U.S. Standard of Living Has Fallen More Than 50%. No need to worry though, people who do matter (fortune 500 CEOs) are doing just fine
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
We are back to the robber-baron days of corporate "ethics".
gradivus: We are back to the robber-baron days of corporate "ethics".
Yep!! And all the white trailer trash who make this possible think they'll be joining the elites any second, now.
Aaaaaaaaany second..
Yep!! And all the white trailer trash who make this possible think they'll be joining the elites any second, now.
Aaaaaaaaany second..
Back to liberal lies 101... do you people think anyone believes this crap? It's like, every 3 months like clock work you bring this up...
real wages do not reflect total compensation... which hasn't changed.
the irony is, it was LIEBRALS (unions) pushing for "benefits" (healthcare, etc) that created this issue. Liberals push for any policy that takes away an individual's ability to spend their own money how they want. That's why they use tax rebates instead of tax cuts (so they can force people to behave a certain way), it's why they don't want people to own their own healthcare.
But when you account for total compensation, nothing has changed in terms of income... there was a cost though and it is paid as a decrease in personal freedom.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007."
http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
real wages do not reflect total compensation... which hasn't changed.
the irony is, it was LIEBRALS (unions) pushing for "benefits" (healthcare, etc) that created this issue. Liberals push for any policy that takes away an individual's ability to spend their own money how they want. That's why they use tax rebates instead of tax cuts (so they can force people to behave a certain way), it's why they don't want people to own their own healthcare.
But when you account for total compensation, nothing has changed in terms of income... there was a cost though and it is paid as a decrease in personal freedom.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007."
http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
comicbookguy: Yep!! And all the white trailer trash who make this possible think they'll be joining the elites any second, now.
Aaaaaaaaany second..
Well I know I've bought my powerball ticket.
Aaaaaaaaany second..
Well I know I've bought my powerball ticket.
gahbrone: Back to liberal lies 101... do you people think anyone believes this crap? It's like, every 3 months like clock work you bring this up...
real wages do not reflect total compensation... which hasn't changed.
the irony is, it was LIEBRALS (unions) pushing for "benefits" (healthcare, etc) that created this issue. Liberals push for any policy that takes away an individual's ability to spend their own money how they want. That's why they use tax rebates instead of tax cuts (so they can force people to behave a certain way), it's why they don't want people to own their own healthcare.
But when you account for total compensation, nothing has changed in terms of income... there was a cost though and it is paid as a decrease in personal freedom.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007."
http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
Well you have completely ignored cost of living increases and peppered the facts with your opinions as if they were both equal.
real wages do not reflect total compensation... which hasn't changed.
the irony is, it was LIEBRALS (unions) pushing for "benefits" (healthcare, etc) that created this issue. Liberals push for any policy that takes away an individual's ability to spend their own money how they want. That's why they use tax rebates instead of tax cuts (so they can force people to behave a certain way), it's why they don't want people to own their own healthcare.
But when you account for total compensation, nothing has changed in terms of income... there was a cost though and it is paid as a decrease in personal freedom.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007."
http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
Well you have completely ignored cost of living increases and peppered the facts with your opinions as if they were both equal.
gradivus: Well you have completely ignored cost of living increases and peppered the facts with your opinions as if they were both equal.
indeed, b/c total compensation not changing is my opinion.
indeed, b/c total compensation not changing is my opinion.
gahbrone: indeed, b/c total compensation not changing is my opinion.
More about the "liberals" controlling everyone with health insurance spending(when liberals pushed for a single payer healthcare system in the last few years if you were paying attention and it was shot down in favor of the republicans plan to just stick everyone on insurance).
And you still ignored cost of living increases while wages remain stagnant.
More about the "liberals" controlling everyone with health insurance spending(when liberals pushed for a single payer healthcare system in the last few years if you were paying attention and it was shot down in favor of the republicans plan to just stick everyone on insurance).
And you still ignored cost of living increases while wages remain stagnant.
gradivus:
And you still ignored cost of living increases while wages remain stagnant.
Continue to reject reality, but you can't change facts.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
And you still ignored cost of living increases while wages remain stagnant.
Continue to reject reality, but you can't change facts.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
gahbrone: Continue to reject reality, but you can't change facts.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
So........ that doesnt mean anything when the cost of living INCREASED, all that shows is wages have stagnated since the 60s.
We should also look at CEO compensation as a % of national income, its magically INCREASED.
So to summarize, workers have stagnant wages, increased cost of living leading to a FALL in the standard of living.
Facts, they mean stuff.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
So........ that doesnt mean anything when the cost of living INCREASED, all that shows is wages have stagnated since the 60s.
We should also look at CEO compensation as a % of national income, its magically INCREASED.
So to summarize, workers have stagnant wages, increased cost of living leading to a FALL in the standard of living.
Facts, they mean stuff.
gradivus: So........ that doesnt mean anything when the cost of living INCREASED, all that sh.
Were you hit on the head as a child?
You continue to talk about wages when that is irrelevant to this discusion? Errors in how inflation is accounted for are central to the discussion, but you didn't even bother to read it.
No matter. You'll just continue to spew whatever crap you "want" to be true.
Were you hit on the head as a child?
You continue to talk about wages when that is irrelevant to this discusion? Errors in how inflation is accounted for are central to the discussion, but you didn't even bother to read it.
No matter. You'll just continue to spew whatever crap you "want" to be true.
smells like pony.
gahbrone: Were you hit on the head as a child?
