Forum Post: The old, good jobs ain't what they used to be.
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 12, 2012, 5:34 p.m. EST by TitusMoans
(2451)
from Boulder City, NV
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
An interesting article at this site: http://www.peoplesworld.org/study-good-jobs-in-america-on-the-decline/
Here's just a quotation: "The share of 'good jobs' in the U.S. economy declined from 27.4 percent to 24.6 percent since 1979, a new report by two labor economists says. The drop would have been much larger if the workforce had not become vastly better educated, their study shows."
This is a dismal report for American workers showing that not only real wages have dropped since 1979, but work opportunities at or above the median level with benefits have also dropped. To make matters worse, the nature of provided benefits have also worsened with employees having to pick up more of health-insurance costs and a contribute a larger share to pensions funds of whatever kind.
The economists also made clear that they probably understated the loss available "good" jobs not only because of the poorer benefits, but because education level has increased greatly since 1979, but corresponding jobs for given educational levels have fallen in spite of the increased age of average workers, and a 63% productivity increase for the same period. They attribute part of the overall decline to greater exploitation of American workers by outsourcing, etc, and also the degeneration of American syndicalism. Union membership has sunk to 8% from 23% in 1979. More or less, workers are many times, by opting of union membership and support, cutting their own throats.
This article may be reporting facts, but the facts are being misconstrued What is happening in the U.S. is that less people can do more work because of all of the prior hard infrastructure labor done by our fathers and grandparents and so on.
The primary reason that less workers producing more wealth is a problem is that the bankers can't keep piling on more and more debt and actually getting people to find jobs so they live their entire existence paying bankers monthly tithes in the form of interest rate charges.
How about people working 25 hour weeks and then businesses hire more people if necessary? How about the world stands up to the elite billionaires and trillionaires of the world and demand Debt Neutrality on existing debt?
The uber rich get their loaned money back over time, but no more interest rate charges, penalties, or fees.
sounds like a good time for giving the Fed some old fashioned capitalistic competition .... a Social Reserve Bank .... expanding on the Bank of North Dakota's start ....
Most of the infrastructure in the country needs repairs or renovatons.
The whole capitalist is based on debt. Marx called it a usury economy, since most of the actual property rests in the hands of the very few.
good place for economic stimulus - rebuild the infrastructure ( GREEN ) as a loan ( no interest ) to the utilities in charge of those services look into the earnings of those utilities cut the excess from off the top and use that for loan repayment and put a freeze on rates. OH - and make sure they are actually paying taxes instead of milking the government.
That's a good start.
Send in the suggestion to government as an open letter and copy it here we can share it on the internet.
Those guys have stopped answering my letters with their pre-programmed lip service responses.
Funny thing - they still send me lots of requests for money.
Funny how the emails for funds pour in, while the responses to workers needs get put on the back burner.
Bureaucracy and yes worse - they have stopped listening to the people ( for the most part ) - it is our fault as well - for stopping talking to them and letting em do what they want.
I read maybe two or three of your letters and decided to stop wasting my time after that. I can't imagine why the gov't wouldn't do the same.
Hey - Jimmycrackcorn long time no spew from you.
We should do this less often.
If you got nothing positive to say about sharing perspective with government ( even if they are not gonna read it ) consider that these open letters go out to the public - and - Fortunately - there are people who actually read and consider different points of view.
the problem is the utilities have unions and any time they smell free money, the unions want their cut in the form of pay raises and pension increases.
Tens of millions of americans who bought homes in the 50's,60's, 70's 80's and 90's saw a huge appreciation in value of their homes over time.
To imply that the middle class has not gained wealth under capitalism is simply not true.
However, since 2006, these same people lost trillions in equity value and now credit card and student loan debt threatens to take another huge swipe out of main street's ownership.
Since 2007, the average American has lost 40% of what is called net worth, since capitalism values human life in monetary value. That doesn't mean that debt of all sorts hasn't bogged down the system, but much of the "gained wealth" was directly attributable to inflation.
In the 1950s gasoline generally sold for less than 25 cents a gallon, a pack of cigarettes for about the same, an automobile for $2,000, and a house for less than $10,000. All the prices when up, so the homeowner gained only in lump sum, but real purchasing value did not increase proportionately.
True, however population grew rapidly as well, so one could argue that capitalism allowed for more people to enjoy a similar level of comfort.
