50% of All Workers Made Less than $26,000 in 2010(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
50% of All Workers Made Less than $26,000 in 2010
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/50-of-all-workers-made-less-than-26-000-in-2010/247059/
15 コメント
A large fraction of the 47% are the elderly. The evil rank dishonesty of the people who started this meme (not the useful ignorant who spread it) is highlighted by the fact that the elderly are their electoral base. Rich men are encouraging senior citizens watching Fox to think that "they" are freeloaders ... and using those same senior citizens to inflate the number of supposed freeloaders. That's on TOP of not including payroll, sales, and other taxes with regressive distributions when they calculate tax burden.
I don't think this invalidates the point. The elderly can still vote.
Here is data on part time workers. About 1/4 of workers are part time (about 34 million people).
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat19.txt
About 3/4 of those who are part time are voluntarily part time (i.e., not because they can't find full time work).
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat20.txt
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat19.txt
About 3/4 of those who are part time are voluntarily part time (i.e., not because they can't find full time work).
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat20.txt
> Also I was shocked to see that "The 1%" included essentially anyone making over $100K.
It looks like it's anyone making over $200k not $100k if I'm reading it correctly.
It looks like it's anyone making over $200k not $100k if I'm reading it correctly.
The data only includes the types of compensation that are subject to FICA. This includes only salaries, wages, bonuses, profit sharing and tips. It does not include dividends, capital gains (includes things like options) and interest income.
The data does include part time workers, including students. There aren't that many teens and college students in the US (only about 10% of the population). It also includes some retired people working part time jobs.
I think the IRS and the US Census publishes similar data but uses total compensation. IIRC, the median moves up a bit (but still under $30k) while the top end skews upwards dramatically.
The data does include part time workers, including students. There aren't that many teens and college students in the US (only about 10% of the population). It also includes some retired people working part time jobs.
I think the IRS and the US Census publishes similar data but uses total compensation. IIRC, the median moves up a bit (but still under $30k) while the top end skews upwards dramatically.
To those who say "someone can do two jobs and make more" and such... These stats are compiled on SSN basis by the Social Security Administration. Thus, I think they include any number of jobs a person may hold at any time over the course of the year.
Further, this data does not include dividends, capital gains or interest. Should be fairly obvious which end of the curve gets the lion's share of that.
Further, this data does not include dividends, capital gains or interest. Should be fairly obvious which end of the curve gets the lion's share of that.
> Further, this data does not include dividends, capital gains or interest. Should be fairly obvious which end of the curve gets the lion's share of that.
But it also doesn't include unreported income, public grants, welfare, food assistance programs, Medicare, Medicaid, retirement funds, pensions, Social Security, receipt of charity, etc.
It also fails to realize that some of those low-income workers are homemakers who only work a few hours a week to get out of the house, teenagers and young adults just working for spending money, and retired elderly who are looking to stay active and supplement their fixed income without working too hard.
I'm not against social assistance by any means, but trumpeting misinformation only serves to muddy the waters and harm productive discussion.
But it also doesn't include unreported income, public grants, welfare, food assistance programs, Medicare, Medicaid, retirement funds, pensions, Social Security, receipt of charity, etc.
It also fails to realize that some of those low-income workers are homemakers who only work a few hours a week to get out of the house, teenagers and young adults just working for spending money, and retired elderly who are looking to stay active and supplement their fixed income without working too hard.
I'm not against social assistance by any means, but trumpeting misinformation only serves to muddy the waters and harm productive discussion.
Actually most middle class Americans, and basically all Americans in IT jobs commenting on the web, have no frigging idea of how the "other half lives"...
Besides checking being poor by yourself (which will come easy for a lot of people in the current economy), and/or hanging around poor neighborhoods and making friends, I recommend "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
A small road trip in South Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama et al would also be insightful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
A small road trip in South Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama et al would also be insightful.
So with all of this top x% talk that is going on I decided to see where I was on the scale. It was pretty pathetic. Not because I was low on the scale but rather very high. I don't consider myself to be very wealthy at all. Don't get me wrong I am doing well for myself. I worked hard to get what I have and I am good at what I do, but I should not be in the top 3%. I am not trying to brag, I think it is stupid and wrong that I am that high up on the scale. I'm not saying I earn too much (I am actually underpaid according the the industry i am in.) It is just that I can't believe that others are being paid that much less.
The incredible wealth disparity in this country is quite disturbing. And one look at the data confirms that reality. Half of workers barely make enough to get by. And I assure you that a very large portion of those making under the median probably get poor benefits/heathcare (if they get them at all)
A lot employees in retail for example had their hours cut just enough to they become legally 'part-time' employees. This lets business off the hook from providing benefits like health care and other things. So these people go and get a second or even third job, all part time. They might work 60 hours / week but they are all close to minimum wage and at the first visit to the hospital they basically end up in bankruptcy.
Once you are in bankruptcy it can become more difficult to get jobs because shady employers often check credit history during the application process. Why? For the fuck of it, as part of the background check. So then there is this black mark on it.
There is not even a single thing that is wrong and we just fix that and bam! we are back up. Minimum wage is low, no single payer health system, our graduates are not competitive enough, housing is still expensive in major cities, there is just a lot of people just barely keeping their heads above the water. Not sure what the fix is and not saying there is a direct casual relationship between any of the things above or others, but it is obvious that he situation quite bad.
Once you are in bankruptcy it can become more difficult to get jobs because shady employers often check credit history during the application process. Why? For the fuck of it, as part of the background check. So then there is this black mark on it.
There is not even a single thing that is wrong and we just fix that and bam! we are back up. Minimum wage is low, no single payer health system, our graduates are not competitive enough, housing is still expensive in major cities, there is just a lot of people just barely keeping their heads above the water. Not sure what the fix is and not saying there is a direct casual relationship between any of the things above or others, but it is obvious that he situation quite bad.
The real problem is that there's a huge disparity in talent. The worst of us are worth a whole lot less than the best of us. The question is: what do we do about that?
man, that's about the most arrogant way you could put it. I mean, at it's root, I think there is a valid question, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?"
The thing is, how much money you make? usually has more to do with how much money you are involved with than anything else. Now, sure, if you are highly skilled, you have a better chance of scoring the jobs involving more money, but that doesn't weigh any heavier than connections, certainly after you pass the bar of basic competence, from what I've seen. People working for top-end consulting companies, from what I've seen, are not on average much more skilled than people working at ISPs or smaller companies.
