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

[JeffOwl]

Even if I haven't gotten a raise in a few years, if I can't better my situation by leaving, why would I? There is no loyalty to a company and the company has no loyalty to me, regardless of raises. I have some measure of loyalty to people but they generally understand. When I look at changing jobs I look at what I can get at the other place. More cash? Better health insurance (i.e. I spend less on health care)? More paid time off? Better job satisfaction? Less frustration? Less time commuting? Chance to learn something new and interesting? Paid move to a different region?

Re:Loyalty

[mark_reh]

For the CEO, yes.

Re:Loyalty

[GameboyRMH]

Usually not until after the workers see a pay cut - not necessarily all of the workers, it may be just some who see a complete pay reduction.

Re:Loyalty

[jellomizer]

Supply and demand.
While the unemployment is low, the supply of workers isn't so much.
Unemployment numbers are from people are accounting for people who are actively working for work. Not people who cannot work (Age, Illness, etc...), don't want to work, are in school for example. During the last recession, a lot of people gave up and took themselves out of the job search market, now with low unemployment, and job offers, people will come out of the wood work get jobs. So the supply of workers available is still high, mainly due to bad categorization of Unemployment.

Normally we would expect during very low unemployment salaries to rise, but that isn't the case because companies are still finding employees to fill the spots.

Secondary, benefits are increasingly important to job seekers. A more steady W2 job with health care and good benefits, will be more of welcomed then a higher paid 1099 work. The cost of these benefits are going up, so the employees are not getting paid more, mostly because the company is bunting more of the weight of the cost of living.

Third: There is a general fear of an impending recession again. This is making sure companies don't go too crazy in expansion.

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.

Re:Loyalty

[Solandri]

You've managed to take a benefit a company offers to employees, and twisted it into a negative.. You're basically saying that in your opinion, no matter what a company does it's always wrong. It's wrong if they don't provide employees with health insurance, and it's wrong if they do. So either you've got a preconceived bias against companies (they're always wrong no matter what they do), or you've got an error in your reasoning.

What's going on is a misunderstanding of opportunity cost. There is no difference between these two scenarios:

• Company pays you a salary of $x/mo, and provides you with $y/mo in health insurance. You quit your job so your salary drops to $0, and you have to pay $y/mo out of your savings to continue your health insurance (which I've done).
• Company pays you a salary of $(x+y)/mo, but doesn't provide you with health insurance. You pay $y/mo for health insurance. You quit your job so your salary drops to $0, and you continue to pay $y/mo for your health insurance out of your savings.

Your error is in assuming that your salary would be the same if your company didn't provide health insurance. If they didn't offer health insurance, you'd have been less likely to accept the job, so they'd have had to pay you a higher salary to get you to accept the job. This failure to take opportunity cost into account results in you erroneously comparing two non-comparable scenarios (company pays $x/mo and provides $y/mo health insurance, vs company pays $x/mo), causing you to arrive at your erroneous conclusion (that quitting a job is harder if the job provides health care as a benefit, because you'd lose $(x+y) in salary and benefits, instead of just $x in salary).

Re:Loyalty

[Anonymous Coward]

The 401K is supposed to be a balanced employee-employer contribution program, with the government chipping in a few pennies by making the contributions tax free.
However, it requires the employees choosing to participate - and only about half that are eligible do so. Saving 5% of your salary over the course of your career would give you between $300,000 and $350,000 at retirement, for an average American worker.

However, most folks don't save, and those that do save very little. The 401K participation rate is under 50%. IRA participation rate is less than 15%. We're now beginning to see the fallout of the short-term thinking of the Boomers, now that they're retiring. Sucks for them - maybe the Millenials will learn a lesson here, and start saving for retirement - including taking advantage of 401Ks, IRA, and other retirement programs - before it is too late.

Re:Loyalty

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The 401(k) has weird vesting of matching funds. But, other than that, that seems spot on.

As for health care, that kind of already exists. What you are describing is the ACA. Without that, you have situations where people with cancer get fired, and then lose their insurance, and then cannot get more insurance cause the form will ask "do you have cancer" and deny you.

The difference between health car and car/auto/etc. is that everyone know what good health is. You're paying to get back to zero. With housing or autos, you're paying for luxury.

Re:Loyalty

[Actually, I do RTFA]

There is no difference between these two scenarios:

There completely is. To start, there's prospect theory in economics. Also, in your first example (the company pays), by federal law, you have to pay more than y when you quit to keep you insurance, because it's more paperwork for the company. And, as a third fuck you, the insurance company (prior to the ACA) could drop your ass when you quit. You know, if you happened to be sick or like you would get sick soon.

Re:Loyalty

[dasunt]

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.

But often a company will require working there for a year to qualify for a 401(k) match, which will result in a hit to actual compensation for the first year, assuming you contribute to your max match amount.

Re:Loyalty

[jbengt]

Saving 5% of your salary over the course of your career would give you between $300,000 and $350,000 at retirement, for an average American worker.

And that, by itself, is not enough for most people to retire on comfortably.

Re:Loyalty

[jpaine619]

Your rant aside, nobody picks a company and works there until they die anymore. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it was something like "The average US worker will work at 7 jobs during their career".

We've created a system where the best easiest course of action

And that's a problem.... We've gotten to the point where the average person takes the easy way and then bitches about the outcome. I say GOOD!
My last job was fairly difficult. Working at height, heavy lifting, long hours.. etc... I'm fairly sure my boss overheard me muttering some bitching about it one day, because he said "If it was easy, everybody would do it and then we wouldn't be paid a premium for this work". I realized that statement held a lot of truth... The harder the job the smaller the pool of candidates and the higher the income. I don't just mean physically hard, mental difficulty is the more important factor and when you couple that with a physically demanding job...

If you want "easy", then don't fucking bitch about how the result isn't the best. Good results take work..

Re:Loyalty

[dmatos]

Here's the part you're missing:

Employer A pays you $X/mo, and pays for your health insurance at $Y/mo. Between when you started working at A and now, you were diagnosed with mild cardiovascular disease.

Employer B offers you a job for $Z/mo. Unfortunately, if you move to B, you lose your health insurance through A. And because you've got cardiovascular disease, that counts as a pre-existing condition. Now you either _cannot_ get health insurance through B, or the cost is astronomically higher.

Given the ridiculous number of things that count as pre-existing conditions in the US these days, it becomes very difficult to change jobs because of that astronomical cost/lack of coverage.

If the US implemented a single-payer health care system, you wouldn't be changing health insurance providers when you change jobs, so there would be no "pre-existing condition" clause activated.

Re:Loyalty

[DidgetMaster]

When I said it was 'solved' I didn't mean that somebody magically put a bunch of money into your 401(k) account or that everybody who qualifies for it takes advantage of it. You have to be disciplined to contribute regularly to it over the coarse of your career. If the median balance is only 75k then obviously few people are actually doing that. If you are talking about average balances, that is different than only counting balances of people ready to retire.

Re: Loyalty

[peragrin]

The average 401k balance is 35k. The median is 75k.

This is because employers don't contribute their share annually bit break it apart over time.

Also the last 12 months have been negative stock market growth. A 401k assumes it always goes up. But the last year shows that it goes down too.

The next recession is going to end 401k's. As the baby boomers fearful after 2008 and now in need of that money will yank it all out as fast as they can. And convert the rest to low risk markets.

Lastly millinals employer hop but 402ks are not tranfserable under most situations. So they have money laying around unable to be accessed.

If you don't think that is true then you never tried to rollover a 401k balance of 15k or less.

Re: Loyalty

[mapkinase]

Loyalty is needed in the world of silos

Re:Loyalty

[Ogive17]

Your health care idea works if health care costs were reasonable in the US, however they are greatly inflated.

My recent example. I sprained my MCL playing hockey. I have to wear a brace now whenever doing a physical activity. The doctor gave me a brace (I didn't know the cost). He told me when this one wears out I can buy the exact thing directly from the company for around $130. I got the bill for getting the brace from the doctor, $500!!! Insurance paid $130 but I had to pay the balance (from my Health Savings Account, so at least it was pre-tax).

I am liable for up to $6,000 per year in medical costs for my family before insurance really kicks in. Luckily we're in a good financial situation so there is no worry if this were to happen multiple years in a row. This would sink many families here in the US.

Re:Loyalty

[fahrbot-bot]

There is the wrinkle that, at least in the US, premiums paid for employer-provided (or self-employed) health insurance is 100% tax deductible, where as premiums paid otherwise are only tax deductible if (a) you itemize deductions on your tax return and (b) you can only deduct the part of your combined medical/insurance costs that exceed 7.5% (10% as of 2019) of your adjusted gross income (AGI). The rest is paid using post-tax money. So there is a financial benefit to employer-provided (or self-employed) health insurance -- which can also support things like health-savings accounts to provide further pre-tax health care spending.