I'm good with that.
Imagine how much better the system would be if so much of the accumulated wealth since the 1950s had not concentrated even more in the hands of the wealthy elite.
Things would not be falling down all around us.
The fall of capitalism is built into the system; it's like a birth defect caused by greed.
The blind and grasping child with no supervision.
The internet could be an equalizer. However I fear that too many people see it as them against the world and when they get on the internet its to promote their own agenda. I have done that as well, however, I have also promoted other concepts and blogs not of my doing.
Um....did you mean to make that comment here(?) or perhaps on a different thread?
Yes the internet gives everyone access to free speech and the ability to openly express their views/agendas/perspectives. They may even come across many people who agree with them and so form a group or a relationship.
That is what is also great is that there are many different groups already formed on the internet that one can check out and see if it is for them or not. In this way find friends or affinity or support or whatever.
Yes, I meant to write that here. Haven't you joined any email lists? Pretty much it's one little group against the world. I get emails from the democrat party and NewsMax, the subject titles of their email messages are truly pathetic. "Won't you help us defeat the big bad enemy"...bla bla blah.
How does the song go..Everybody wants to rule the world...I've always thought the lyrics should be...Everybody wants a place to rule. Welcome to the Internet, where everbody rules much more than they listen.
I have been sending my letters to a couple of white house e-mail addresses then I have been posting them here and sharing them out on twitter and requesting others to share them around as well. This is some of what I have been doing.
The hardest thing to do is coalesce with people one never meets. But I have also gone to all kinds of meetings over the years. There are so many constraining issues about public meetings that anything short of a human microphone with reverb most of the time does not work. And the human microphone was apparently invented by the Occupy group, so before that how did people get anything accomplished at a public meeting...?
There's something you're leaving out in that 50s formula, and that is that most Americans only made maybe three to five thousand a year. That house purchased for ten was financed for twenty. But that too has changed tremendously - in the 50s most would not have been willing, based on a frugality born of a lesser prosperity, to finance as Americans have since the mid 80s or so. It's really a rather foolish proposition to enslave yourself for a period of years in an unstable employment environment. Many people realized too little too late.
I don't know if what you're saying is true. In the 50s, one home was considered the Dream; many today are buying second and third homes. In fact, when the mongers realized this through tax returns, they changed the tax structure to deny the real estate investment - they took our deductions. And then, they began to plot a readjustment of wealth. And that's what I truly believe.
Yes, one can argue that we are not more prosperous than we were in the fifties. However, perhaps 100 million more people are at the prosperity level that was established in the 50's.
The problem now is that the economic growth models all the "pundits" cite in determining how well the economy is doing is based on the percentage of people with full time jobs, this is patently insane.
The higher that unemployment can go on without the country self destructing, the better for all. The key is, do those who still have jobs have to keep working full time to survive, or could they switch with those who have not worked in a while and take a break themselves, or cut back their hours every week?
And how many would want to?
Aristotle says that the highest goal in life is leisure. ....It gives us the opportunity to live a life of contemplation that includes the pursuit of literature, music, the arts, and science.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/uc_bakaoukas4c3.htm
Sounds great. I support that.
Excellent point.
I've taken a 20 percent pay reduction by working just 4 of 5 days last 3 years, because I believe in the lesser work week model. It frees up a day of work for someone else. It is difficult monetarily, especially as one who helps with children & grandchildren. If the elder gen. can do this, and make way for the younger gen. to get a foot in the door. The problem is, so many are in such debt, and wages haven't gone up, it is difficult for many to undertake this.
Quite a selfless act. I'm impressed.
You mention wages haven't gone up. You probably know that those wages, paid in inflated dollars, have actually gone down.
Do you know the financial situation of the company you work for? A 3% a year raise just to keep up with inflation is really no raise at all. If they are doing well, all employees should ask for a real raise. If they freeze wages not because of competition, but only to increase their own personal profits, why should they make more at your expense?
If the employee settles for less than he is worth, the employer will happily oblige by pocketing the difference.
in this economy with people happy to even have a job, and feeling sympathetic for those without one, we have often accepted a freeze in wages, for multiple years in work, and pay cuts.
The. Welfare banksters gave themselves bonuses and raises, we paid for it, TARP, so they screwed us twice.
