This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

9 Of The Top 10 Occupations In America Pay An Average Wage Of Less Than $35,000 A Year

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

According to stunning new numbers just released by the federal government, that we detailed yesterday, nine of the top ten most commonly held jobs in the United States pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year.  When you break that down, that means that most of these workers are making less than $3,000 a month before taxes.  And once you consider how we are being taxed into oblivion, things become even more frightening.  Can you pay a mortgage and support a family on just a couple grand a month?  Of course not.  In the old days, a single income would enable a family to live a very comfortable middle class lifestyle in most cases.  But now those days are long gone. 

In 2014, both parents are expected to work, and in many cases both of them have to get multiple jobs just in order to break even at the end of the month.  The decline in the quality of our jobs is a huge reason for the implosion of the middle class in this country.  You can't have a middle class without middle class jobs, and we have witnessed a multi-decade decline in middle class jobs in the United States.  As long as this trend continues, the middle class is going to continue to shrink.

The following is a list of the most commonly held jobs in America according to the federal government.  As you can see, 9 of the top 10 most commonly held occupations pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year...

  1. Retail salespersons, 4.48 million workers earning  $25,370
  2. Cashiers  3.34 million workers earning $20,420
  3. Food prep and serving staff, 3.02 million workers earning $18,880
  4. General office clerk, 2.83 million working earning $29,990
  5. Registered nurses, 2.66 million workers earning $68,910
  6. Waiters and waitresses, 2.40 million workers earning $20,880
  7. Customer service representatives, 2.39 million workers earning $33,370
  8. Laborers, and freight and material movers, 2.28 million workers earning $26,690
  9. Secretaries and admins (not legal or medical),  2.16 million workers earning $34,000
  10. Janitors and cleaners (not maids),  2.10 million workers earning, $25,140

Overall, an astounding 59 percent of all American workers bring home less than $35,000 a year in wages.

So if you are going to make more than $35,000 this year, you are solidly in the upper half.

But that doesn't mean that you will always be there.

More Americans are falling out of the middle class with each passing day.

Just consider the case of a 47-year-old woman named Kristina Feldotte.  Together with her husband, they used to make about $80,000 a year.  But since she lost her job three years ago, their combined income has fallen to about $36,000 a year...

Three years ago, Kristina Feldotte, 47, and her husband earned a combined $80,000. She considered herself solidly middle class. The couple and their four children regularly vacationed at a lake near their home in Saginaw, Michigan.


But in August 2012, Feldotte was laid off from her job as a special education teacher. She's since managed to find only part-time teaching work. Though her husband still works as a truck salesman, their income has sunk by more than half to $36,000.

"Now we're on the upper end of lower class," Feldotte said.

There is a common assumption out there that if you "have a job" that you must be doing "okay".

But that is not even close to the truth.

The reality of the matter is that you can even have two or three jobs and still be living in poverty.  In fact, you can even be working for the government or the military and still need food stamps...

Since the start of the Recession, the dollar amount of food stamps used at military commissaries, special stores that can be used by active-duty, retired, and some veterans of the armed forces has quadrupled, hitting $103 million last year. Food banks around the country have also reported a rise in the number of military families they serve, numbers that swelled during the Recession and haven’t, or have barely, abated.

There are so many people that are really hurting out there.

Today, someone wrote to me about one of my recent articles about food price increases and told me about how produce prices were going through the roof in that particular area.  This individual wondered how ordinary families were going to be able to survive in this environment.

That is a very good question.

I don't know how they are going to survive.

In some cases, the suffering that is going on behind closed doors is far greater than any of us would ever imagine.

And often, it is children that suffer the most...

A Texas couple kept their bruised, malnourished 5-year-old son in a diaper and locked in a closet of their Spring home, police said in a horrifying case of abuse.


The tiny, blond-haired boy was severely underweight, his shoulder blades, ribs and vertebrae showing through his skin, when officers found him late last week.

You can see some photos of that poor little boy right here.

I hope that those abusive parents are put away for a very long time.