There is a 'shadow IT' industry where people do, essentially, our jobs for $10-$15/hr. Some of these people are quite good, (and often 'real IT' companies that pay real wages will snatch people out of this 'shadow IT' industry.) It's interesting to watch this happen; usually one person in the "shadow IT" industry will get a real job, and then the good people that one person knows? over the next few years they will get real jobs through this one person who got a job. I mean, you need a certain minimum level of skill to be considered, and beyond that, the better you are the more social bullshit people will overlook, but a lot of it really is 'who you know, not what you know.'
I know a bit about this, because I worked my way up through the 'shadow IT' industry into 'real IT' and now I run a company that is somewhere in between 'shadow IT' and 'real IT'
From what I've seen, the difference between working for peanuts in the 'shadow IT' industry and working for six figures in the 'real IT' industry, once you pass a certain minimum skill level, has more to do with who you know, and how confidently you can present at interviews than anything else. I can't tell you about several times where I was picked over people that I knew were vastly technically better than I was.
As for the real question you are asking, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" well, there are two problems. first, there just isn't enough work to go around at minimum wage right now. Next, we live in a country where basic medical care is unaffordable on minimum wage.
I think both problems would be solved if we could find something higher-value for low-skilled people to do. I mean, sure, education maybe could help? but personally, I doubt it. I didn't go to school, and economically speaking, I am doing much better than people I know who did. I think most of the wage/education correlation you see has to do with the correlation between going to college and having well-off parents.
I mean, I've gotten a job through parental contacts (I mean, only one, but it was in the depth of the dot-com bust. I /really/ needed that job.) and almost all my other jobs through contacts that I earned myself; and yeah, I didn't go to college, but I had access to a computer, compilers, programming books, and training from a real live programmer and a real live sysadmin from the age of four on. I was privileged in the same way that most people who go to college are privileged.
The thing is, how much money you make? usually has more to do with how much money you are involved with than anything else. Now, sure, if you are highly skilled, you have a better chance of scoring the jobs involving more money, but that doesn't weigh any heavier than connections, certainly after you pass the bar of basic competence, from what I've seen. People working for top-end consulting companies, from what I've seen, are not on average much more skilled than people working at ISPs or smaller companies.
There is a 'shadow IT' industry where people do, essentially, our jobs for $10-$15/hr. Some of these people are quite good, (and often 'real IT' companies that pay real wages will snatch people out of this 'shadow IT' industry.) It's interesting to watch this happen; usually one person in the "shadow IT" industry will get a real job, and then the good people that one person knows? over the next few years they will get real jobs through this one person who got a job. I mean, you need a certain minimum level of skill to be considered, and beyond that, the better you are the more social bullshit people will overlook, but a lot of it really is 'who you know, not what you know.'
I know a bit about this, because I worked my way up through the 'shadow IT' industry into 'real IT' and now I run a company that is somewhere in between 'shadow IT' and 'real IT'
From what I've seen, the difference between working for peanuts in the 'shadow IT' industry and working for six figures in the 'real IT' industry, once you pass a certain minimum skill level, has more to do with who you know, and how confidently you can present at interviews than anything else. I can't tell you about several times where I was picked over people that I knew were vastly technically better than I was.
As for the real question you are asking, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" well, there are two problems. first, there just isn't enough work to go around at minimum wage right now. Next, we live in a country where basic medical care is unaffordable on minimum wage.
I think both problems would be solved if we could find something higher-value for low-skilled people to do. I mean, sure, education maybe could help? but personally, I doubt it. I didn't go to school, and economically speaking, I am doing much better than people I know who did. I think most of the wage/education correlation you see has to do with the correlation between going to college and having well-off parents.
I mean, I've gotten a job through parental contacts (I mean, only one, but it was in the depth of the dot-com bust. I /really/ needed that job.) and almost all my other jobs through contacts that I earned myself; and yeah, I didn't go to college, but I had access to a computer, compilers, programming books, and training from a real live programmer and a real live sysadmin from the age of four on. I was privileged in the same way that most people who go to college are privileged.
He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would starve to death or become criminals if it wasn't for the social safety net.
And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology.
And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology.
[deleted]
None of my talents matter if the office building I work in wasn't maintained.
None of my talents matter if the electricity that powers the servers I need wasn't generated and the systems of delivery weren't maintained.
None of my talents matter if the roads and public transport I rely upon to get to work weren't maintained.
None of my talents matter if the hardware I work with wasn't assembled and quality checked.
Etc, etc.
None of my talents matter if the electricity that powers the servers I need wasn't generated and the systems of delivery weren't maintained.
None of my talents matter if the roads and public transport I rely upon to get to work weren't maintained.
None of my talents matter if the hardware I work with wasn't assembled and quality checked.
Etc, etc.
Building managers typically get free or cheap housing and make pretty good income, one way or another. Architects, plumbers, contractors, and others involved in building and maintaining offices don't do bad, either. These jobs are in high demand; watch Dirty Jobs host Mike Rowe's TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.htm...
Electricians and others who run wiring for new installations (I know several people who do this) all make pretty good money. The guys who work for utility companies fixing stuff after storms are unionized and make a comfortable living. Power companies themselves make money not only in the delivery of services but also in state-of-the-art energy trading.
I have direct experience supervising road crews. Most states have a mandated minimum pay for road workers; even the guys holding the stop signs are making $16-22 an hour, and that was in Ohio, where the cost of living is about half of the Bay area. Public transit workers are also almost always unionized. Government workers (I interned at the County Engineer office) make salaries on-par with other knowledge workers and have generous retirement.
The hardware is the major outlier here, but for the most part, the workers making your hardware are doing relatively well for themselves compared to their fellow citizens. And they are largely irrelevant when discussing income inequality in the US.
The reality is that useful skills bring in good money. The people providing for your quality of life are doing pretty well for themselves and will always be in work. Being unskilled and being unable to provide real value is a problem without an easy solution. I feel that people should be ensured a base quality of life, but that's not free. If people didn't aspire to more, no one would have anything at all.
Electricians and others who run wiring for new installations (I know several people who do this) all make pretty good money. The guys who work for utility companies fixing stuff after storms are unionized and make a comfortable living. Power companies themselves make money not only in the delivery of services but also in state-of-the-art energy trading.
