A sad statistic? Median usual weekly real earnings from Jan 1980 to Dec 2018

In addition, I support;

a. a merit-based immigration system
b. removing the cap on high skilled immigrants, and
c. Fast-track Foreign Students once they graduate

Thus, I support Australia's immigration system

 

Yep. The rich are doing great. That's why Trump gave them another tax cut.

 

What the actual number was for January 1980 was $321. We've seen a ten % increase. Note that in '97 it had dropped to $312, and by 2014 it was only up to $330 --but none of that tells the whole picture. The numbers are just wages and total family income is more than wages. Since 1980 to now total real incomes are up 20%--


---and whether we're talking total incomes or just wages they're both now at all time highs.

 

Hardly, as typical as the come. Anyone who regularly contributed to their 401k all the years I did came out quite well. How many have been screwed by companies unable to pay the full pension funds if at all? How many have the taxpayers had to make up the difference?

85% of Pension Funds to Fail in Three Decades

Bridgewater Associates did an analysis of pension funds recently and concluded 85% of them will fail if returns average 4%.

Bridgewater notes that public pensions have just $3 trillion in assets to invest to cover future retirement payments of $10 trillion over the next many decades. It would take an investment return of roughly 9% a year to meet those obligations.

With the 30-Year long bond yielding a mere 3.5% and with stock valuation through the roof, I expect negative returns for 7-10 years.

Stretched out over 30 years, 4% seems about right. 9% is out of the question.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-jan-1980-to-dec-2018.553828/#post-1070428674

My money in my 401k is MY MONEY. No failed institution can take it from me.

 

Your ANECDOTE does not reflect REALITY for millions of hardworking Americans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/20/l-it-the-401k-is-a-failure.html

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colu...ment-Revolution-Failed-Why-401k-Isn-t-Working

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/401k-a-perfect-failure_n_1574834

https://www.demos.org/research/fail...ment-plans-are-costly-gamble-american-workers

 

It doesn't make you feel a lot better if your wife had to go to work to make ends meet.

 

Hell I was making 3.75 working a gas and bait shop in San Jose calif

 

A couple of years ago, here in Oregon, immigration officials raided a frozen vegetable plant. They deported somewhere around 150 illegal workers, fining the company in the process.

Afterwards, even after raising their wages well above Oregon's minimum wage, they had problems retaining workers. The work conditions were so bad, no one wanted to work there.

It was kept refrigerator cold and the floor was always sopping wet.

 

Hee, hee. Yeah, my oldest son thought he had found his calling when he went to work at a packing plant when he got out of high school. It took him about 2 weeks to decide that wasn't his future.

 

That's pure bull, blaming this on illegal immigrants. It's xenophobic scapegoating.

 

Your knowledge is lacking

Many republicans, myself for instance, and trump have complained about free trade with china, NAFTA, and open borders with mexico which are the reason real wages in America are stagnant

 

Welfare bums may be smarter than your son

They knew from birth that hard work was not for them

 

So we can all agree that that nonsense about "NO CHANGE" was not true. Made up.

First, the number of earners in a household does not change how much each earner's wages are. They're at an all time high. We need to deal with it.

Secondly, the suggestion that the only reason family incomes are up is because more family members are working is not true. Again. More made up numbers.

The actual numbers of families by numbers of earners show that since Jan 2017 the number of two-earner families has fallen by 107,000 and the number of one earner families has risen by 632,000.

So let's put that made up crazy fake nonsense to bed too.

 

Have 21 million people of working age here illegally would have a negative or positive effect of wages. I feel that it has a negative effect on wages. Why would it increase wages. Now it is not totally the illegals fault, I get it their country sucks and ours is better, and politicians simply do not have what it takes to address the problem. I feel this is more of the fault of Congress left side and right, they are both worthless.

 

Yeah I worked blood pit one summer while school was out. Not the best job in the world. But in the 80s not bad money.

 

Absolutely get it. Not worth what they are paying. But if they are forced to hire legals only wages would have to rise to the level that it would be worth putting up for. Which brings up the old joke, a guy asks a women would you have sex with me for 5 million dollars. She said yes. Then he ask will you have sex with more for $100. She said no what kind of women do you take me for. He replied we have established that now we are just haggling. Every has their price for doing less than desirable jobs.

 

So are you trying to say 10% over 38 years is a good thing?



I don't think your chart counts husband and wife.

 

What happened to your other chart?
Did it not fit with your story?

 

Your numbers are ten years out of date; since 2009 the trend has been back to one earner families. These are the numbers direct from census.gov (where bls.gov get's population characteristics):


We're getting a lot done. We're agreeing that median household real incomes are up and that we can both see that the latest official government %'s show a renaissance of the family.

 

That's pretty funny. But yes we are coming together.
Since 1980 the growth was in 2 and 3 earner families.
Since about 2009 the growth has been in increased hours worked.
Since 1999 the growth has been a paltry 2%. Hardly a barn burner.

 

Quoted by expat; What the actual number was for January 1980 was $321. We've seen a ten % increase. Note that in '97 it had dropped to $312, and by 2014 it was only up to $330 .. ...wages they're both now at all time highs.

the actual MEDIAN number was
the actual MEDIAN number was

Half of the workers earns BELOW median
Half of the workers earns BELOW median

• 10% of employees earn less than $11.00 per hour; therefore the remaining 90% earn more than $11.00 per hour.
• 25% earn less than $15.00; 75% earn more than $15.00.
• 50% earn less than $20.00; 50% earn more than $20.00 (The 50th percentile is called the Median).
• 75% earn less than $24.00; 25% earn more than $24.00.
• 90% earn less than $29.00; 10% earn more than $29.00.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_perc.htm

By the way, I'll tell you what's REAL; I have been volunteering for a regional food bank, and according to a face-to-face survey, the average income of our regular clients is $12.50/hr.

 

Your graph shows weekly earnings rising during to 2008 recession. I remember the recession and people getting a lot poorer during the recession, not richer.

 

People tend to layoff there least experienced workers when they are in trouble or need to save some money. So it is a little misleading.
Edit:

 

I feel like the statistic needs to include incomes by who are unemployed using the U6 unemployment measurement. I don't know if that will make the graph show more growth though.

 

Guess they're going to have to improve their working conditions.

For a long time these companies got used to the situation of not having to worry about that.

They might - gasp! - have to increase their wages even a little bit more.

Either that or take on teenagers who, as a group, may not have as high a productivity level or be as reliable or long-term