Re:Loyalty

[stinerman]

Fair enough. I consider a problem "solved" when it doesn't exist anymore.

Here's something that should never happen. No one should ever go bankrupt due to medical bills. Not "if they do this one neat trick", they'll have a good chance of not going bankrupt. I mean in 100% of circumstances, no one should ever go bankrupt.

Re: Loyalty

[jd]

No, they didn't.

Re:Loyalty

[sarren1901]

With housing and autos, you are compelled by law to cover the loans and potential damage you may do to others with the auto.

Re: Loyalty

[fropenn]

You don't have to put your 401k dollars into equities. You can choose bonds, money markets, real estate, or other investment options that have varying degrees of risk. But staying out of equities, especially when you are young, is betting against the US economy, which, historically would have been a very bad bet.

If the stock market tanks, that's great for me, because then I'm buying low and when I need the money, in a few decades, I will sell high.

Re: Loyalty

[astrofurter]

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

LOL. #credulous

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

[DNS-and-BIND]

Labor is taxed at twice the rate of capital. Why is this? Why isn't it the other way around?

Re:Capitalism

[penandpaper]

Everyone has an inflated sense of self worth. Flipping a burger patty isn't worth $15 an hour even if the employee thinks they should be paid that much. Paying labor less is not the only way to get profit.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Flipping a burger patty isn't worth $15 an hour even if the employee thinks they should be paid that much.

The same thing could be said about CEOs and their pay too. But I do agree with you when you say "Everyone has an inflated sense of self worth."

Re:Capitalism

[yooy]

"Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth." No, capitalism tries to collect more money compared to the money required to pre-finance industrial production.

Re:Capitalism

[Shaitan]

$15/hr doesn't go very far these days. Anyone who works a 40/hr week should be well over the poverty line.

If you run a service company your hourly billing rate is based on what you need to make to live. It doesn't matter what the number is or what people perceive as high, if you aren't making that you raise your rate or you come up with some other gimmick or scheme that results in charging more while making the raw rate seem more palatable.

There is no job that if worked full time shouldn't pay enough to live at least a lower middle class lifestyle including flipping burgers. If that means an end to burgers that are actually cheaper than it costs to make them at home so be it. If that means there is no room for a franchiser to scrape cream off the top anymore, so be it. I

f that means we have to stop pretending that the actual work a manager performs is more valuable than that of those they manage, again so be it. Some managers are better than others, that is no different than any profession but it isn't rocket science and certainly shouldn't be compensated anywhere near as highly let alone more highly than rocket science! A good grill cook is more rare than a good manager.

Re:Capitalism

[bkmoore]

Minimum wage adjusted for inflation was $11.68 in 1968. A $15 minimum wage would only be $3.32 more, which is less than a dollar per decade pay raise. Today's federal minimum wage is $7.25, even though health care, housing, education, transportation, etc. are all much, much, much more expensive. This is the reason there's a major disconnect across all party lines, between the well-to-do in our society and people who barely manage to get by.

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.

Re:Capitalism

[swillden]

Labor is taxed at twice the rate of capital. Why is this? Why isn't it the other way around?

The theory is that taxing capital has a larger negative impact on the economy than taxing labor, since it discourages investment and encourages capital (which is more mobile than labor) to flee high-tax jurisdictions. Also, note that what you say is only true of long-term capital investment. Short-term investment is taxed at the same rates as labor, at least in the US. This is intended to encourage long-term investment which is seen as more beneficial to economic growth.

I'm not claiming to know if any of these theories actually hold water. You'd have to ask an economist about that.

Re:Capitalism

[geoscodin]

Self worth indeed! I owned several Subway restaurants in the late 90s. I didn't provide health insurance, but I did pay above minimum wage, free meals, and offered flexible scheduling. Still I had employees who would steal because they "saw how much money came through the store every day" and felt they were due a bigger share because of the work they felt they put in... that no one else could do for some reason. During their exit interview, I always tried to give a brief comparison of the money they saw coming versus the money going out to multiple sources (franchise, government at multiple levels, inventory, rent, payroll, advertising, and many more) that they did not see, to hopefully save their future employers some amount of headache. Some were indignant about it, but I also had a good number come back later to ask for their jobs back because they didn't realize how good they had it compared to other local business owners, realizing their self-worth was even less valued elsewhere.

Re:Capitalism

[penandpaper]

Barely manage to get by implies they can get by. The next issue is can they better their lot in life. If confidence in the job market is an indicator, then people can if they want.

Some people make poor choices and that isn't a justification for an economic policy that doesn't make sense. A national minimum wage of $15 an hour make zero sense. Maybe in New York City or Silicone Valley where the cost of living is so high but not in Montana or Wyoming where you can live off current minimum wage.

Re:Capitalism

[HornWumpus]

Capital is mobile. World economies compete on after tax ROI: (AverageROI * (1 - CapGainsRate) * (1 - CorpTaxRate) * (1 - CorruptionTax)).

If a nation's after tax ROI isn't competitive, it gets no investment.

Capital controls don't work.

Re:Capitalism

[ErichTheRed]

"Still I had employees who would steal because they "saw how much money came through the store every day""

Obviously they shouldn't be stealing...but I've heard this argument from so many small business owners who complain about taxes, regulation, minimum wage, etc. There is no way a restaurant with massive profit margins is so cash-strapped that they can't afford to pay their employees a living wage, let alone $15/hr. If they don't want to pay people, then they should do all the work themselves and they'll be able to keep 100% of the profits after expenses. Think of a pizza place which has an even higher profit margin than a Subway...selling just a few pizzas during a shift pays for an employees' minimum wage and all the pizza places around me are extremely busy nearly all day. Paying someone $15 or $20 an hour isn't going to make or break you, and you shouldn't hire employees if it would.

It all goes back to the "entrepreneur superhero" mystique that small business owners wrap themselves in. "Why should I pay taxes? I'm a Job Creator!" Reality is that business owners have a sweet deal compared to wage earners. Every personal expense can be funneled through your company, reducing your profits and therefore your taxes. You can't do that on W-2 income. Most business owners I've seen are "employed" by their Subway franchise at a ridiculously low salary, and the franchise owns several houses, cars and other "capital equipment" that just happen to reside at the owner's house.

Re:Capitalism

[bkmoore]

....Some people make poor choices and that isn't a justification for an economic policy that doesn't make sense. A national minimum wage of $15 an hour make zero sense.....

So you're saying anyone working at minimum wage made poor choices. Everybody has to start out somewhere, and I would argue that minimum wage jobs are far better than living off the dole. Some people are motivated, and I personally know one person who worked his way up from burger flipper to manager to franchise owner and he is doing very well. Did he make a poor choice becoming a burger flipper and staying there? I know other people who will probably always be stuck at minimum wage, some are not very intelligent, some are handicapped, some had bad family backgrounds and never had good educational opportunities. We need to stop punishing poor- or working- people. Not for their sake, but for our own as a stable and prosperous country. There are many wealthy children who are lazy and make far worse choices, but they don't seem to ever face any consequences.

Re:Capitalism

[geoscodin]

I didn't complain about taxes. I just said they are an expense of business that my employees did not see. And I don't know why you would assume I had "massive profits." There's a reason I got out of that business. I didn't get in with a cash buy. Subway is happy to lease everything to you for the reasonable rate of an arm and a leg. Then they require expensive redesigns every few years. And they autodraw 10.5% (at that time) out of your sales every week for franchise fees and advertising. And in 1997, minimum wage was half of what it is now, but as I said I still paid above that because I started out making minimum wage and know what that's like. I had one employee and her family move in with us for a few weeks when they lost their apartment until they could get a new place. I helped the good ones by giving them responsibilities that would provide material for their resumes and help them write those resumes. Sure I would've liked to keep some of them, but I didn't want them working fast food their whole lives. I love a good success story and if I could help one happen in some small way, I was happy to do it. No, I didn't do all of that for the people who were only there to collect a paycheck. And yes, there were cases where I had people quit because their paycheck reduced their government check. That was insane to me, but the state of Alabama was not interested in my opinion on the matter. As far as Subway-owned stores, there is no such thing, or at least there wasn't when I was involved. Every store at that time was franchisee-owned. Now there were District Offices who has Field Reps who did store inspections. Those office owners always seemed to have plenty of money, but I was not one of them.

Re:Capitalism

[jpaine619]

Employees seek to sell their labor for more than it is worth to them.