I have direct experience supervising road crews. Most states have a mandated minimum pay for road workers; even the guys holding the stop signs are making $16-22 an hour, and that was in Ohio, where the cost of living is about half of the Bay area. Public transit workers are also almost always unionized. Government workers (I interned at the County Engineer office) make salaries on-par with other knowledge workers and have generous retirement.
The hardware is the major outlier here, but for the most part, the workers making your hardware are doing relatively well for themselves compared to their fellow citizens. And they are largely irrelevant when discussing income inequality in the US.
The reality is that useful skills bring in good money. The people providing for your quality of life are doing pretty well for themselves and will always be in work. Being unskilled and being unable to provide real value is a problem without an easy solution. I feel that people should be ensured a base quality of life, but that's not free. If people didn't aspire to more, no one would have anything at all.
Sure.
But if someone is earning $26K a year, then this means that their labour isn't worth any more than twenty-six thousand dollars to anyone else. Money is, after all, a medium of exchange, and if your labour is only worth $26K this means you're contributing very little of any value to society... barely enough value to account for the baseline amount of wealth (food etc) which every one of us destroys each year just in order to stay alive.
People who only make $26K a year need to take a good hard look at themselves and say "How can I make the value of my labour higher, so that I'm contributing more than a minimal amount to society?" If they'd start thinking about the problem in the right way, they might be able to solve it.
But if someone is earning $26K a year, then this means that their labour isn't worth any more than twenty-six thousand dollars to anyone else. Money is, after all, a medium of exchange, and if your labour is only worth $26K this means you're contributing very little of any value to society... barely enough value to account for the baseline amount of wealth (food etc) which every one of us destroys each year just in order to stay alive.
People who only make $26K a year need to take a good hard look at themselves and say "How can I make the value of my labour higher, so that I'm contributing more than a minimal amount to society?" If they'd start thinking about the problem in the right way, they might be able to solve it.
> If someone is earning $26K a year, then this means that their labour isn't worth any more than twenty-six thousand dollars to anyone else.
This is trivially true.
>if your labour is only worth $26K this means you're contributing very little of any value to society
This is way, way wrong. This is a very pervasive error in reasoning. Just because someone is only willing to pay X amount for your labor, doesn't mean that labor is worth X amount to society. When there are a lot of people willing to perform said labor, that pushes down the monetary value of that labor. This is completely independent of its value to society.
If I knew some magic incantation that would cure cancer, this action would be invaluable to society. But if I taught 1 million people how to perform it, the cure for cancer's value to society does not decrease.
The problem is that people conflate value in the moral sense with monetary worth. Thus when someone's labor can only bring in 26K a year in the marketplace, somehow its seen as a moral failing on their part. It serves to transfer the burden of finding a place in society completely on the individual, instead of where it belongs; on society as a whole.
This is trivially true.
>if your labour is only worth $26K this means you're contributing very little of any value to society
This is way, way wrong. This is a very pervasive error in reasoning. Just because someone is only willing to pay X amount for your labor, doesn't mean that labor is worth X amount to society. When there are a lot of people willing to perform said labor, that pushes down the monetary value of that labor. This is completely independent of its value to society.
If I knew some magic incantation that would cure cancer, this action would be invaluable to society. But if I taught 1 million people how to perform it, the cure for cancer's value to society does not decrease.
The problem is that people conflate value in the moral sense with monetary worth. Thus when someone's labor can only bring in 26K a year in the marketplace, somehow its seen as a moral failing on their part. It serves to transfer the burden of finding a place in society completely on the individual, instead of where it belongs; on society as a whole.
By the time a million people have learned the incantation, the value of teaching it to one more person is much lower, because it was already pretty easy to find one. No matter how important the labor is, at some point we have enough people doing it, and the pay is supposed to be a signal that attracts people to other needs which aren't being met.
No argument from me there. But this is where I think the burden is also on society, not solely on the individual to reinvent themselves to find a niche. The purpose of society is to manage scarce resources. No one has a "right" to more resources than the next guy, simply because he has a particular skill. It is society that sets up the environment for these vasts imbalances of distribution, where an 'arbitrary' skill can reward you with vast amounts of wealth. Thus it is the burden of society to create mechanisms to balance this distribution.
Capitalism is preferable because it can manage resources better than any central planning can (at least pre-strong AI), but since imbalance is inherent in capitalism its also imperative to provide opportunities to mitigate imbalances within the system, in the form of education, skill training, etc.
Capitalism is preferable because it can manage resources better than any central planning can (at least pre-strong AI), but since imbalance is inherent in capitalism its also imperative to provide opportunities to mitigate imbalances within the system, in the form of education, skill training, etc.
>>if your labour is only worth $26K this means you're
>>contributing very little of any value to society
>This is way, way wrong. This is a very pervasive error in >reasoning. Just because someone is only willing to pay X >amount for your labor, doesn't mean that labor is worth X >amount to society. When there are a lot of people willing >to perform said labor, that pushes down the monetary value >of that labor. This is completely independent of its value >to society
bzzt, wrong - if you're paid less it means your skill is of less value to society - supply is just a part of the equation. No one wants a cat chef - the skill is worthless to society - even if you are the only one that can fillet a cat.
Your last paragraph is dead-on, though. Societal worth does not equate to moral worth - on a moral scale, all men are equal. On a societal scale, not so much.
>This is way, way wrong. This is a very pervasive error in >reasoning. Just because someone is only willing to pay X >amount for your labor, doesn't mean that labor is worth X >amount to society. When there are a lot of people willing >to perform said labor, that pushes down the monetary value >of that labor. This is completely independent of its value >to society
bzzt, wrong - if you're paid less it means your skill is of less value to society - supply is just a part of the equation. No one wants a cat chef - the skill is worthless to society - even if you are the only one that can fillet a cat.
Your last paragraph is dead-on, though. Societal worth does not equate to moral worth - on a moral scale, all men are equal. On a societal scale, not so much.
>if you're paid less it means your skill is of less value to society
Nope. The point is that someone is willing to pay for a skill does not equal what that skill is worth to society. I think my example explains the distinction well, you've said nothing to refute it. People love to refer to market value as if it correlates with actual worth. This is just wrong. There are plenty of instances of things that have much value but the market cannot price them properly.
Nope. The point is that someone is willing to pay for a skill does not equal what that skill is worth to society. I think my example explains the distinction well, you've said nothing to refute it. People love to refer to market value as if it correlates with actual worth. This is just wrong. There are plenty of instances of things that have much value but the market cannot price them properly.
