You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Beyond Twinkies: Why More Workers Are Striking
- Thread starter nutmeg
- Start date
Quote from Samsara:
<img src="https://motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif">
No bubble there.
Bubbles are relative.
The bubble aspect of it is the cost above replacement. As we reach a point where software and hardware can replace more and more workers and there is higher unemployment creating a pool of human workers, too, that's when the wage bubble pops. It's popping.
The relative compensation trends among various groups of workers is irrelevant to the discussion.
Practically nothing in this world is so special that there can't be a substitute for it. Human labor, of the kind that the bulk of humans are capable of doing, is no different.
Also, in typical Mother Jones "bury the lede" fashion, they don't disaggregate total productivity into "top 1% productivity gains" and "bottom 99% total productivity gains". Not saying that it is the case, but it could be the case that the top 1% rise in overall income is just them capturing their share of the productivity gains.
When a worker on an assembly line becomes more productive solely because of capital investments by upper management, why should the worker capture any of that productivity gain as income? He didn't put the capital at-risk to do so nor did he necessarily raise his skill level. Indeed, the driver of the gain may have been that the worker had fewer opportunities to screw up production by putting more onus on capital equipment, so that the worker was reduced to a babysitter for the machine.
So, when I look at that graph, I see propaganda, not information.
Quote from lwlee:
Geez, from 48k to 25k. Take home LESS than UI. No wonder they were willing to let it die.
Hostess jobs: 'Great' to 'not worth saving'
Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.
"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
So a few bakers get to decide for the entire company that their jobs aren't worth saving? It seems to me the right thing to do would have been for the bakers to take the deal and the ones that weren't happy with the pay could find other employment
Quote from logic_man:
Bubbles are relative.
The bubble aspect of it is the cost above replacement. As we reach a point where software and hardware can replace more and more workers and there is higher unemployment creating a pool of human workers, too, that's when the wage bubble pops. It's popping.
The relative compensation trends among various groups of workers is irrelevant to the discussion.
Practically nothing in this world is so special that there can't be a substitute for it. Human labor, of the kind that the bulk of humans are capable of doing, is no different.
What you are describing is not a bubble, it's structural unemployment. Those are entirely different things.
There has been no bubble in wages when normalized to median income during any significant period of time in recent history.
Quote from lwlee:
Geez, from 48k to 25k. Take home LESS than UI. No wonder they were willing to let it die.
Hostess jobs: 'Great' to 'not worth saving'
Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.
"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
$25K with benefits is still a lot more than all the non-union bakers at $20K per year without benefits. It appears that Hostess was overpaying by at least 25% in direct hourly pay alone (not counting benefits).
Quote from Samsara:
What you are describing is not a bubble, it's structural unemployment. Those are entirely different things.
There has been no bubble in wages when normalized to median income during any significant period of time in recent history.
The problem with normalizing to median income is that median income is itself an artifact of bubbles, at least it has been for the past ~15 years.
The wage bubble occurred because workers were able to demand more in wages because they knew that was the only way to afford the housing they wanted. Employers paid it because they didn't foresee the collapse of the housing bubble and they needed their employees to be able to live near enough that working for them was a viable option.
The slowing economy and the amount of competition are flattening wages even for those who are employed.
But, it's not "structural unemployment" because there aren't a lot of direct substitutes among the unemployed for each category of jobs where there are openings. Look at the stats for who is unemployed and match their skills up to the jobs that are out there. There is a huge pool of labor which is practically unemployable. But, they aren't the ones competing for jobs because the jobs that are out there require skills they don't have. Among those who are employable, unemployment is actually pretty low. But, employers are able to push down wages even among top-tier workers not because they have a huge pool of workers to replace them with, but because in the absence of any other bubbles in society, they can justify lower wages by pointing to lower employee costs.
what we need in corporate America is something more like the farm system in baseball. Corporations go into high schools, start talking to the kids point them in the right direction, and then train them in the skills needed. Those robots you talk about are just machines, and they break and need to be fixed, and it takes some skill to work with them. A 4 year college degree in Physics may not be what the employer actually needs. They know what they need and can do the training, and probably get some loyalty out of the deal.Quote from logic_man:
The problem with normalizing to median income is that median income is itself an artifact of bubbles, at least it has been for the past ~15 years.
The wage bubble occurred because workers were able to demand more in wages because they knew that was the only way to afford the housing they wanted. Employers paid it because they didn't foresee the collapse of the housing bubble and they needed their employees to be able to live near enough that working for them was a viable option.
The slowing economy and the amount of competition are flattening wages even for those who are employed.
But, it's not "structural unemployment" because there aren't a lot of direct substitutes among the unemployed for each category of jobs where there are openings. Look at the stats for who is unemployed and match their skills up to the jobs that are out there. There is a huge pool of labor which is practically unemployable. But, they aren't the ones competing for jobs because the jobs that are out there require skills they don't have. Among those who are employable, unemployment is actually pretty low. But, employers are able to push down wages even among top-tier workers not because they have a huge pool of workers to replace them with, but because in the absence of any other bubbles in society, they can justify lower wages by pointing to lower employee costs.
Quote from logic_man:
The problem with normalizing to median income is that median income is itself an artifact of bubbles, at least it has been for the past ~15 years.
The wage bubble occurred because workers were able to demand more in wages because they knew that was the only way to afford the housing they wanted. Employers paid it because they didn't foresee the collapse of the housing bubble and they needed their employees to be able to live near enough that working for them was a viable option.
Perhaps you should define your terms, since they seem to be different from common usage in economic theory. What does "bubble" mean to you, quantitatively? How much has the real median income risen over the last 15 years, since you chose that period, either in absolute terms or relative to productivity delivered per man-hour?
Quote from lwlee:
Geez, from 48k to 25k. Take home LESS than UI. No wonder they were willing to let it die.
Hostess jobs: 'Great' to 'not worth saving'
Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.
"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
The pay cuts were temporary. It was a necessary step for the company to get back to profitability.
http://www.koaa.com/news/hostess-employee-pay-cut-was-temporary/