Re:Capitalism

[penandpaper]

No, I said: "The next issue is can they better their lot in life. If confidence in the job market is an indicator, then people can if they want.".

I agree working minimum wage is better than living off the dole But I disagree with a national minimum wage increase. Minimum wage implies the minimum. It isn't comfortable and the biggest concern should be whether those people can improve their lot in life or not. It isn't punishment. It's being at the bottom. So long as they can move up it isn't bad or wrong. It's difficult to imagine that people feel they cannot improve their lot and still have such a strong confidence in the job market. If people choose not to improve their life when they could have then there is nothing society can do to "improve" those decisions.

Increasing the national minimum wage doesn't make sense because in places like Montana or Wyoming, $15 an hour is not the minimum. In fact, it is far and away from the minimum. A lot of good paying skilled jobs do not pay that much in some places. In places like LA or NYC or SV I understand raising a minimum wage. Just not nationally.

Did he make a poor choice becoming a burger flipper and staying there?

That is for him to decide. Ask him not me.

Re:Capitalism

[fluffernutter]

So the individual restaurant owner doesn't keep the massive profits either. No surprise there.

Re:Capitalism

[jpaine619]

A good grill cook is more rare than a good manager.

Oh bullshit... Finding someone who is a GOOD manager (your words) is not easy. Managing people is godawful difficult.

Re:Capitalism

[goombah99]

the average german works fewer days and has better social programs, health care, food security, and infrastructure.

Re: Capitalism

[fluffernutter]

Managing isn't hard to do, but it is very hard to do it right.

Re:Capitalism

[Shaitan]

So is being a good grill cook. The fact is that neither talent is especially rare in the greater scheme of things though. In any given group of 100 people about 10 will do the job well. It isn't like a talented STEM resource where only 1% of the population even have a chance of being in the group in the first place and a fraction of a percent of those are actually exceptional.

Re:Capitalism

[jpaine619]

I understand your point, but being a good manager means dealing with.. x number of humans.. AND you should know the job you are managing.. i.e. A "good" grill cook manager should be able to manage the cooks and know the job well enough to know if his cooks are, in fact, good cooks..

Re:Capitalism

[Shaitan]

"A "good" grill cook manager should be able to manage the cooks and know the job well enough to know if his cooks are, in fact, good cooks"

Okay, but your inserting a definition of "good" that is more how things should be than how they are. I'm using this example because my parents were a restaurant management team that traveled the country to failing franchises, they'd manage for a few years to bring them back up to par and then get transferred to a new location to do it again. Obviously they were a skilled management team and it says something that their dynamic violates company policy pretty much everywhere now but that is another topic. Yes, they could step into any position in the restaurant and frequently did. Managers like that are an extremely rare exception and usually at the bottom of the management food chain.

You won't find many district manager and certainly not higher ranked management who can step in and run the grill during a rush or for that matter the dish room. The grill vs the dish room is another example outside of management, being GOOD at running the dish room is no easier or less important than the grill. The grill is closer to the customer and customer feedback so it gets compensated more highly and managers often see it as the most important role. The dishroom is seen as the least important and lowest compensated.

Management and sales are important but they are generally overcompensated relative to skilled workers and the problem grows as you go up the ladder. Yes, the point regarding negotiation is valid and there is a good argument for it since it provides the opportunity to compensate for individual circumstances that mass policy tends to miss, letting those managers close the staff have a say. But in most organizations of any size those managers don't really have any appreciable wiggle room anymore and managers you are negotiating with tend to automatically feel points that parallel the skills required for their own position are stronger arguments at the table.

Re:Capitalism

[jpaine619]

I dunno.. I have been in several positions in my life where my manager was "promoted from the line" to use military parlance. They were guys who had done the job and worked their way up. Not the typical MBA assholes... To me, that's the best kind of manager. They know the job, so they're going to know who is good at the job and who isn't pulling their weight. Generally these were older guys (not old, just older) and maybe they had passed peak physical, so they took a desk job, but they still knew the job inside and out and most would be out in the field at least a few days a month keeping up to speed.

In all honesty, the best managers I've ever had were these line guys.. The worst were MBAs who just stepped into the job and didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Making America great again...

[fintux]

... for the already rich

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

[110010001000]

Protesting happens daily in the US. You just don't hear about it.

Re:Sometimes Americans make no sense

[GameboyRMH]

In France, right now, well... France has a habit of taking things too far.

Too far? I'd say just far enough!

Re:Sometimes Americans make no sense

[DNS-and-BIND]

What you're talking about is called "populism" and it has a dirty reputation for a reason. Especially in Europe.

Re:Sometimes Americans make no sense

[penandpaper]

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?

Averages mean little to the individual. If your life is "good enough" yet your raise this year wasn't as high as you want or inflation then so what? Sure, you are losing money in regards to inflation but your day to day expenses probably haven't changed or a rounding error of difference. Rent is still the same. Food is about the same. Transportation will be about the same. Most people at minimum wage probably do not see a change in their life because of inflation.

Comparing a horizontal average of two different working groups that have no bearing on individual life is hardly a good reason for a backlash. Are people really locked out of making more money because of these averages/reports? Obviously not when there is confidence in the job market. Executives and middle manage probably do not have the same turnover as anyone on minimum wage which can affect the averages.

It sounds like people feel like they can get a different/better job. What is the actual problem here? Minimum wage? I am sorry but have a national minimum wage set to $15 an hour doesn't make any sense. Maybe in the expensive cities like NY, SV, or LA but Montana??? Where the cost of living is dirt cheap and you can live off current minimum wage (albeit difficultly).

Disparity happens and is normal. It doesn't mean something is wrong. If people are confident about the job market then it sounds like people feel they can better their lot in life.

"The people at the top are getting richer and richer and everyday working families are not getting their fair share". Of course it is. Jobs abound but it's the rich guy that is screwing you over!

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.

Re:Sometimes Americans make no sense

[nehumanuscrede]

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

Sure we do.

We, unlike France, also have a very trigger happy police force that are more than happy to remind you of how annoyed they are to be
deployed to quell any " demonstrations " ( they call them riots ). Any peaceful demonstration is easily turned into a shitstorm by inserting
an undercover officer ( or paid individual ) into the demonstrator crowd, who then does something ( fires a gun, lobs a firebomb, starts a fight, etc )
the police can use as an excuse to start shooting.

You have the right to demonstrate, but there is no guarantee it will remain a peaceful one.

Re:Sometimes Americans make no sense

[jeff4747]

Not everyone is so selfish as to believe they must destroy people above them on the financial ladder

Remember when unions totally destroyed everyone on the top of the financial ladder in the 1950s?

Oh wait....they didn't? You mean it's possible for the wealthy to exist and help people at the bottom? And we already did it, multiple times in our history as this particular ideological cycle swings back and forth?

Golly it's almost like you're looking for a reason to demand nothing happen to those you aspire to be....

Make America Great Again...

[Comboman]

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

Re:H-1B Visa

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck trying to get the House and the Senate to pass that.

But 100% of corporations got a tax cut

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, huh..

Re:But 100% of corporations got a tax cut

[Shaitan]

They STILL are handing out pink slips? Did you not read the Verizon "voluntary seperation" story not far back?

I worked at Verizon, they call it "voluntary" because you agree to take their deal rather than be fired and sue or seek unemployment.

HPE just did another round of layoff and I'm sure others as well. Pinks slips abound.

Re:But 100% of corporations got a tax cut

[bobbied]

Oh gee.. They are ALWAYS handing out pink slips if you look close enough..

My statement has to do with NEW unemployment claims going down, less folks are losing their jobs, more folks are finding new jobs.

Re:But 100% of corporations got a tax cut

[Shaitan]

The big money maker industry driving the economy is tech and tech companies are dumping people at record rates. You don't have new unemployment claims when people are being forced onto contract terms and being given severance packages because they always include strings to prevent unemployment claims. New jobs don't mean much when it's just people taking a second job driving for Uber or one of the 4000 make your own hour delivery services in the evenings or it's just someone moving from one contract to another or worse insourced H1B/Student Visa workers filling rolls.

Actual increases in job retention and reduction in unemployment would mean actual rising wages. Amazon's adjustment probably raised some big stat moving figures but that was a political move and is at the bottom. Rising wages are needed where the actual merit is found, in the middle class.

Promises promises

[pjrc]

Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?

Re:Promises promises

[fluffernutter]

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

Re:Promises promises

[bobbied]

Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?

I don't recall hearing that, but he says a lot of things... Do you have a citation? I also understand that his purposed tax cuts got trimmed by Congress, especially on the income tax side, so one needs to be careful to consider exactly which tax cut plan is being discussed, the one he wanted or the one Congress gave him.