I disagree that someone making $26000/year is not contributing to society for many reasons. First, Job != Purpose. There are plenty of people who do a lot for very little money. Maybe they contribute outside of work. Second, how much you make != your contribution to society. There are people making millions that are detrimental to society. Lastly, wages are based on supply and demand. You if you the same thing that millions of other people do you will get paid less. It doesn't matter how important it is.
Seriously? Income = social contribution?
By your logic, all volunteer work is worthless. Likewise, a mother raising their child to become a good citizen has no value if they are not paid for it.
To put this into better perspective, consider the hypothetical that parents didn't toilet train their children. What would the cost to business be if they couldn't externalize this training to society?
By your logic, all volunteer work is worthless. Likewise, a mother raising their child to become a good citizen has no value if they are not paid for it.
To put this into better perspective, consider the hypothetical that parents didn't toilet train their children. What would the cost to business be if they couldn't externalize this training to society?
You are assuming a Perfectly Competitive market for labor, free of structural disparities or external demand/supply shocks. You're also assuming that all employers take Normal Profits without collecting economic rents.
A lot of what people consider "talent" is arguably due to the right upbringing and social connections.
Luckily, the recession is causing the wealth disparity to decrease.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/the-1-ai...
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/the-1-ai...
Yes, but this isn't a good thing. The solution isn't to make the rich poor. It is to make sure everyone else can make more.
Nobody's suggesting making the rich poor. Increasing taxes by 10 or 20% on someone making over 250K a year will cost them another $800 or so a month in taxes.
To say that's making the rich "poor" is, frankly, offensive to people who actually are poor.
It's great to say we should enact policy that makes everyone richer. But it's basically saying something everyone can be in favor of because it has no concrete meaning.
Taxing the rich more so that everyone else can get better education and healthcare will make "everyone richer" in that it should raise per-capita GDP, but I don't think that's what you mean.
To say that's making the rich "poor" is, frankly, offensive to people who actually are poor.
It's great to say we should enact policy that makes everyone richer. But it's basically saying something everyone can be in favor of because it has no concrete meaning.
Taxing the rich more so that everyone else can get better education and healthcare will make "everyone richer" in that it should raise per-capita GDP, but I don't think that's what you mean.
It's hard to understand how you could be surprised that 97% of Americans make less than $140,000.
Some 30% of Americans have a Bachelor's Degree or higher.
According to the Census, the median income for people with a Master's Degree is $54K (for ages 25-64), while those with only a High School diploma get $22K.
We need to improve our education situation 15 years ago, IMHO.
Edit: I'm going to edit this because people seem to think I'm suggesting a causal relationship here. I'm not. People with Master's Degrees tend to be highly trained in their field. It's not particularly surprising they tend to earn more.
If you invest the time to make yourself less replaceable, you will earn more money.
According to the Census, the median income for people with a Master's Degree is $54K (for ages 25-64), while those with only a High School diploma get $22K.
We need to improve our education situation 15 years ago, IMHO.
Edit: I'm going to edit this because people seem to think I'm suggesting a causal relationship here. I'm not. People with Master's Degrees tend to be highly trained in their field. It's not particularly surprising they tend to earn more.
If you invest the time to make yourself less replaceable, you will earn more money.
<sarcasm> Clearly they all need to apply to Phoenix University, get a $60K loan from Uncle Sam so they too can get that sweet $54K job </sarcasm>
Not saying that education is not lacking but rather that there is a already a predatory system set up to get this people deeper in dept without necessarily providing a better chance at getting job.
Not saying that education is not lacking but rather that there is a already a predatory system set up to get this people deeper in dept without necessarily providing a better chance at getting job.
The problem is that those degrees don't mean anything in most professions. They are used by those with the degree to get more money and used by the employers to pay less to those that don't have them. I know in my profession I have worked to MIT grads that are just a stupid as those with no degree.
Statistics like this just encourage people to spend lots of money on useless degrees that will take a long time to pay off. (I know some of these people.) I doubt a philosophy degree will get you more money anywhere other than as a philosophy professor.
If they were educated properly, they'd know better before they got to college. Again, IMHO.
It's not in the education system's best interests to tell you not to get a higher degree. Anyway, many of the teachers you'd ask probably get hired because of their degree, so even if they give you an honest answer, they're incredible biased.
So if everybody in the country had a masters degree people would all earn 2.5x as much?
Obviously an increase in PhD programs in french-fry frying would raise incomes even further.
Obviously an increase in PhD programs in french-fry frying would raise incomes even further.
The point is not to make money. The point is not to get a PhD. The point isn't even to get a degree.
The point, if you want a job, is to be competitive in a cutting edge field.
I'll start worrying about what happens when everyone has a Master's Degree when 20% of the population has a Master's Degree.
The point, if you want a job, is to be competitive in a cutting edge field.
I'll start worrying about what happens when everyone has a Master's Degree when 20% of the population has a Master's Degree.
I do think that looking at all workers is a valid metric of how we're doing as a nation, but it is important to remember that all workers does include those working part time. It is a valid metric because there are many people out there who would like to be working full time who are not, but it can be misleading because it sort of looks like everyone took a pay cut. But that isn't the case. Some people took a pay cut. Some people had their hours cut. Some people got laid off and could only find a part time job to replace their full time job with.
> Some people took a pay cut. Some people had their hours cut. Some people got laid off and could only find a part time job to replace their full time job with.
At the end of the day that still looks like a collective pay cut. Some took a part-time pay cut, some took a paycut down to 0.
From what I hear from people working in retail (I am sure it is true for other places as well), employers are cutting everyone to part time hours so they don't have to pay benefits. So people find 2 part time jobs to make ends meet. They effectively work full time and more , but now they don't have health benefits. First trip to the hospital and it is all over, they can't get out of dept, ever.
At the end of the day that still looks like a collective pay cut. Some took a part-time pay cut, some took a paycut down to 0.
From what I hear from people working in retail (I am sure it is true for other places as well), employers are cutting everyone to part time hours so they don't have to pay benefits. So people find 2 part time jobs to make ends meet. They effectively work full time and more , but now they don't have health benefits. First trip to the hospital and it is all over, they can't get out of dept, ever.
Wouldn't disagree with you at all.