You continue to talk about wages when that is irrelevant to this discusion? Errors in how inflation is accounted for are central to the discussion, but you didn't even bother to read it.
No matter. You'll just continue to spew whatever crap you "want" to be true.
My standard of living has fallen greatly. My wife and kids are 300 miles away while I live in the ghetto and still don't make enough to get them off of food stamps.
You continue to talk about wages when that is irrelevant to this discusion? Errors in how inflation is accounted for are central to the discussion, but you didn't even bother to read it.
No matter. You'll just continue to spew whatever crap you "want" to be true.
My standard of living has fallen greatly. My wife and kids are 300 miles away while I live in the ghetto and still don't make enough to get them off of food stamps.
I get criticized for pointing this out, but we are an empire in decline and rapidly becoming a third world nation and one of the standards I use is the fact that it's no longer even possible to become upwardly mobile anymore. The entire system is designed to keep you as a wage slave your entire life and even the conservatives are very slowly starting to realize that things are not the same as they were fifty years ago.
gahbrone: Continue to reject reality, but you can't change facts.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
What is the distribution of that income across population?
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
What is the distribution of that income across population?
gahbrone: Back to liberal lies 101... do you people think anyone believes this crap? It's like, every 3 months like clock work you bring this up...
It is the politics of distraction. don't look at our record... don't look at our scandals... don;t realize we have NO PLANS and all we do is say how the GOP's plans are bad. Look at how bad you are and we need more time.
It is the politics of distraction. don't look at our record... don't look at our scandals... don;t realize we have NO PLANS and all we do is say how the GOP's plans are bad. Look at how bad you are and we need more time.
Wow. Spittle and misinformation doesn't seem to be working as a debate tactic.
If Obama gets re-elected maybe he can try to revive that budget that his debt commission came up with years ago. I liked that one. Plenty of spending cuts, tax reform and revenue gains.
so vote republican: What is the distribution of that income across population?
Read the damn source. Unless you want me to copy and paste the entire thing here.
Read the damn source. Unless you want me to copy and paste the entire thing here.
gahbrone: Were you hit on the head as a child?
You continue to talk about wages when that is irrelevant to this discusion? Errors in how inflation is accounted for are central to the discussion, but you didn't even bother to read it.
No matter. You'll just continue to spew whatever crap you "want" to be true.
Wages are stagnant, costs are up, standards go DOWN at that point. Are you mental, get the net, live in the now!
You continue to talk about wages when that is irrelevant to this discusion? Errors in how inflation is accounted for are central to the discussion, but you didn't even bother to read it.
No matter. You'll just continue to spew whatever crap you "want" to be true.
Wages are stagnant, costs are up, standards go DOWN at that point. Are you mental, get the net, live in the now!
gradivus: Wages are stagnant, costs are up, standards go DOWN at that point. Are you mental, get the net, live in the now!
Continue to talk about something having nothing to do with reality. Or, try facts.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
Continue to talk about something having nothing to do with reality. Or, try facts.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
The source goes through each of the "arguments" you've made, which is comical... considering it's just a few paragraphs to read and you clearly didn't even click the link.
gahbrone: Continue to talk about something having nothing to do with reality. Or, try facts.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
Yes, you keep posting that same paragraph and link. Congratulations on your copy and pasting abilities. That has nothing to do with standards of living, at all, in any way shape or form.
"Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html#navDiv=6
Yes, you keep posting that same paragraph and link. Congratulations on your copy and pasting abilities. That has nothing to do with standards of living, at all, in any way shape or form.
eddyatwork: I get criticized for pointing this out, but we are an empire in decline and rapidly becoming a third world nation and one of the standards I use is the fact that it's no longer even possible to become upwardly mobile anymore. The entire system is designed to keep you as a wage slave your entire life and even the conservatives are very slowly starting to realize that things are not the same as they were fifty years ago.
People who grew up during the depression see this. My grandfather supports what I'm doing as far as making money. My parents think I'm crazy and don't understand how I could even consider this as an option.
People who grew up during the depression see this. My grandfather supports what I'm doing as far as making money. My parents think I'm crazy and don't understand how I could even consider this as an option.
gradivus: Yes, you keep posting that same paragraph and link.m.
I am not going to copy and paste the entire source... but you keep making statements that it directly addresses. So I keep referring you to the source. That you are too ignorant and stupid to click and link and read is not my problem.
I am not going to copy and paste the entire source... but you keep making statements that it directly addresses. So I keep referring you to the source. That you are too ignorant and stupid to click and link and read is not my problem.
eddyatwork: I get criticized for pointing this out, but we are an empire in decline and rapidly becoming a third world nation
It is not possible for us to become a third-world nation. We are, by definition, aligned with ourselves.
eddyatwork: and one of the standards I use is the fact that it's no longer even possible to become upwardly mobile anymore.
This isn't true at all.
It is not possible for us to become a third-world nation. We are, by definition, aligned with ourselves.
eddyatwork: and one of the standards I use is the fact that it's no longer even possible to become upwardly mobile anymore.
This isn't true at all.
gradivus: Yes, you keep posting that same paragraph and link. Congratulations on your copy and pasting abilities. That has nothing to do with standards of living, at all, in any way shape or form.
Hey now, any irrelevant data posted is still data and by God, fuck your own experience reality, and millions just like you. We've got a paradigm to prop up.
Hey now, any irrelevant data posted is still data and by God, fuck your own experience reality, and millions just like you. We've got a paradigm to prop up.
If you logged in, you could post here.