BTW, household income IS going up these days on average according to the numbers I'm seeing.

Also, I'm still looking for my $2,500 savings promised by the ACA.... But hey, I fully understood that wasn't coming... :)

Re:Promises promises

[KalvinB]

My tax burden is greatly reduced thanks to the tax cuts.

Less taxes is equivalent to a pay raise.

Re:Promises promises

[fahrbot-bot]

My tax burden is greatly reduced thanks to the tax cuts.
Less taxes is equivalent to a pay raise.

Of course, if the states/country run huge deficits because of the tax cuts (as we are), the debt will continue to explode (as it is). It's simply pushing the burden down the line for your/our children to pay. There is no free lunch. But, hey, you got yours so, no problem.

Re:Promises promises

[fahrbot-bot]

Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?

I don't recall hearing that, but he says a lot of things... Do you have a citation?

Here's a video of him on the FOX Business Twitter feed saying:

.@POTUS: "This change, along with a lower business tax rate, would likely give the typical American household around a $4,000 pay raise."

and a press release from Speaker Paul Ryan's press office quoting a study from the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) -- a US agency within the Executive Office of the President -- saying:

The study finds that as a result of corporate tax reform alone, on average, American families will see a wage increase of at least $4,000 annually.

And there are numerous other examples of Trump and the GOP pushing this prediction.

So... Much... Winning...

Re:Promises promises

[meglon]

Yes... because progressives have been in control of the house, the senate, and the presidency for the last two years. Apparently Reality is something regressives will never live in.

Re:Promises promises

[fahrbot-bot]

Almost as if cutting taxes increases tax revenue every single time it is done.

By that logic, zero taxes should generate infinite tax revenues.

Re:Promises promises

[ranton]

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

You should have known long before that.

Re:Time For A New job

[fluffernutter]

So you live in a place without trees, or brooks. You pay a lot for your house that is right next to another house that looks similar and the drive is more than 30 mins.

Raises under 2.1% weren't

[goombah99]

I have no problem with employers who seek to pay the least they can. Employees who feel valued or need the job will stay. Some employers seek to make sure people feel fairly compensated others don't. It's their call.

People who feel like that employers have an obligation to look out for their employees should join a union if their employer isn't meeting that standard. That's what unions are for.

in the US the average inflation rate was 2.1% last year. and probably higher next year but CPI raises are backward looking. I believe Social security got a 2.9% CPI based increase this year.

So fo the average person, any raise under 2.1 to 2.9% wasn't a raise, it was a cost of living adjustment for inflation.

However that's the average person. Many people's incomes include things like benefits and the cost of those went up for employers. There's all sorts of other ways that high income earners dont' feel inflation the same way that lower income earners do. For example, if you have a big fat mortgage without and ARM then inflation is actually cutting the amount you are paying (effectively!) so it's actually helping.

So if you are a lower paid person and you did not get a raise nore than 2% then you got a cut due to inflation.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[fluffernutter]

You're making a huge assumption that employees are mobile. They are most definitely not. Moving is an expensive personal expense.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with employers who seek to pay the least they can. Employees who feel valued or need the job will stay. Some employers seek to make sure people feel fairly compensated others don't. It's their call.

You say that employees can just switch jobs like it was as easy as eating a different brand of cereal for breakfast. Not everybody lives in an area where there are jobs to choose from. Not everybody has the skillsets where they can jump between employers because they don't like where they work. Not everybody works in an industry where switching jobs is even acceptable. And not everybody can up and move to find better prospects.

There is but one single goal in American culture: get to the top of the ladder so you can make money at the expense of those below you. Maximize short-term revenue, minimize costs, disregard the consequences. Forget the benefit of society, forget improving yourself, you need to be working your way up so that you can stay ahead of everyone else, because if you don't then you'll be left behind. And there is no light at the end of this tunnel.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[fluffernutter]

And inflation is a healthy thing.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[fluffernutter]

Well said.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[goombah99]

I'm not making that assumption at all. Indeed 20% of families have someone with pre-existing conditions and until Obamacare moving in hopes of a better job wasn't an option. On the otherhand, that's also a perk employers are paying and the cost of that perk was rising as much as 20% a year, in some years so people were getting raises even if it was not in their pay envelope.

I'm just saying it's not neccessarily the employers job to watch out for employees. Unions are needed for those industries that have a race to the bottom. For some industries employers do compete to attract employees by looking out for them over their careers. it varies.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[goombah99]

Well no that's not what I said. I said "Employees who need the job will stay". Exactly for the reasons you listed.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[Shaitan]

"Climbing the ladder is is not about making money at the expense of others. That is an absurd sentiment that promotes some sort of class war/envy which does nothing to better anyone's life. Whining never helped anyone."

That is an absurd statement that pretends wealth and resources aren't limited. It only feels that way because you have plenty of them.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[JackieBrown]

I'm not making that assumption at all. Indeed 20% of families have someone with pre-existing conditions and until Obamacare moving in hopes of a better job wasn't an option.

You're giving credit to the wrong person. Clinton took care of that problem in the late 90's early 2000s with HIPPA.

ObamaCare made it so that people can now wait until they get sick to get insurance with the only penalty being a tax (and now that tax is gone.)

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[cbeaudry]

They arent limited. Production capacity limits wealth and ressources.

The pie is not fixed.

Improve your skillsets, move elsewhere, start a company, etc... All these things will allow you to get upward mobility.
Its not up to anyone else to improve your lot in life, its your own responsibility.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[jpaine619]

No it's NOT. Inflation is not a healthy thing. Inflation destroys savings. Inflation is, in large part, directly due to your (our) government destroying the value of the currency. Inflation chips away at the value of the money you have saved....

It's logic like yours......

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[Shaitan]

"Production capacity limits wealth and ressources."

And ACTUAL wealth and resource limits limit the maximum production capacity. You can shift around who has the pie but there is most definitely only so much pie to be shared.

"Improve your skillsets, move elsewhere, start a company, etc... All these things will allow you to get upward mobility.
Its not up to anyone else to improve your lot in life, its your own responsibility."

I'm not denying those things can and do work, not that they are any sort of guarantee of success. It is more like increasing your odds by playing multiple hands at a poker table. It doesn't change that your winnings come at the expense of the other people playing. People who think like you pretend that having ideas like setting more chairs and increasing buy in, etc, have magically created wealth out of the air because there is more in the pot... but it isn't a magical increase, it all comes from the pockets of the other people playing.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[jpaine619]

That is an absurd statement that pretends wealth and resources aren't limited. It only feels that way because you have plenty of them.

BULL.....SHIT.

Wealth is NOT limited. Getting rich or doing well does not have to involve exploiting others nor gaining at their expense.. So tired of this demonstrably false statements being barfed out of the mouth of liberals too goddamn lazy to take charge of their own destiny. If wealth is limited then how the fuck did 1 billion people get lifted up out of extreme poverty in the last 20 years?

Resources are NOT limited. New resources are created all of the time. New resources are discovered all the time.

I'd be willing to bet that you're one of those fools who bought into the whole "peak oil" warnings of two decades ago... Then what happened? Oh yeah, the price of oil rose to a point where it became viable to extract it from other sources. Now the United States is a goddamn oil EXPORTER.

Years ago solar was considered economically nonviable in comparison to coal. Then what happened? Electrical rates rose to the point where solar became affordable... Once the drive started and the plants started churning out panels by the millions the economics of scale kicked in and the prices on solar began to plummet.. $2/watt.... $1/watt... $0.75/watt.. down and down and down... I just purchased two 180 watt panels for $100.. That's $0.55/watt. 50 years ago solar wasn't an option.. It wasn't a resource.. Today it's being mandated.. That's going to push the price down even further.. I see $0.25/watt being here in the not too distant future..

Liberals are lazy. They don't have a grasp of the concept that good results require work and investment.. I'm watching a TV show the other day about extreme poverty in Africa.. The narrator is going on about how, in this particular village, the people live on less than $2/day and a lot of it involves fairly dangerous diamond scavenging. And yeah, it's pretty awful.. Then the narrator mentions how some German electronics firm was opening a factory nearby. The going rate was something like $10/day to start work there..

Liberal friend: "Look at how the company is exploiting those poor people."

Me: Are you serious? Those people are going to get a 500% boost to their income, doing work that is way less dangerous that they are doing now. The money will be spent locally.. These workers will have the money to spend on things they may not have the time to do anymore, like cook.. Food shops will see more business...

Point is, it starts small.. But you have to start small to grow properly.

Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't

[cbeaudry]

You are wrong sir. Please do some research into wealth creation.