I'd like to see this data over a longer time period. Or compared to a similar time span around the Great Depression. Similarly, I'd like to see data on a global scale. I'd imagine the gap is continuously widening. Markets constantly shift, this may be a second re-adjustment from the dot.com bubble, just the "99 percent" are adjusting as the 1% goes the other way.
No the gap is not continuously widening everywhere. It rises and falls a lot. There is one measure and a historical chart in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
This is one of those charts that is great for grant writing (if you get your local area data) or making a point in an article, but doesn't really tell you the whole story. It doesn't list all the income and really doesn't give you a real picture based on family make-up. Don't get me wrong, its useful data, but it can be used in a very poor manner.
These figures are interesting, but you really need to take into account cost of living to get an accurate picture of poverty. $26,000/year would barely cover my rent for a tiny one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco, whereas in other places, it's enough to live somewhat comfortably.
More on this topic:
http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/
It's bad out there. Most people live lives of quiet desperation.
http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/
It's bad out there. Most people live lives of quiet desperation.
Judging by the hordes of people on the streets with signs, desperation doesn't sound so quiet lately.
"Hordes?"
15% of the country lives in poverty. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewante...)
Imagine what it would look like if 1 in 6 people took to the streets. 50 million. That's a horde.
15% of the country lives in poverty. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewante...)
Imagine what it would look like if 1 in 6 people took to the streets. 50 million. That's a horde.
Oh purleez. There's what, a couple of thousand of 'em nationwide? The same damn crowd that protests.... everything?
That goes for people rich and poor. We all have to face death.
This is only for income reported on a W2, i.e. employees. So the "top 1%" is the top 1% of individuals paid by a company, not the actual owners themselves (although I suppose they could be the same). The top 1% include a ton of business owners.
I am the 50%
Here in Ontario, minimum wage is $10/hour. Assuming you work 9 hours a day, 6 days a week:
10 * 9 * 6 * 52 = $28,080 / year
No, I don't think 54 hours / week is too much to ask. I'm sure most people making over the 26k probably work more than that. Yes, I know this is Canada, but it's just an example.
10 * 9 * 6 * 52 = $28,080 / year
No, I don't think 54 hours / week is too much to ask. I'm sure most people making over the 26k probably work more than that. Yes, I know this is Canada, but it's just an example.
There are currently only five provinces/territories in Canada that mandate a minimum wage at or above $10/hour. Those are Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Nunavut. Even then, Manitoba and Nova Scotia only made it to that level on the first of this month. Nunavut is an anomaly in and of itself because everything is expensive as hell up there - it has a ridiculous cost of living from what I'm told - because it's remote and shipping supplies is costly.
Also, why do you think it's acceptable for people to only have one day a week away from work? Why is a nine hour workday acceptable? Are you taking into consideration that lower income workers are more likely to have to live further from work, and use public transportation to get to and from their place of employment (or to the grocery store, etc. but that's outside of my argument). So these people should have to work nine hours a day, plus any unpaid breaks they take. IIRC, my girlfriend is paid for breaks but not for lunch, so let's add a half an hour to this example to accommodate that. So we're at 9.5 hours per day, six days per week. Now, the worker has to walk to their bus stop - and to do it early so as not to possibly miss the bus - and maybe take a 15, or even 30, minute bus ride. They do that twice a day, to get to and from work. That's adding possibly an hour, or even more, to their day. So you're advocating that asking someone to spend nearly 11 hours a day, six days a week?
My first job out of college, doing some shitty COBOL programming, was 42.5 hours per week (40 working hours, plus an unpaid half hour a day for lunch). Because I was making enough cash to afford it, I lived within walking distance of work. It added maybe 15 minutes per day to walk to and from my job. I made between 38 and 43k for this, depending on when in my employment you asked me.
So why does it make so much sense for you to ask someone to spend an average of 66 hours a week of their time to make $28k, when I spent about 44 hours a week to make $43k?
I'm not even including the few weeks that I had to put in extra hours - no week ever really exceeding 60 hours from my recollection - at various crunch times, since I was paid out for that time, and the outlier in time was met by an outlier in pay. My hourly wage exceeded minimum wage by more than double, so including that would only skew the calculations further away from your argument.
Also, why do you think it's acceptable for people to only have one day a week away from work? Why is a nine hour workday acceptable? Are you taking into consideration that lower income workers are more likely to have to live further from work, and use public transportation to get to and from their place of employment (or to the grocery store, etc. but that's outside of my argument). So these people should have to work nine hours a day, plus any unpaid breaks they take. IIRC, my girlfriend is paid for breaks but not for lunch, so let's add a half an hour to this example to accommodate that. So we're at 9.5 hours per day, six days per week. Now, the worker has to walk to their bus stop - and to do it early so as not to possibly miss the bus - and maybe take a 15, or even 30, minute bus ride. They do that twice a day, to get to and from work. That's adding possibly an hour, or even more, to their day. So you're advocating that asking someone to spend nearly 11 hours a day, six days a week?
My first job out of college, doing some shitty COBOL programming, was 42.5 hours per week (40 working hours, plus an unpaid half hour a day for lunch). Because I was making enough cash to afford it, I lived within walking distance of work. It added maybe 15 minutes per day to walk to and from my job. I made between 38 and 43k for this, depending on when in my employment you asked me.
So why does it make so much sense for you to ask someone to spend an average of 66 hours a week of their time to make $28k, when I spent about 44 hours a week to make $43k?
I'm not even including the few weeks that I had to put in extra hours - no week ever really exceeding 60 hours from my recollection - at various crunch times, since I was paid out for that time, and the outlier in time was met by an outlier in pay. My hourly wage exceeded minimum wage by more than double, so including that would only skew the calculations further away from your argument.
So why does it make so much sense for you to ask someone to spend an average of 66 hours a week of their time to make $28k, when I spent about 44 hours a week to make $43k?
Why did you include commute time in their payment, and exclude it in yours?
I'm not sure what you're doing, but even in my summer internship I spent a good 10-11 hours a day, excluding commute time working. I wasn't even paid hourly. Most of my friends working proper jobs, in finance and tech spend at least 10 hours a day working - usually more.
Why did you include commute time in their payment, and exclude it in yours?
I'm not sure what you're doing, but even in my summer internship I spent a good 10-11 hours a day, excluding commute time working. I wasn't even paid hourly. Most of my friends working proper jobs, in finance and tech spend at least 10 hours a day working - usually more.
> Why did you include commute time in their payment, and exclude it in yours?