The worker's been f*cked for 40 years, and the wealthy complain loudly and effectively through their access to politicians, that they are giving a free ride to many.
Yes it is well past time for some real class struggle of the 99 percent.
But the poor almost believe hits their fault, or that's just the way it is, by god's design, and the middle are glad and complacent and thankful they're not at the bottom, and we' have a choice between two right wing parties.
Where is a worker's party? Where are unions?
How much longer can we get by on 0 percent raise, no cola, while rich keep taking more, and effectively dividing the 99 percent.
But while you practice selflessness, the wealthy practice selfishness. Look at who benefited over the last 40 years. There's a big difference between being selfless and getting screwed.
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008
Right on. Stop the war on the poor.
Yes, it always comes back to consumer debt, which is why I started the debt neutrality petition. http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-create-debt-neutrality-rights-for-paying-down-credit-cards-student-loans
This petition makes sense. I signed it.
Likewise, charging usurious interest rates, that can't ever be renegotiated or lowered, but can spike up (credit cards) is even spoke against in the major religions, as I understand it, for good reason.
Why pay interest on top of health care costs? Why pay interest on top of food costs?
Many years I've run up balances on credit cards to put food on table for my kids, keep the heat and lights on.
When a family or young person gets to a certain point, the credit should be frozen, interest rates reduced.
A young family's wages will not cover basic living expenses in many cases, and often people are too proud to look for government assistance.
Lenders should not prey on the vulnerable, and the people should provide for certain services that are alternatives, such as more available healthy food and housing help for young families.
I totally agree. Consumers should gain something for their ability to pay their debts as time goes on. I proposed some solutions on my www.credit-card-cap.com site back in 2007 that would still work today. Credit Card solutions found here.. http://credit-card-cap.com/3.html
A cap on the total amount a consumer pays back in interest per amount of credit given would instantly create amazing competition among those giving credit, and it would give those borrowing money a realistic goal towards getting back out of debt once they no longer have to pay interest on existing debt.
Nice... will it give you the money to buy a Les Paul? In all things, there are those that do and those that don't - in each and every case, you have to decide which you want to be.
My impression is that most are working more hours now to compensate for the rise in all living expenses.
yes, but now this is also coming to pass because of consumer debt and then there is the issue of aging parents, ignore them and let them die sooner so their estate can be shared among the kids, or, move back home and be there for them and actually radically lower one's overhead.
Well... to each his own.
[Removed]
I don't like the "crepusculent corpulence" both in terms of the grammatical and meaning, but whatever... you know what's disturbing? It's that young people do not seem to deal well with the debt they have voluntarily assumed.
[Removed]
Yea, it's also horseshit... I do history, no one survives the lash, nor was it expected they survive.
So let me tell you a few things: my great grandfather performed the first interracial marriages in America :p. And our family fought by the dozens, and suffered generational loss, in our Civil War.
So cry me a river... I want honesty.
[Removed]
Ok, got the epub... will check it out.
Both models actually help the economy overall. The person who care takes for a parent (15 million americans do this) can in the process practice conservation, harvestation (aka gardening) and health care, that's three separate but laudable functions.
Or, they can compete with every other person out there to get a job doing...???? while continuing the mad race to overconsume the planet's remaining resources in as little time as possible.
I have mixed feelings about this because we are no longer an agrarian society - the generational family is no longer the primary economic unit - but I do know a number of people who are doing it.
True, but the commuter to a job meme is the lie that is causing the present economic turmoil.
Divide and conquer main street's family while the rich elite lather each other up with main street's money.
Debt rises as salaries decrease, not a good combination.
No, you're right, it's not a good combination.
I did the low budget college thing, started my own business thing. just when I was in a position to possibly get back to even (after plowing a lot of money into video gear) everything in the film and video industry changed.
I actually had no problem with that, however, hard and fast rules that I learned on real video gear that related to true technical quality control, were almost overnight thrown out the window.
I either had to go a cheaper, more amateur route, or, go high end Avid knowing that they could not be trusted since they could devalue the merchandise I bought from them by simply changing the model number of their newest gear by a significant number.
There were Avid owners out there who saw the value of their editing equipment drop in half overnight when Avid jumped model numbers from the 20's into the 70's.