There is no fixed pie. Wealth is definitely created.

It can be distributed and it can be destroyed (see communism), however it is, in a free market society created and not simply distributed.
There is no fixed amount of money.

When a company gets a loan and returns it with interest, that money was created (the interest part).

When I provide a service and someone pays me more than my cost for that service, I have created my own pie.

Please read into the fallacy of the fixed pie analogy. It will open your eyes.

Re:Time For A New job

[fluffernutter]

Well there is zero crime here, if that's what you mean.

Only real pay raises I've got

[H3lldr0p]

is from changing jobs. Sad but something I've become used to in the last twenty years of working. It started out with getting a minimal cost of living raise one year and then twice that the next. No rhyme. No reason. That job got left by the wayside when they invited me to pursue other opportunities, along with 10% of the rest of the staff that year. It wasn't a layoff. Heavens no. It was Jack Welsh adjustment. Just enough people to keep those still there afraid that they might be next.

It's been the same pattern since then. It was always up and down and up and down. Only real raises when I moved onto another job. I kept asking for more and they kept putting up. Finally got one that felt right. Good management. Good people. Hope to stay here for some time.

Re:Only real pay raises I've got

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's easier to get a dollar raise from your next employer than to get 5 cents out of your current one." -- From the Contractors Bible, 1970's edition.

Some things haven't changed.

Re:Only real pay raises I've got

[penandpaper]

I am curious if that is reflected in the study. If people are confident of the job market it implies that they can get a better job/more money if they try. If 60 % of low wage earners did not get raises , is that because of turnover? Is it only in regards to employees that stayed with the company for the full fiscal year?

Re:Only real pay raises I've got

[Tablizer]

GE's growth was lackluster under Welch compared to similar organizations, and arguably the pressure he put on managers caused many to cut legal and safety corners because a say 50% chance of getting fired was worse to them than a 20% of being outed by the legal system or the press.

Re:Time For A New job

[fluffernutter]

Oh no, people are most definitely friendly where I live. Literally people will strike up a conversation with you in an aisle of a store. There are all kinds of ideas, because people are happy here. You're thinking of something that only happens in the US.

Re:Time For A New job

[Brett Buck]

This thread of screed from a bunch of computer weenie neckbeards who post from their mom's basement.

Re:Time For A New job

[110010001000]

Er, I'll bet they are friendly. It is like talking to yourself.

Click-bait

[Okian Warrior]

This 60% thing is an interesting statistic, but it would be more relevant if we could see the proportion of Americans who didn't get pay raises for the last 5 years or so. It's effectively citing a number without a baseline for comparison.

Additionally, it could also be phrased as "40% of Americans got a pay raise this year", and in the context of our recent depression (starting at around 2008) might be a piece of good news. We'll never know.

The economy only really started to take off about October of last year, so we've only had a little more than a year of good economy. Will this trend continue? It might be nice to see a sparkline for this pay raise information month-by-month to see if represents an increasing trend.

Additional to that, the article as posted in a negative light (60%, without baseline) and immediately dives into how management all got raises. It then goes on to talk about minimum wage and how inflation hit a 6-year high in July of 2018.

The article is all about class envy, trying to gin up outrage in order to get clicks. Isn't it simply *awful* how those evil managers reward themselves while keeping most worker wages the same!!!

(Inflation in July 2018 was 0.01%, yet another number cited without baseline to provoke outrage.)

Really. It's well known that wages have been flat for much of the 2000's, and others report that US wage growth is at a nine-year high.

Take a skeptics view of click-bait articles.

Re:Click-bait

[ranton]

This 60% thing is an interesting statistic, but it would be more relevant if we could see the proportion of Americans who didn't get pay raises for the last 5 years or so. It's effectively citing a number without a baseline for comparison.

They did give a baseline for comparison, but only one year (it was 52% last year compared to 62% this year). Sure 5 years of baseline data would be better, but then you could always just complain they didn't give 10 years of data for their baseline.

The economy only really started to take off about October of last year, so we've only had a little more than a year of good economy. Will this trend continue?

What are you talking about? GDP growth has stayed consistent since 2010 at just over 2% on average. Growth in 2018 should be closer to 3% (like 2015) but that is mostly just a result of binge spending from tax cuts. The effect of that will wear off very soon and even turn negative in a few years. There is no significant change in the upward trend of the economy over the past 8 years.

What a strange spin on a great story

[Luckyo]

So here are the actual figures:

https://media.brstatic.com/201...

In the past 12 months, have you gotten a raise at your current job, gotten a better paying job, neither or both?

27% got a pay raise.
6% got a better paying job.
5% got both.
62% got neither.

Note: among respondents who are employed full time or part time.

Sounds to me like great numbers. A very large amount of people in my experience are very passive, and will not look for a better job, nor bother asking for a pay raise. They just go with the flow, which is the "neither" part. 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.

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. So go and do it if you're in that 62%. 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%.

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:What a strange spin on a great story

[iggymanz]

blah blah blah

they actually telephoned a relatively few number of people. get your knickers untwisted, the numbers are meaningless.

Re:What a strange spin on a great story

[Luckyo]

Did you notice how you had to remove context for every single critique you made, and instead invent a completely new one?

That's because you're not critiquing the points I made.

Re:What a strange spin on a great story

[Luckyo]

Frankly at this point, if you're a healthy individual that can do work and do live in US, and you're still unemployed? It's not the economy.

Re:What a strange spin on a great story

[Luckyo]

That's literally why I noted the "look for a better job while doing it".

If they tell you "no raises", you raise the stakes by noting all the ways it would hurt the company in current economic climate and job ratings if you left for a different job. And then make it clear that you're prepared to do that if you do not get a serious negotiation for a raise with whoever is responsible for it (usually the boss of your boss).

If your performance is good, and they refuse you without even hearing your case, you SHOULD leave ASAP. For your own long term benefit. I've watched someone who had the credentials staying in a job like that (she did get some raises after she and I had a long talk about how to go about it, but it started peaking and current economy here in Finland isn't nearly as good as it is in US). The company ended up in deep trouble because of the management issues, and she's now looking for alternatives. Which is a lot harder to do when you're not actively employed full time. And companies who have "no raises" policies have serious problems attracting and keeping people who can actually work the way it's needed to stay solvent in any competitive market.

Seriously, look for a job when you're employed. It's so much easier than when you're not.

Re:What a strange spin on a great story

[Luckyo]

My points nothing of the sort, unless you're utterly incompetent worker who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They're the basics of negotiating with people. Literally, the thing that anyone with any degree of competence is usually taught either by their parents, or by their peers by example.

That said considering you projected this hard, I guess I know where I hit the nerve.

I got the max raise

[SocietyoftheFist]

I asked for more as well and it is under review. Working for a non-profit and not making what I could. They need to approach what I could make, not asking for exact parity, but they need to work to retain me. I believe in our mission but mortgages and food arenâ(TM)t free.

Re:I thought Trump made america great again?

[Ol Olsoc]

economy and such, not?

The issue with the earlier claims regarding Trump's making the economy great, ignores the overlap effect.

We won't see the effects of the Republican Party's record deficit spending until it has been in effect for a while.

The best example of this is that Obama did not create the economy that he had handed to him when he took office. It took some time to get that worked out.

Unfortunately too many people do not understand the fiscal miracle that happened. Between the housing/banking bust and some of the payment of the emergency appropriations coming home to roost. - we were teetering on the brink of taking the entire world's economy down. That we ended up with only the Great Recession was about as good an outcome as you could hope for.

So we'll know how the record deficit spending (conservatives used to call this running the printing presses overtime) will turn out. Probably in the next year or so. The irony is the people and ideology that causes this sad state of affairs will be able to blame the people in power at the time for problems that were caused by others.

Re:This year?

[DewDude]

From how much you assume it sounds like you're an ass.

THIS year?

[p51d007]

How about for the past couple years? But, every year, our boss & his wife (owners of the company) seem to have enough money to jet off to Africa for a safari. Maybe a lion will get too close one of these days LOL.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Need to cut spending. We have a spending problem.

Re:Trump's tax cuts are like a raise

[GameboyRMH]

Spotted the American steel exec!

Re:Time For A New job

[110010001000]

My parent's basement is very intellectually stimulating.

A year without employee theft from shareholders!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Open salaries. You don't have to unionize but share salary information with your coworkers. There's a reason why companies like to keep this information secret. It's not to hide the salary of rock star that everyone knows does the lion's share of the work. It's to hide the fact that they're exploiting someone.