I didn't. I used myself as the example, explaining that because I could afford better accommodations, specifically an apartment close to work, that my travel time was minimized. My point there was that lower income workers can't afford to be as selective in where they live as can workers with a higher income, and that they are more reliant on cheaper, yet less time-efficient, modes of travel.
Having said that, I will admit that by using my situation as the example, I may have biased the analogy a bit. I overestimated the average travel time for lower income workers, and underestimated the average travel time for higher income workers. While I think it's important to note the variable of travel time, it was possibly unfair to include it in the summation.
I can't speak to your example, because I don't think I'd stay in a job where 50-55 hour weeks were the norm. Overtime is fine when it's used properly, but there's a reason they call it a "9-5" job. If you go beyond that, you'll get burned out and be less efficient.
Americans do seem to have a different view on working than do other countries, even compared to Canadians like me, so this could just be a cultural difference. I don't think it is though, even in the States.
I can't think of any of my friends or family - an admittedly small data set - who work more than a 40 hour week on average. In Canada, I believe there are legal protections, at least in some provinces, which prevent you from working too much without adequate compensation (e.g. time and a half for hours over 40, double time for holidays, etc.) I sometimes had to work more than 40 for "straight pay", but that was apparently due to loopholes for salaried and/or on-call employees.
I didn't. I used myself as the example, explaining that because I could afford better accommodations, specifically an apartment close to work, that my travel time was minimized. My point there was that lower income workers can't afford to be as selective in where they live as can workers with a higher income, and that they are more reliant on cheaper, yet less time-efficient, modes of travel.
Having said that, I will admit that by using my situation as the example, I may have biased the analogy a bit. I overestimated the average travel time for lower income workers, and underestimated the average travel time for higher income workers. While I think it's important to note the variable of travel time, it was possibly unfair to include it in the summation.
I can't speak to your example, because I don't think I'd stay in a job where 50-55 hour weeks were the norm. Overtime is fine when it's used properly, but there's a reason they call it a "9-5" job. If you go beyond that, you'll get burned out and be less efficient.
Americans do seem to have a different view on working than do other countries, even compared to Canadians like me, so this could just be a cultural difference. I don't think it is though, even in the States.
I can't think of any of my friends or family - an admittedly small data set - who work more than a 40 hour week on average. In Canada, I believe there are legal protections, at least in some provinces, which prevent you from working too much without adequate compensation (e.g. time and a half for hours over 40, double time for holidays, etc.) I sometimes had to work more than 40 for "straight pay", but that was apparently due to loopholes for salaried and/or on-call employees.
I feel truly sorry for you. That's not normal, and it's sad that you think it is. It's also generally illegal, both in the US and Canada, if you're doing it for one employer and not getting time and a half.
Good employers insist you not work those kinds of hours to begin with, they know it does not increase productivity in the long run, in fact having the opposite effect, and leads to burnout and health problems.
At best, you are accomplishing nothing working those hours regularly. At worst, you are seriously harming your long-term health.
Edit: By the way, Statistics Canada provides some numbers you should look at:
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/labr81a-eng.htm
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/labr82-eng.htm
Good employers insist you not work those kinds of hours to begin with, they know it does not increase productivity in the long run, in fact having the opposite effect, and leads to burnout and health problems.
At best, you are accomplishing nothing working those hours regularly. At worst, you are seriously harming your long-term health.
Edit: By the way, Statistics Canada provides some numbers you should look at:
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/labr81a-eng.htm
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/labr82-eng.htm
> At worst, you are seriously harming your long-term health.
Not even long-term health. This can affect you quicker than you might think.
During one particular crunch time, I was working long hours on a regular basis (crunch time here being "after the project had continued years after it's originally scheduled end date, we were given a hard deadline a few months in the future, so everything was a "crunch" until then). I wasn't sleeping right, and one morning I came in looking like hell. My boss - my nice boss, anyway - diverted us when we went for our morning coffee. He took me to the pharmacy instead, and bought me a bottle of Valerian pills. If that isn't a warning sign, I don't know what is.
Also, I ended up on a stress leave for a couple weeks after a while. Without the constant pressure of work, my body finally relaxed. When it did, I ended up getting strep throat and general body aches. It could be coincidence, but I tend to think that I worked myself so hard that I actually compromised my own immune system.
I don't have a problem working long hours over short periods of time when it's properly needed, but I won't ever let myself work a job where that's the norm for extended periods of time (or, god forbid, all the time) again.
Not even long-term health. This can affect you quicker than you might think.
During one particular crunch time, I was working long hours on a regular basis (crunch time here being "after the project had continued years after it's originally scheduled end date, we were given a hard deadline a few months in the future, so everything was a "crunch" until then). I wasn't sleeping right, and one morning I came in looking like hell. My boss - my nice boss, anyway - diverted us when we went for our morning coffee. He took me to the pharmacy instead, and bought me a bottle of Valerian pills. If that isn't a warning sign, I don't know what is.
Also, I ended up on a stress leave for a couple weeks after a while. Without the constant pressure of work, my body finally relaxed. When it did, I ended up getting strep throat and general body aches. It could be coincidence, but I tend to think that I worked myself so hard that I actually compromised my own immune system.
I don't have a problem working long hours over short periods of time when it's properly needed, but I won't ever let myself work a job where that's the norm for extended periods of time (or, god forbid, all the time) again.
There are a whole bunch of things I find troubling about your comment.
- Minimum wage in Canada != minimum wage in the U.S.
- Economy in Canada != economy in U.S.
- Canada has free health care, blunting the impact of a low wage job without benefits (as opposed to the U.S. where a lack of health insurance can be devastating)
- Not everyone with a minimum wage job is able to work all the hours they would like to work.
And that is without touching on whether or not you think a 54 hour work week is a reasonable thing to ask someone, possibly with children, to be working at some unfulfilling minimum wage job.
- Minimum wage in Canada != minimum wage in the U.S.
- Economy in Canada != economy in U.S.
- Canada has free health care, blunting the impact of a low wage job without benefits (as opposed to the U.S. where a lack of health insurance can be devastating)
- Not everyone with a minimum wage job is able to work all the hours they would like to work.
And that is without touching on whether or not you think a 54 hour work week is a reasonable thing to ask someone, possibly with children, to be working at some unfulfilling minimum wage job.