At some point, simply being able to live on next to nothing is more valuable then working 50 and 60 hours a week if one has already learned their profession reasonably well.
to the comment below, the difference nowadays versus the 90's is that video gear back then was basically 7,500 to 10,000 dollars per item, be it a quality video machine, or quality camera, and as someone experienced success, their profits had to be reinvested in additional gear so that there was back up in case of a machine failure.
Nowadays, 5 grand and someone can almost get their foot in the door, however, as one gets better at their craft, they will suddenly want more and more, and could easily end up spending 25 grand without realizing it.
I recommend the buddy system. Find someone who is already in debt on gear they purchased and help them succeed. It's an excellent trade off, no financial investment, get paid (even it it's not that much) learn how to use gear without having to buy it.
Eventually consider buying something that could then assist the businesses associate so that it produces income rental and work for yourself.
I've known others that pursued video and editing, too.
I think that life can be really difficult and that adversity can be overwhelming. It's especially difficult for our young people because there is no stable employment, especially in more rural areas, where the division between the haves and have-nots is so painfully obvious.
I think there's this overwhelming atmosphere here, a theme of doom and gloom - positivism and determination are a much happier and healthier route.
Keep on trucking, keep the faith, don't ever give in... and you're right, avoiding overburden in the form of debt obligation (if at all possible) is paramount to both your peace of mind and happiness.
I thought wage inflation was implicit in my post. The debt mentality fostered by the banks and Wall Street hasn't helped, that's for sure.
I'm not sure what you're saying in the second paragraph. During the heyday of the real-estate boom, some people bought more than one home on the assumption that they could flip them for profit, which some did, but the real-estate collapse has curtailed, though not ended that practice.
The readjustment of wealth is part of capitalist society; wealth moves upward concentrating in the super rich. The government using fallacious neoliberal theories has actually promoted that upward shift. The problem now is to reverse that movement of wealth back toward the workers.
It wasn't merely promoted by creditors; we were encouraged by the possessions of our friends and neighbors as we tried to keep up with the Jones - we raised our personal debt ratios. Many, many people in the US also bought "vacation" homes which they claimed for tax purposes as investments; many bought third homes. And it is my firm belief, that when the money mongers realized middle class prosperity, that they immediately began to plot a readjustment. Our poor in America live better than the comfortable working class, and even many of the middle class, of Western Europe. And I think subprime and bundled risk were created products, born of that American prosperity.
Oh, sorry, I have not so far participated such practices, but I have bought real-estate as a long-term investment.
I'm not sure about your comparison to western Europe. I spent some time in Scandanavia, mostly Sweden. The overwhelming majority of the lower class there live as well or better than the lower middle class here--that is those people at median up to, let's say $50k annually.
Good Post. It seems like we have 1/2 of the buying power, that my parents had in the 50s.
I do not think we have that much buying power. Hell back in the 60's ( mid ) you could get a gallon of gas for $0.25 cigarets were about the same for a pack you could get a loaf of bread for less and a pound of fresh fruit or veggies. No things are much worse today.
We are getting crushed everyday. Two years ago, bought a little pharmacy item for $1.89------same store today asking $5.64 for same item.
Yeah. I can remember mom sending us to the corner store with a dollar (early '70's). We got a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and brought change back.
Yep - I figure in comparison today we have probably less then 1/4 the purchase power.
I know this may seem off-the-wall but I wonder if the raise in prices has, in some small way, anything to do with the PTB wanting to force women into the workplace. You know for years big business considered homemakers a vast untapped resource. Notice how many arenas, like major-league sports, that used to be the exclusive domain of men, now populated by a significant number of (money spending) women.
Well I don't know if The Powers That Be planned for it but they sure are using it to their best advantage and to societies detriment.
I'm beginning to believe it was planned, for the reason above; the untapped buying power.
It has greatly expanded the work force. And prior to many equal rights issues women were paid much much less then men doing the same job - this condition has gotten better but is still unequal and unfair to women - this gave the captains of business and industry a larger and cheaper work force. It is of course more involved but that is a large factor.
Yes, it's a lot more involved. There are some that believe the whole 'woman's lib' movement had an ulterior motive: the dissolution of the family unit. True or not, it has seemed to work out that way, which makes one wonder.
Yes unforeseen or unconsidered consequences by society by not keeping a better watch on practices and effects of practices. Business(?) they could care less as long as they are getting what they want.