2) Renegotiate your compensation every 3 years. People tend to only ask for raises but the truth is that their entire compensation package is up for consideration. If they're not willing to pony up more cash for you then they might be willing to accelerate the timetable for your 401k vestment or give you more PTO. Look at the position and compensation package with fresh eyes.

3) No loyalty. Regularly apply for jobs with other companies. You're an asset to your company and they will have no qualms about letting you go if it doesn't make business sense to keep you around. Don't be blindly loyal to an organization that has no loyalty to you. If they can outsource you, your department, or your division for much cheaper than what they're paying you, then you're gonna be gone soon.

4) Remember that you're working for the shareholders, not management. The goal of the shareholders is to get as much money out of the company for what they invested into it. They don't care about you, your career, or your special needs kid.

5) "Business is war". You and your company are allies, nothing more. The company will bribe (*cough* campaign contributions) your politicians to get the company and shareholders a low tax rate. It won't do the same for you.

captcha: dilemma

Paycut by inflation

[rsilvergun]

I generally get about a 1.5-2.5% raise. But inflation is around 4.5% for food, shelter, education & transportation; which is 90% of my expenses (I don't do much leisure activity). I average about a 1.75% paycut every year. That money isn't gone, it's going somewhere. This is where the last 10 years of wealth inequality came from.

I remember a story when one of the old Kmart's closed down. A woman started at $3/hr in the mid 1970s and ended around $9 bucks an hour in 2018. Trouble was, $3/hr inflation adjusted in 1970 had $16/hr in buying power. She lost over 1/3 of her pay after 40 years or work.

Put another way, if minimum wage kept pace with productivity it'd be over $20/hr right now. Then again, 86% of the lost manufacturing jobs were lost to automation, not the Chinese & Mexico...

Re:H-1B Visa

[Shaitan]

I know, it is so sad. And all these suckers resisting immigration reform think it is about some Mexican sneaking across the border and then cleaning houses, mowing lawns, picking oranges and trying to get by. In reality the immigration issue is H-1Bs and student visa immigrants being insourced to displace high paid american workers or fill jobs instead of them.

Salary increases? Why would you increase salaries, if you get people to quite you can replace them with immigrants a little at a time without doing any kind of layoff or paying unemployment. That's the whole reason for the churn and gig economy concept in the first place. It's no different than cell carriers giving better deals to new customers, they want people to keep cycling around so they are both buying phones and recycling onto new contract terms instead of the carrier being locked into older terms.

Did anyone look at the survey from the article?

[GregMmm]

Survey 1000 people over the phone, in 1 week. That's what this article is all about. Yup, all of America is based off of this data. 1000 people.

Everyone has their opinion and leanings. I know, lets show how evil CEOs are, or anyone who make more than you. See those bad people making all this money? Tell me if you could make the same money, would you? Or would you turn down the job or take a pay cut saying you don't deserve it?

Did I get a raise last year? Yes, 2%. Is this enough to cover inflation, no. Am I complaining, NO. If I need to get a new job to pay more I will. It even says in the article changing jobs is how to get a raise. Seems like bad business since you will have to retrain someone new, but there you go.

Re:Did anyone look at the survey from the article?

[Shaitan]

"Seems like bad business since you will have to retrain someone new, but there you go."

Yup, like an H1B. There are numerous benefits, hell race doesn't impact performance and is an evil thing to discriminate against but somehow diversity boosts performance!!! Nvm that diversity programs tend to be pushed out at high performing and growing companies so the stats aren't caused by the diversity but the environment that breeds these kind of programs.

And hey, it is great for universities because many of these insourced workers come on student visas and their tech employers pay for their post grad, sometimes even undergrad education at the highest possible non-resident rates!

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[thevirtualcat]

Pretty much.

They increased the standard deduction but eliminated the personal exemption. Anyone who itemizes is going to get screwed.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[DidgetMaster]

You should never measure tax cuts against deficits and debt. That is just a political game that gets played every time and propagandized in the media. They should only be measured against TAX REVENUES. If you cut taxes and overall revenues go up, (because the economy is stimulated and growth drives it) then the tax cut is a benefit to the country as a whole. Just because the politicians decided to spend an extra $500 Billion during the same year that tax revenues only went up by $200 Billion, does not mean the tax cuts causes an extra $300 Billion deficit.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[jellomizer]

We haven't done our tax returns for the year yet.
Not being to deduct our state taxes against our federal ones, could negate the benefits.

Jelly of the month club.

[bob4u2c]

I didn't get a raise or bonus this year either. No, instead I got signed up for a Jelly of the month club!

The worse part is that I was expecting bonus money to cover the check I wrote for the swimming pool I was going to put in once the ground thawed. Now that check will bounce, I'll have to pay the bank fee for that. The pool company won't start the work in the spring and it may be another year before I can put in a pool. I'm also guaranteed to be at the bottom of the list when I do contact the pool company again.

I just wish someone would drag my boss from his happy cozy home and serve him to me on a silver platter; all tied up with a nice ribbon!

This sucks, and where's the tylenol?

Re:Jelly of the month club.

[EmagGeek]

I'm sure you'd love to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is...

Re:Jelly of the month club.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Why not proactiely call the pool company, ask them not to cash the check, and don't look like a dick. "My boss didn't give me the bonus he promised, I'm going to have to hold off a year" is one thing. "This asshole didn't have the cash to cover his check" is another. I mean, they're not going to start work either way, but they'll take your calls in a year.

Let me guess....

[DidgetMaster]

You won't do anything personally to try and fix this situation (learn a new skill, find a different job, make yourself more valuable to your current employer, etc.) but you probably want some politician to 'Fix it', by punishing your employer or making them form a union or something. Big government advocates love to have more people like that.

Borrowing from tomorrow

[Layzej]

Keep in mind that the tax reform will add about $1,000,000,000,000 to the deficit, so this is money you are borrowing (with interest) from your future self, or more likely your kids.

There are about 125 million households in the USA, so each family owns about $8000 of that deficit. If your refund has increased by >$8000 per year then this reform was made for you.

If your refund is only $4000/year, then you are borrowing $8000 from your kids. Someone richer than you gets $4000 and you get to keep the other $4000.

If you invest that money and end up paying your kids back (with interest) then they should have no reason to resent you. But if you blow that money, then even if you are one of the families who gets >8000/year, that benefit is gained on the back of your kids future.

Re:Borrowing from tomorrow

[sycodon]

If you get a $4,000 refund, you are a moron who knows nothing about Tax Planning.

Re:Borrowing from tomorrow

[HornWumpus]

Did you say anything or were you all for it? Consistency, not partisanship.

Same standard, if they invested it, then maybe. But the feds were _blowing_the_money_, everytime.

There have been a couple of 'more taxes now for reduced spending tomorrow' deals in DC. We're still waiting for the first reduction in spending. The beast needs starving.

Re:Borrowing from tomorrow

[Quirkz]

My taxes often fluctuate by up to $1k from year to year, sometimes $2k with bigger changes. I prefer to keep my refund small, but I'd rather not take chances on owing. Is everyone else so consistent year over year they can predict it down to less than that?

Re:Borrowing from tomorrow

[sycodon]

Actually, I think owing $4k might be considered under withholding and subject to a penalty,

Not sure because I've never owed that much.

Re:Borrowing from tomorrow

[sarren1901]

The idea is better to under pay, save/invest that money and then when tax season comes you pay precisely what you owe and no more. The last thing you really want is the government getting a free loan from you.

Besides, with tax refund fraud increasing, I doubt someone will try to file for you only to be told they owe, which you would already know.

It's like not using an escrow account to pay your property taxes and home insurance. Better to pay the bill in full right as it is due so you can maximize the use of your money. Much better for me to have thousands in my saving account to pay the property taxes then for some company that handles the escrow account to sit on YOUR money to pay the bill for you.

Re:Borrowing from tomorrow

[dcw3]

You've taken no account for a growing economy.
https://www.investors.com/poli...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/n...

Oh, and go figure...the CBO has revised it's estimates upwards. From their site...
GDP Is Projected to Be Greater Than CBO Previously Estimated

CBO’s current economic projections differ from those that the agency made in June 2017 in a number of ways. The most significant is that potential and actual real GDP are projected to grow more quickly over the next few years. As a result, the levels of those measures are 1.6 percent higher than CBO previously estimated for 2027 (the last year in the previous projection period). Projected output is greater because of recently enacted legislation, data that became available after CBO’s previous economic projections were completed, and improvements in the agency’s analytical methods. Also, because inflation is now anticipated to be higher, the level of nominal GDP is projected to be 2.4 percent higher in 2027 than previously estimated

Re:Borrowing from tomorrow

[Layzej]

You've taken no account for a growing economy

Not true. The estimated $1,000,000,000,000 cost of the tax incorporates the growing economy.