>Canada has free health care, blunting the impact of a low wage job without benefits
Health care isn't free, it's just heavily subsidized. Depending on your province, you can expect to pay about $750 a year to cover your end of basic coverage. Vision, dental, and prescriptions aren't covered, and most people have supplementary coverage for them.
Of course, for low wage earners and students there are various programs in place that can drop the amount you pay to basically nil. There's no deductible for most things (doctors, er, surgery, etc) either, which is handy.
Health care isn't free, it's just heavily subsidized. Depending on your province, you can expect to pay about $750 a year to cover your end of basic coverage. Vision, dental, and prescriptions aren't covered, and most people have supplementary coverage for them.
Of course, for low wage earners and students there are various programs in place that can drop the amount you pay to basically nil. There's no deductible for most things (doctors, er, surgery, etc) either, which is handy.
> Depending on your province, you can expect to pay about $750 a year to cover your end of basic coverage.
Are you referring to the amount of tax that goes toward support of the healthcare system, or out-of-pocket expenses?
If it's the latter, can you tell me which provinces those are so that I can avoid them? I lived in Ontario from birth until I was 21, and have lived in Nova Scotia since then. Outside of minor costs like the uninsured portions of my dental work and prescriptions (I know there's a word for this, but I don't know it off hand), I've never had to pay for my healthcare.
Supplemental coverage - as you said, vision, dental, and drugs - are typically provided by your employer. I don't really know how many people buy extra on top of that. Maybe when you have kids it becomes more important, but I'm not there yet.
I will definitely agree with your "health care isn't free" statement. It's surprising how many people seem to think it is free in Canada, but it's just a much less noticeable cost. It's rolled in with our taxes, so we just don't think about how much of our tax will go for healthcare. It's just tax. "Out of sight; out of mind" and all that.
Are you referring to the amount of tax that goes toward support of the healthcare system, or out-of-pocket expenses?
If it's the latter, can you tell me which provinces those are so that I can avoid them? I lived in Ontario from birth until I was 21, and have lived in Nova Scotia since then. Outside of minor costs like the uninsured portions of my dental work and prescriptions (I know there's a word for this, but I don't know it off hand), I've never had to pay for my healthcare.
Supplemental coverage - as you said, vision, dental, and drugs - are typically provided by your employer. I don't really know how many people buy extra on top of that. Maybe when you have kids it becomes more important, but I'm not there yet.
I will definitely agree with your "health care isn't free" statement. It's surprising how many people seem to think it is free in Canada, but it's just a much less noticeable cost. It's rolled in with our taxes, so we just don't think about how much of our tax will go for healthcare. It's just tax. "Out of sight; out of mind" and all that.
In BC, when I turned 26 and was booted off my mom's (excellent) healthcare plan, I got a bill from MSP for $750. As I'm still in school and my current 8 month co-op is evenly split between this and next year, thus making my earnings in either year insufficient to pay tax, that will drop to basically $0 once I fill out the proper forms. Still, that's on top of the ~$300/year for my student health plan, so while a bargain it's still not negligible. It's about the same as a basic plan for an iPhone, and people have no trouble complaining about that.
I think I knew that BC had a pay program like that, but it just seems foreign to me. OHIP and MSI are entirely covered by taxes, so I've never had to pay the government for my healthcare directly.
[deleted]
> $750 a year to cover your end of basic coverage
That might as well be free.
I pay almost $7,000/year in California for good (by US standards) medical coverage. That includes some prescription coverage, but not vision or dental. I'm in a low-risk age group, I'll let you guess what my premiums would look like if I were, say, 50. :)
That might as well be free.
I pay almost $7,000/year in California for good (by US standards) medical coverage. That includes some prescription coverage, but not vision or dental. I'm in a low-risk age group, I'll let you guess what my premiums would look like if I were, say, 50. :)
You mentioned your numbers are for Canada but I'd like to point out some things about the US.
8 hours a day is the norm here. A lot of the minimum wage workers (lower than 10$ an hour) work even fewer than the 40 hours that would constitute full time as a way to reduce businesses supposed obligation to cover healthcare / 401k / etc. I've seen in my experience many workers get cut off between 35 and 38 hours in a week to avoid this.
I would anticipate that very few people, less than 5%, of people making over 26k in the US work more than 54 hours a week... It just isn't done that way here.
8 hours a day is the norm here. A lot of the minimum wage workers (lower than 10$ an hour) work even fewer than the 40 hours that would constitute full time as a way to reduce businesses supposed obligation to cover healthcare / 401k / etc. I've seen in my experience many workers get cut off between 35 and 38 hours in a week to avoid this.
I would anticipate that very few people, less than 5%, of people making over 26k in the US work more than 54 hours a week... It just isn't done that way here.
…or they're doing so at more than one job.
It's the norm here in Canada too. There's a trade-off you need to make though, between making a lot of money, and making little.
My father worked three jobs when I was growing up, to support our family. He never complained about wealth inequality; he just did what he had to. Sure, it'd be nice if everyone got paid a lot of money - but since that's never going to happen, people might need to adjust what the norm is.
My father worked three jobs when I was growing up, to support our family. He never complained about wealth inequality; he just did what he had to. Sure, it'd be nice if everyone got paid a lot of money - but since that's never going to happen, people might need to adjust what the norm is.
In Canada, the standard work week is 40 hours. Often it's 37.5.
52? 6 days a week? Not every job allows for it. You want to abolish week-ends? Come on.
52? 6 days a week? Not every job allows for it. You want to abolish week-ends? Come on.
Your math is suspect even here in Canada. First, for nonexempt employees (hourly), anything over 40 hours is considered overtime (1.5 rate); there may be a second point where it's double-time, but I'm not sure. So employees who can work 54 hours a week (which is an unreasonable working time, IMO) 52 weeks a year (which is also unreasonable in a civilized society) and their employers give it to them, will make more than $28k (by about $70 / week).
The Federal Minimum Wage in the U.S. is $7.25.
The Federal Minimum Wage in the U.S. is $7.25.
As a fairly young person whose health isn't that great, I find your assertion that 54 hours/week is "not too much to ask" to be disturbing, to say the least, particularly for that kind of crap pay.
I'm lucky when I can do a full 40, and I make a lot more than $26k. A LOT more.
I'm lucky when I can do a full 40, and I make a lot more than $26k. A LOT more.
Yeah, that is pretty crap pay, and I certainly wouldn't work 54 hours a week for it - but that's because I can get much more, for about the same amount of work. That isn't the same for everyone.
