence in the job market than they did one year ago, according to Bankrate.com.

Comments

Loyalty

[brickhouse98]

I mean, look at this and you can see precisely why employees have no loyalty to their companies. Either at least give people inflation-based raises or merit ones on top or face the prospect of losing them.

Re:Loyalty

[fluffernutter]

The biggest problem is, they have reached a point where they realize if they all do it they can control the market.

Re:Loyalty

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok, in the US if you leave you have to deal with your health insurance, and retirement plan (and who knows what else) being tied to your employer.

We've created a system where the best easiest course of action is to find a job, work there until you die, and get paid pennies on the dollar for your effort...

If we had some sort of national healthcare system then you know changing jobs would be that much easier....
But we are working hard to create the company towns of old, where getting fired means losing your not only your income, but also your health, your savings, your home, and once they can work out the legal details I'm sure they'll want to take your first born child as well....

Because corporations know that once they have you in, the benefits lock you in, welcome to the walled garden of employment.

Re:Loyalty

[DidgetMaster]

Yes it really sucks when your retirement and health care is tied to your employer. But it is silly to think that the only solution to that is a nationalized health care system. We basically solved the retirement problem with the 401(k) system. Now you don't have to work for GM for 40 years to get a pension. You can bounce from job to job and have each employer contribute something to your private retirement fund that you control. I have worked for 7 different companies over my career and put some money into a 401(k) from each of them.

We could do the same thing with our healthcare. Each person/family could have a personal health plan where your current employer pays some or all of its costs. You can control what coverage you want (instead of some government bureaucracy) or what deductibles you are comfortable with (gasp, the same as you currently do with life, home, and auto insurance). If you leave your current employer, those contributions may stop but the plan is still in force. You can pay them yourself, or get your next employer to chip in as a condition for getting you to work for them.

Re:Loyalty

[stinerman]

We basically solved the retirement problem with the 401(k) system.

No...The median American has a 401k balance of about 75k. I don't know about you, but I could probably live on that for 2 years. Many people have zero retirement outside of social security.

Your comment on healthcare is reasonable, but I had to stop and reply on the 401k thing.

Capitalism

[fluffernutter]

Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.

Re:Capitalism

[bobbied]

Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.

My father has two sayings which are true and speak to this situation:

1. When you work for somebody else, they never pay you what you are worth, or they'd not make any money. (i.e. work for yourself son..)

2. You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. (i.e. Don't be afraid to ASK for what you deserve, but you have to be prepared to move on if they cannot or will not do what you think is fair. )

I have another friend who used to tell me in the down turn in the tech market of the 2000's, "Right now it's a buyer's market, but it will be a seller's market someday again." He was saying the same thing as my dad, be ready to demand more, but fully understand the limits of your bargaining power and be ready to walk when it makes sense to your future.

Re:Capitalism

[Bite The Pillow]

Also, if you can't get a raise and can't get a better paying job, you may be mistaking your worth. I've worked with those people.

Re:Capitalism

[swillden]

Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.

My father has two sayings which are true and speak to this situation:

1. When you work for somebody else, they never pay you what you are worth, or they'd not make any money. (i.e. work for yourself son..)

This isn't necessarily true. It would always be true if your employer were directly selling the output of your labor, without combining it in any non-zero-sum way with the output of other employees or partners, or with other knowledge or resources, but this is generally not so. It's often not the case that your labor will generate as much value when you're working for yourself as it does when you're working for your employer. Many people would make less money if self-employed than they do as an employee.

Sometimes Americans make no sense

[TimothyHollins]

The average chief executive officer at the 350 largest firms in the U.S. received $18.9 million in compensation in 2017, the study showed, a 17.6% increase over 2016. Despite those disparities, 91% of Americans say they have the same or greater confidence in the job market than they did one year ago, according to Bankrate.com.

Comparing the average American to the C-levels in the top 350 might be a little disingenuous. That said, something is seriously fucked up when the economy is going to crap while C-levels somehow get a 17.6% increase over 2 years.

And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash? If this had been reported in Europe there would be hell to pay. Unions, political parties and ideological organizations would all protest and cause problems.

Hell, a week or three ago in Sweden somewhere, the politicians of Lidingo something municipality voted to increase their own salaries. There was such a ruckus that they in the end had to lower their salaries and apologize for being slithering opportunists. They were held accountable by the people.
In France, right now, well... France has a habit of taking things too far. But the French population do realize that if they band together, they have a voice and they can force change (or stasis, as in this case).

Don't you have a big statue or something to remind you of these lessons?

Re:Sometimes Americans make no sense

[jeff4747]

And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash?

Many Americans believe they are not poor or middle class. They are temporarily inconvenienced billionaires. And if changes were made to help the poor/middle class, "That would hurt me once I return to my proper economic status!".

It's part of the Calvinist work ethic the country was founded on - the mistaken belief that everyone can get ahead if only they worked a little harder.

This particular belief waxes and wanes over the years, based on just how greedy the wealthy become. We're currently ending a period where this belief was ascendant and will have a correction soon.

Make America Great Again...

[Comboman]

...for billionaires. Sorry rust-belt, all you get in you stocking is coal (literally).

Re:Promises promises

[fluffernutter]

As soon as I saw the companies give one time bonuses, I knew nothing else was coming.

Re:What a strange spin on a great story

[Anonymous Coward]

Which means all they get are inflation correction kind of raises, plus the union/collective bargaining items, but they don't actually get raises or better paying jobs.

Oh, you're precious. No, when they say they got neither, they mean they got neither. Most people considering getting any increase in their wage a raise even if the net effect is lower effective income due to inflation.

To me that looks that if you're active enough to either look for a better job, or ask for a pay raise and your work performance entitles you to it, you're going to get it in the current job market.

"Work performance entitles you to it"? Most employers don't think you're entitled to minimum wage and want to get rid of it. No, your comment about passiveness is right. People who go and ask for a raise and are denied don't seek other jobs because most other jobs pay about the same or will start you lower but there's no guarantee you'll get a raise there either.

The other point is for many places, it can takes weeks or even months to be hired at a new place even when the economy is doing well. So, yea, that 11% that switched are the basis for confidence that the economy is doing well enough. Otherwise, there'd just be talk about cutting hours, few to no pay raises (for workers), and a general knowledge that they're stuck again for another 4+ years until the economy improves. Or, of course, they can always switch when the economy is bad, be off work for months, and probably get a substantial pay cut that may take years to recover from.

And remember that while doing that, you must be looking for a better job while doing it. Yes, that's additional effort. And yes, that's how you get a raise instead of being a part of passive 62%.

If only there were that many better jobs people could realistically be looking for. It's easy to call the bluff of 60%+ of your workforce when the economy is doing well and 90% when the economy is doing poorly.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[RhettLivingston]

Even if what you say is true (and I don't agree that it is), the extra $500 billion the politicians decide to spend in your example likely came from the psychology of tax cuts.

In a complex system, you must pay attention to all reactions, not just the ones you choose. You chose to credit the economic burst to the tax cuts but not the spending increases. That makes no sense. Without all of the fuzzy math floating around letting them make the argument that the economic increase will be much greater, the increases wouldn't have happened.

Furthermore, the economics won't last. There are limitations to the economy other than what people spend on taxes. Some of those limitations involve finite things like how many workers we have. If you over-rev the economy up and smash it into those walls, the backlash can put you back further than where you started. But, a lot of wheeler and dealers will walk away richer, so I guess it serves a purpose for someone.