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

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

Comments

Loyalty

[brickhouse98]

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

Re:Loyalty

[fluffernutter]

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

Re:Loyalty

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

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

Re:Loyalty

[DidgetMaster]

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

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

Re:Loyalty

[stinerman]

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

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

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

Capitalism

[fluffernutter]

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

Re:Capitalism

[bobbied]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Capitalism

[Bite The Pillow]

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

Re:Capitalism

[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

[swillden]

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

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

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

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

Sometimes Americans make no sense

[TimothyHollins]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Sometimes Americans make no sense

[jeff4747]

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

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

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

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

Make America Great Again...

[Comboman]

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

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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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

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

[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: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.