[-] 1 points by gnomunny (3425) from St Louis, MO 10 minutes ago
And so much about what has, and is, happening goes on behind closed doors, so it's often hard to discern what was an actual plan, and what are just unplanned consequences. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
I don't wonder it worked out for the business owners - kinda - but it has also ( because of work practices ) really started to tear down family and community. But that is mainly due to the abuse of the work force. Damn there is so much involved in dynamics - employer side and individuals side.
And so much about what has, and is, happening goes on behind closed doors, so it's often hard to discern what was an actual plan, and what are just unplanned consequences.
Thanks. I appreciate your feedback and posts.
Homes have not appreciated very much over the last 40 years when you factor in inflation.
http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/07/housing-prices-inflation-since-1900.html
That's fine, however more people have homes, no? Doesn't that make capitalism a fine blend of commerce and socialism?
Again, check the facts.
http://www.economicsfanatic.com/2012/06/us-housing-market-attractive-buying.html
My point is the TOTAL number of households has increased. There can be a decrease in percentage of americans owning homes while still being an increase in total homes owned by americans.
And that may reverse soon SPECIFICALLY because of consumer debt.
Provide your evidence then.
The evidence of how corrosive consumer debt has become? The evidence is a combination of two factors. loss of 7 to 10 trillion dollars of equity value since 2006 while consumer debt levels have either stayed the same or gone up results in an astounding increase of consumer debt to equity percentage. I can't cite the exact number.
but whatever the ratio was in 2006, lets say it was for every dollar of consumer debt there was 5 dollars of equity. Now, there may only be 2 dollars of equity for every dollar of consumer debt.
Since consumer debt has corrosive interest rates attached, the much lower equity levels may soon become dissolved by consumer debt.
I can't cite exact numbers because nobody in the financial articles I have come across wants to address equity loss versus stable or rising consumer debt levels.
when the discussion of dropping consumer debt levels in half was raised about a week ago on other topics, I was against that because over the long haul the interest rate charges are actually more lethal than reducing what is owed and keeping the interest rate charges in place.
"My point is the TOTAL number of households has increased."
Provide the evidence.
Since 1950, home ownership has hovered in the 60% of all types of homes. In 1950 there was approximately 152 million people in the U.S.
Now there are over 300 million people in the U.S. So if the population has doubled while home ownership has remained in the 60%to 68% percent range of all types of living situations, then that means twice as many people now have homes than had them in 1950.
We need an economy that works for all people, not just the wealthy and corporations. Workers' need their rights restored and strengthened and how we value labor needs to be transformed completely.
Amazingly many people, who stand behind puppets like Romney and Ryan, I won't mention the opposing puppets for right now, only because they tend to be supported by people that call themselves progressives, vote and behave exactly against their own best interest. If ever a validation of Gramsci's extrapolation of cultural hememony existed, that is it. People buying the 1% propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Yep, that's nationalism in a nutshell. The hubris to believe that your nation is great regardless of what is really going on.
The left needs to join forces, communists, socialists, anarchists, liberals, progressives--whatever they call themselves--and start a unified media campaign spreading the non-revisionist history, news, and opinion.
Don't leave out the tea partiers, republicans, and independents. In fact they need to hear the truth more than the left.
Our newest Occupy sign reads: "Honk if you make $26,000 a year or less, 50% of all Americans do!"
Of course the low income people understand this message all too well. We are in a well off conservative area, so this message is really directed at those who really don't have a clue of how the other half lives. Literally thousands of drivers stopped at the intersection see this sign and I am sure it's pointed message is burning holes in their hardened hearts.
The official government poverty level is $22,000 a year for a family of four. I'd like to see a family of four survive on $22,000 a year without government assistance, which is exactly what right-wingers, like Paul Ryan, are trying to eliminate.
Exactly. That is why I hate to see people arguing here, who are really on the same side. This needs to start happening, and fast, if we are going to be effective in bringing about change.
True, and I've been guilty of going after partisans at times, even if they were generally supportive. We do have to lay aside our differences and decide to steer our nation toward a better future.
General Assembly, Peoples Audit Committee, Peoples Arrest Committee,Peoples Court..We have no representation in present day court systems, bought and paid for by the ones we are trying to apprehend..
The only thing we're lacking is a receipt for the sale. No refunds.
[Removed]