Re:Borrowing from tomorrow

[Layzej]

If you get a $4,000 refund, you are a moron who knows nothing about Tax Planning.

I think you're missing the point. I'm referring to how much you take home with reformed tax bill relative to before - nothing to do with withholding.

For reference, the majority of people - those making under $91,700 — will receive about $400, on average. Nowhere near the $8000 they are borrowing from their kids.

Re:THIS year?

[jeff4747]

Nobody is stopping you from taking the risk and great undertaking to start and grow your own company.

Except for that pesky need to consume food, and the unreasonable demand that shelter be paid for.

I got a 1000% raise.

[DidgetMaster]

Unfortunately, I am working on my own startup that doesn't have the revenues yet where I can pay myself anything. I can't wait until I can say that where the number I am multiplying it by is not zero.

Wage stagnation is nothing new

[imperious_rex]

Wages have been stagnant for a loooong time, so this is old news. Until the early 1970's, wages and productivity grew in lock-step with each other, but then they started to diverge. Productivity kept rising ever upward but wage growth slowed and has been largely flat. For the last ten years, I've been an advocate of having multiple streams of income as way to (A) Not be 100% financially dependent on one's job and (B) Overcome wage stagnation. My job's annual wage increase was usually 3%, which meant I was keeping up with inflation, but not really getting ahead. But since I got into dividend investing 10 years ago, my dividend income has risen at about 10% annually. It doesn't take a genius to see that being an investor is better in the long-term than being an employee.

The other half must have been executives

[thunderclees]

The other half must have been executives...

And ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

And ... what?

This compares to recent previous years (using the same methodology) how? Better? Worse?

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[sycodon]

Nope.

Anyone who lives in a high tax state is going to get screwed and so be it.

Someone in a low tax state making $X should not pay more income taxes than someone in a high tax state making the same.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[sit1963nz]

Dumbass, a tax cut is NOT a pay rise. If you made 30K per annum before the tax cuts, you still made 30K afterwards, ZERO increase.

But if you want to play that game, the vast majority of the tax cut benefits went to the wealthy, you know, the ones who ALSO got a 17% wage increase.

Layoffs and No Raises

[X!0mbarg]

Cost of living goes up, and the working class gets the shaft again.
If the Big Boys would stop lining their pockets long enough to see that it's the working class people that spend their money and keep the economy moving, they might just be more receptive to letting us make more money to actually Spend on their (overpriced) products in the first place.
-
Trickle-down economics my Butt!

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[thevirtualcat]

You do realize that there are deductions besides state and local taxes, right?

Capitalism is also freedom

[SuperKendall]

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

Yes but luckily Capitalism is also the labor being free to move about until they feel they are getting what they are worth.

That's the amazing beauty of the system, the balance - if companies pay too low, workers will not hire on or will quit.

On the other hand, if workers demand too much they will not find, or keep work until they have more realistic demands.

And all without anyone actually figuring out what the "right" pay is, a dynamically self-regulating system - the best kind of system possible, the kind that makes the universe go.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[bkmoore]

You should never measure tax cuts against deficits and debt..... They should only be measured against TAX REVENUES. If you cut taxes and overall revenues go up, (because the economy is stimulated and growth drives it) then the tax cut is a benefit to the country as a whole......

Your statement is mathematically provable. Just calculate the required economic growth required to increase tax revenues at the lower tax rate. If the required economic growth is greater than the projected growth due to the stimulus effects, then the tax cut is revenue positive. The problem with all these tax cuts, going all the way back to Reagan is the required economic growth to maintain revenue neutrality has always been much greater than the stimulative effect and the net result is increased government debt. But you won't ever see Paul Ryan or any other GOP congressman openly show how much economic growth would be required to maintain revenue neutrality. That is because they know the tax cuts will explode the deficit without significant government spending reductions.

useless without a baseline

[aepervius]

Imagine the number for the previous time they polled people were like that :

"77% got a pay raise.
6% got a better paying job.
5% got both.
12% got neither."

Then it does not make this year looks very good isn't it ? The point is that you need a baseline, preferably over a decade or two, to be able to compare.

Re:useless without a baseline

[Luckyo]

Depends on whether they count inflation correction as "raise". There's a significant evidence that real salaries when inflation is counted for have in fact been stagnant on average for decades. With current monetary policy, the main reason why economy is getting overheated is lack of inflation due to low interest rates.

And it makes very little sense that there would be many years with statistics like you suggest, yet average salaries being stagnant over that period of time and not showing a clear statistical spike. So did formulation of the question include inflation correction and was that a time of significantly higher interest rates?

My pay went up 50% this year

[acoustix]

But it's because I went from a director position in the private sector to an hourly position in a state agency. Less resposibility, 50% pay increase, better benefits and better retirement. I left because the company wasn't willing to pay more and keep up with pay rates in the area.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[sycodon]

The driver of the supposed inequity is state and local taxes.

It's soooo funny how the Left has screamed about people paying their fair share and now that THEY had to do it, they get all upset.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[DidgetMaster]

Double check what numbers? The numbers I pulled out of my hat to give as an example? Nobody claimed they were actual, valid numbers. The only real number to consider is 'Did overall tax revenues (you know, the amount the government takes in) increase or decrease after the tax rate cuts?' I believe the answer is INCREASE.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[meglon]

It's so funny that idiots don't understand that high tax (blue states) have high taxes at the state level because low tax (red states) leach so much money off of those blue states at the federal level, so they have to make up for paying for the red states whoring. And when i say "funny," i really mean "how fucking stupid can they be."

They don't need loyalty

[rsilvergun]

thanks to mergers and acquisitions there's relatively few companies to work for. Small businesses & startups don't have the resources to pay for healthcare so unless you don't need that you're stuck looking for a bigger one with a big enough risk pool to get good rates. Mix in H1-Bs and outsourcing and your loyalty becomes even less valuable.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[thevirtualcat]

I can't speak to that.

For my part, Schedule E is a wonderful thing that saves me a lot of money every year.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[meglon]

Blue states subsidize almost all red states every year. Red states are the ultimate entitlement whores. Lets pass a law that says no state can get back more than $1.05 benefit per $1 input, nor less than $.95. We'd see virtually every red state collapse because they're leeches.

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.

Re:HE DID

[meglon]

Sycophants like you are the traitors. https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[Enigma2175]

The problem is that with the recent tax cut, the revenues didn't increase nearly enough to offset it. It's nowhere near the levels the Republicans claimed it would rise to when they passed the tax cuts, it's not even to the level that the CBO estimated it would be so this tax cut is likely going to add to the debt even more than the 1.5 TRILLION dollars the Republicans claimed it would. The GDP has grown at similar levels as during the Obama administration and tax revenues have actually gone down on an inflation-adjusted basis. Studies that have looked at the economic impact of the corporate tax cut mostly went to share buybacks, companies didn't use the money to expand or invest, they gave it to their owners. It doesn't seem to have spurred any growth in the economy at all. The result of this tax bill seems to be that the rich got richer and the middle class (and the future middle class) will be paying the price.

It's not a zero-sum game

[virtig01]

Resources are limited in the universe. But our potential to increase value here on earth is great. It's not a zero-sum game. In a free market transaction, both sides win: the value the seller receives (in cash) exceeds her value he places on the good/service she offers, and the value the buyer receives in the form of the the good/service exceeds the value of his cash outlay. If that wasn't true, then the transaction wouldn't occur. When the transaction does occur, value is created. The pie gets bigger.

Look around: billions of people have moved out of poverty in a generation. And it didn't require the people in middle and high income countries to earn less. Globally, obesity is now a bigger problem than hunger, and it didn't require sacrifice from the developed world. Lifespan has increased globally, without the need of drinking the blood of virgins.

Re:It's not a zero-sum game

[Shaitan]

"If that wasn't true, then the transaction wouldn't occur. When the transaction does occur, value is created. The pie gets bigger."

No it doesn't, it is often just difficult to measure and follow where the value came from. What you are describing is nothing more than inflation.

"And it didn't require the people in middle and high income countries to earn less."

I think you are giving capitalism credit for advances that belong almost entirely to technology, medicine, science, and knowledge. Capitalism doesn't drive those things, it monetizes them.

"it didn't require sacrifice from the developed world"

It absolutely did. Our technology and manufacturing techniques have been handed over to the developing world and the people who actually developed that science, technology, and medicine will be left behind soon enough while a wealthy elite class transitions to the newer and larger markets where the infrastructure has been built entirely from newer shiner and more advanced technology from the start.