Several of my friends, while great people, unfortunately have a close-to-minimum-wage skill set. I'm just saying that these people who are making so little could make more, if they put in more time.
Several of my friends, while great people, unfortunately have a close-to-minimum-wage skill set. I'm just saying that these people who are making so little could make more, if they put in more time.
going to the linked pages, I find this part a little more interesting (National average wage index):
2006 38,651.41
2007 40,405.48
2008 41,334.97
2009 40,711.61
2010 41,673.83The average is frankly, fairly uninteresting given what the distribution looks like. It's not a "typical" income, or the 50th percentile. It's just basically the sum of income divided by the number of earners.
Reminds me of the old saw about how when Bill Gates walks into a bar, everyone turns into a millionaire, on average.
Reminds me of the old saw about how when Bill Gates walks into a bar, everyone turns into a millionaire, on average.
Well, I was interested because 2009 is the only dip year in their data. The distribution data is not as interesting to me given what they ignore in income and location.
Yeah, but you don't know if it's a dip because the typical person made less, or the richest 1% made less. Given that 2009 was a recession, you'd expect average to be down either way (since population didn't change appreciably.)
That's the problem with averages.
That's the problem with averages.
That's the thing though, it is the only dip in their data. I am really curious how other recession periods didn't have the dip.
Could just be a timing issue. Recessions are measured on quarterly performance, this is annual. So you could have two quarters of negative growth in a row (a recession) and still have overall positive growth for the year.
Also, wages/employment are sticky because of the friction in changing them... companies will generally change comp slower than the change in sales (in both directions.)
Also, wages/employment are sticky because of the friction in changing them... companies will generally change comp slower than the change in sales (in both directions.)
Not to take away from the point, but I'm always initially skeptical of statistics.
For example, this is also true:
50% of all taxpayers make less than the median EVERY DAY
For example, this is also true:
50% of all taxpayers make less than the median EVERY DAY
An actually interesting statistic: two thirds of workers make less than the average every day.
That should disturb you, especially in comparison to that stat decades ago.
That should disturb you, especially in comparison to that stat decades ago.
These numbers seem implausibly low. How are they derived?
It says they come from W-2 filings. But do they bother to match up different W-2 filings from the same person? i.e. if I work two part-time jobs, are those added up? Or even if I switch jobs part way through the year?
Of course it doesn't include income from non-work sources (investment income etc), though that shouldn't change the median that much since people in the lower half don't have all that much in passive income.
Of course it doesn't include tips either (or it can -- reporting of tips on W-2s is, as I understand it, complicated and whatever the law is, it isn't followed).
It says they come from W-2 filings. But do they bother to match up different W-2 filings from the same person? i.e. if I work two part-time jobs, are those added up? Or even if I switch jobs part way through the year?
Of course it doesn't include income from non-work sources (investment income etc), though that shouldn't change the median that much since people in the lower half don't have all that much in passive income.
Of course it doesn't include tips either (or it can -- reporting of tips on W-2s is, as I understand it, complicated and whatever the law is, it isn't followed).
Why do they seem low? $26k is $13/hr for someone working full time. There are a whole lot of people making less than $13/hr.
There are a lot of 'em, but I doubt they account for 50% of the working population.
A lot of people live in a bubble where the only people they know where those who they went to (expensive private) college and (wealthy suburban) high school with. At that point you literally never get to come in contact with people not as fortunate as yourself. You get to believe that everyone had the same opportunities that you had, and that those who are earning less are just lazy or entitled. I'm not accusing the parent of that, just bringing some perspective to the debate.
The legal minimum wage in Australia is $15.51, about $16 USD. I realise Americans are poor, but I had no idea it was so bad.
Don't feel bad for us, there are lots of places where things are worse. Australia, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
Adjusting for PPP, your $16 USD is only about $11.40. Australia is considerably more expensive than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
Adjusting for PPP, your $16 USD is only about $11.40. Australia is considerably more expensive than the US.
Actually Australia has the highest median wealth in the world.
http://au.ibtimes.com/news/234393/20111020/forex/australia-d...
Not sure why you think Australia is more expensive than the US. I visit the US every year and do not find this to be the case at all.
http://au.ibtimes.com/news/234393/20111020/forex/australia-d...
Not sure why you think Australia is more expensive than the US. I visit the US every year and do not find this to be the case at all.
Minimum wages vary per state in the USA. States with higher cost of living (e.g., California) typically have higher minimum wages.
$16 USD in the US goes a lot further than $16 in Oz. From what I can tell Aussies pay anywhere from 20% to 100% more than Americans for the same products if you do the currency conversion.
Sorry for being off topic I always find it weird when people use $ for non US currency. After all $ is a U superimposed on an S. Is it a common thing to use that symbol for other currencies, or is it a just easier to type thing.
Ten seconds on wikipedia would have shown you that the use of this symbol to denote dollars and pesos predates (if just barely) the founding of the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_sign
So, barring time travel, I suggest that your theory about a U superimposed on an S must be wrong (at least as a causal story).
I've got to learn to stop caring about the rampant America-centrism on H.N.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_sign
So, barring time travel, I suggest that your theory about a U superimposed on an S must be wrong (at least as a causal story).
I've got to learn to stop caring about the rampant America-centrism on H.N.
My first thought was to think, Wow this really provides a strong counterargument to people who keep touting the fact that 47% of US citizens don't pay any income taxes (other than FICA). Also I was shocked to see that "The 1%" included essentially anyone making over $200K. [edit: i originally made a mistake and said $100K]
But in looking more closely, I can't tell if the numbers are based from individual W2s (meaning a single individual with two jobs might contribute two separate data points), on individual taxpayers, or individual tax filings (maybe a family).
I suspect it's one of the first two. And if that's the case, these numbers can't directly be applied to stats about poverty levels or the "99%" and the "1%" and the "47%" figures being slung around these days.
For instance, these numbers include part time workers, such as teenagers with after-school jobs. At minimum wage, working 4 hours a day for 6 days a week for 50 weeks, this person might earn ~$8K.
So it's likely that some part of that first 25% on the chart are part-time workers.
That's not to say that there aren't some families doing everything they can to make just $8K in a year, but rather that the percentages would sound different if we built the chart using only data from tax returns (not W2s) and stripped out everyone who was not attempting to work full time to support themselves or a family.
Can someone provide insight that would either debunk or validate my assumptions above?