Aside from that the quality of goods and services has gone down dramatically, debt has gone through the roof and savings has dropped massively. The obesity is part of the sacrifice, it isn't eating to excess so much as empty carbohydrates and water being used to fill out food products and corn feeding the population.

Re:Why?

[cbeaudry]

Nice fantasy world you you'd like to live in.

The thing is, people arent always worth what they think they are worth.
Making things equal for everyone, compensates the lazy and hurts those that are productive.

In the end, you get a society that isnt productive. And no outside investments.

You are calling for communism or/and socialism.

It does not work. source: History

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[jpaine619]

Yeah, I think your data is way out of date. I believe there was a time when your statement was correct, but not any more..

In January 2017, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office said by several measures California is, indeed, a donor state, but just barely. It receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, which is below the national average return for states of $1.22 per dollar paid, according to its review of a 2015 New York Comptroller study.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[ganjadude]

if we are going to do that why not just get rid of the federal taxes and let the states handle it like we did prior to the income tax???

why push money around that way?? it makes no sense

Isn't that basic Stats?

[ripvlan]

Half get a raise, half don't? Centered around the mid-point of a Bell-curve?

Re: Doubtful Accuracy

[peragrin]

The trick is tax cuts make a great soundbite.

What is smarter is a balanced budget law. A simplified law. Like this year's budget is equal to last year's revune. Exceptions can be made only in times of war as declared by congress.

That would force the budget to shrink to match income. And if your tax cuts lower revune, then your spending will go down too.

It won't keep it quite lock step, there will still be up and down years. But it will prevent situations like deficet speniding that we have had for the last 30 years

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[Altus]

Yeah, let's start with the absolutely astronomical military budget.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[sycodon]

Nope. Income taxes are individual taxes and unrelated to states.

States don't pay income taxes. YOU do. No matter where you live.

YOUR State is imposing extra costs on you, not any Red state.

communism /kämynizm/
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs and tens of millions are murdered for the common good.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[sycodon]

You have a hugely expensive home. Pay your fair share!

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[meglon]

Because intelligent people understand that there are issues best dealt with on the federal level, and those things should be paid for.... unlike the fucking idiots who actively try to destroy the federal government while burying future generations in massive debt. Democrats are tax and spend to better future generations.... republicans are leech off the future and spend to better themselves right now.

Re:Why?

[jpaine619]

2. Everyone should get what they deserve, and we deserve a good life. Not because of who we are or who are dad is but because we're human beings.

Why? Because you breathe? Why are you trying to be in conflict with all of nature? You get what you earn. You "deserve" nothing other than the opportunity. If a mouse doesn't work, it doesn't eat. If a wolf doesn't work it doesn't eat. This idea that you deserve anything because you exist is in conflict with the laws of nature. You're here because two people fucked. That's it. Your existence contributes nothing to society but a drain on resources UNTIL you start pulling your own weight.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[meglon]

Welcome to the end of 2018.

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

https://www.money-rates.com/fe...

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[fahrbot-bot]

But you won't ever see Paul Ryan or any other GOP congressman openly show how much economic growth would be required to maintain revenue neutrality. That is because they know the tax cuts will explode the deficit without significant government spending reductions.

That's because, despite all their alarmist rhetoric about deficits and the Debt (almost always during a Democratic administrations and almost never during Republican ones), they actually don't care about those things. Why Don't Republicans Fret About the Debt Anymore?

[ Or simply Google: republicans don't care about (deficit|debt) ]

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[jpaine619]

Welcome to the end of 2018.

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

Mar 20, 2018 | John S Kiernan, Senior Writer & Editor

https://www.money-rates.com/fe...

Richard Barrington | MoneyRates.com Senior Financial Analyst, CFA
Posted: April 3, 2018

I don't think either of those two dates qualifies as "The End of 2018"

Not enough data, really .....

[King_TJ]

Since we just came out of an economic depression, you probably have a lot of people who got new/better jobs less than a full year ago, so they wouldn't be receiving a pay raise by the time this survey was taken.

But that said? I feel like much of this "recovery" was just a return to normal, coupled with a reactionary stock market that inflated the worth of businesses beyond what was rational, based on little more than political hyperbole or irrational fears by investors.

IMO, we're about to feel the negative results of that stock market generated valuation bubble as it undergoes a correction. That could, in turn, sink us into yet ANOTHER depression in 2019.

The big "elephant in the room" is the massively increasing debt our government is carrying. They're predicting by 2023, over 40% of all student loans issued will be in default. At some point, that's going to become such a contentious issue, I can see it causing a tipping point where Americans all demand loan forgiveness and free college educations for all citizens. There's no conceivable way the nation can sustain all of that debt while keeping taxation somewhat under control.

Our politicians and Federal Reserve banking folks seem like they're experts at kicking the can down the curb a little further, each time it looks like things are going to come to a head and implode, financially. But at SOME point, when the rest of the world realizes we owe more than we can even produce in exportable goods or services? We're going to hit a point of no return.

People constantly complain about the wage disparity and how MUCH money the rich business owners keep making. But the problem is, they're also the ones really holding things together. (If your nation is trying to justify going even deeper into debt to keep operating and providing all the things the public demands of it? You need to stay in close communication with all of these big corporation heads, who are promising to make the things that can be sold to justify it.) . The government can't convince other nations to keep using the US dollar as a valid currency, otherwise.

German work week is 35 hours

[goombah99]

So they work 12.5% less and have better social services. Sounds like a great plan

That's normal

[jd]

I haven't had a raise in 20 years and know several others who haven't either. Certain IT sectors will do anything to avoid giving one.

Re: Doubtful Accuracy

[jd]

Because the States did a bloody awful job of it all and would do a worse job today.

Re: Doubtful Accuracy

[jd]

You can't make money if you don't spend money. If a grocery store only stocked according to what it had sold the previous week, one bad product line would put it out of business.

Besidrs, balanced budgets cause inflation, unbalancing the budget.

The correct strategy is to decide what you actually need to get done, then determine what you need to invest in to cover that cost, calculate what you still have then raise the extra money needed to do both.

Good investments mean you don't need to raise as much. If you want low taxes, invest wisely.

I got a lousy raise...

[sarren1901]

I got a lousy 1.5% raise, but it was a raise. Got the same raise last year and the year before. I've put it all towards retirement. Shrugs, I'm glad I got it but it doesn't make me thrilled either.

Maybe they should vote for Trump again

[GrumpySteen]

A few trillion more in tax breaks for corporations which go directly into stock buybacks to pump up prices and make the CEO's stock options more valuable like the last trillion did will surely trickle down next time!

Re: O'Reilly Auto Parts

[SocietyoftheFist]

$20 billion in sales equals how much profit after expense?

Re: Doubtful Accuracy

[FuzzyDaddy2]

Iâ(TM)ll be interested to see which way my taxes go. The loss of SALT will definitely hurt (ironically, I can no longer deduct the out of state property tax I pay in Maine, thanks Susan Collins!). But the lower brackets may compensate for that.

Where are all the trolls?

[Comboman]

24 hours and not a single reply or down-vote? Did Putin give all the trolls an early Christmas break?

Re:Why?

[bobbied]

2. Everyone should get what they deserve, and we deserve a good life. Not because of who we are or who are dad is but because we're human beings.

We do eh? I don't know what world YOU live in, but in mine humans are violent, vile, nasty and hateful creatures sometimes, all of us are in our own ways. Personally, I don't deserve a good life to be given me. I am entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but ease, leisure, food, clothing and entertainment is up to me to earn.

Your kind of thinking is what is driving the world into the sewer. When folks start thinking that they DESERVE to be happy, fed, comfortable and the word owes them this, then you get places like Venezuela where this mentality has ruined a once vibrant economy and now EVERYBODY is desperately poor, hungry and uncomfortable. Don't bring that mess here, for my kids sake.

In a sane world, folks who can work, are productive and live off of the proceeds of their labor. In a sane world if you want food, you grow it or work for money to buy it from someone. In a sane world people are expected to earn their way, if at all possible, though their labor, skills and investments. In a sane world we are all free to choose how to be happy and left on our own to do it, in so far as it recognizes everyone's rights to do the same.

Socialist like programs are contrary to these principles, as is giving the able bodied stuff w/o requiring labor in return. It destroys the society, fosters irresponsible behavior, kills productivity and eventually destroys economies and countries, bringing death and destruction to all.

Re:Doubtful Accuracy

[dcw3]

Hard to do when other countries (looking at you NATO) don't hold up to their own defense commitments. Unless you believe we shouldn't help defend our allies, then it just doesn't matter.

Yes, there's plenty that could be trimmed, and managed better. And I'm saying that as a 37 yr defense contractor.