Sadly, there are lots of kids that are really suffering right now.  There are more than a million homeless schoolchildren in America, and there are countless numbers that will go to bed hungry tonight.

But if you live in wealthy enclaves on the east or west coasts, all of this may sound truly bizarre to you.  Where you live, you may look around and not see any poverty at all.  That is because America has become increasingly segregated by wealth.  Some are even calling this the "skyboxification of America"...

The richest Americans—the much-talked about 1 percent—are a cloistered class. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz scathingly put it, they “have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.” The Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel has similarly lamented the “skyboxification” of American life, in which “people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives.”


The substantial and growing gap between the rich and everyone else is increasingly inscribed on our geography. There have always been affluent neighborhoods, gated enclaves, and fabled bastions of wealth like Greenwich, Connecticut; Grosse Pointe, Michigan; Potomac, Maryland; and Beverly Hills, California. But America’s bankers, lawyers, and doctors didn’t always live so far apart from teachers, accountants, and small business owners, who themselves weren’t always so segregated from the poorest, most struggling Americans.

Nobody should talk about an "economic recovery" until the middle class starts growing again.

Even as the stock market has soared to unprecedented heights over the past year, the decline of middle class America has continued unabated.

And most Americans know deep inside that something is deeply broken.  For example, a recent CNBC All-America Economic Survey found that over 80 percent of all Americans consider the economy to be "fair" or "poor".

Yes, for the moment things are going quite well for the top 10 percent of the nation, but that won't last long either.  None of the problems that caused the last great financial crisis have been fixed.  In fact, they have gotten even worse.  We are steamrolling toward another great financial crisis and our leaders are absolutely clueless.

When the next crisis strikes, the economic suffering in this nation is going to get even worse.

As bad as things are now, they are not even worth comparing to what is coming.

So I hope that you are getting prepared.  Time is running out.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:00 | 4625845 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Yeah, it's called [Neo-]Feudalism.

(all of your grain are belonging to us)

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:12 | 4625920 kliguy38
kliguy38's picture

slavelabor.......we're all debt slaves and those that saved and didn't go into debt slavery are going to be gangraped by the dollar deval

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:21 | 4625962 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture


they have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

It's definitely a lot of ignorance, people around me don't seem to have any clue what it's like out there for a lot of people - well insulated. Yesterday a colleague complained to the effect of wondering why people were upset / protesting with the economy doing so well. If it wasn't for reading and occasionally venturing into the wilderness I'd think most everyone was doing pretty great too. It's not an American problem either, it's a global problem.  


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:35 | 4626046 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

I'm all for meritocracy, but it is really difficult to justify raising the standard of living for the bottom half of 99% when they largely put themselves into it:


  • $ into entertainment and gadgets instead of fact hates smart people, worships celebrities
  • Most of money in "education" is spent in useless shit from podunk sports college
  • plenty of fat and lazy in government
  • lots of delusional republicans believing in after life reward scam and liberals believing hippy crazy yoga PITA all you need is love BS
  • tons of idiots believing in their superiority (example: Obama)
  • all talk no action 
  • no responsibility for future generations (example: boomers)


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:40 | 4626081 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Efficiency bitches, learn it, teach it, live off of it.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:56 | 4626179 lordylord
lordylord's picture

I read that a single mother with children can make $60,000 in welfare and benefits if you live in the right state.  Welfare monkey is a lucrative occupation.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:01 | 4626211 zaphod
zaphod's picture

We are well on our way to just giving everyone a doctor's salary for free. That will fix everything.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:23 | 4626307 lordylord
lordylord's picture

I don't know why a single mother on welfare is on Zerohedge, but she just downvoted us.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:11 | 4626618 zaphod
zaphod's picture

Thank you for the explaination, I was wondering who that might be. :)

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:45 | 4626380 JR
JR's picture

Ah,yes. The miracles of Keynes (socialism)…two reports:

“Welfare now pays the equivalent of $30 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $25 ($21 after taxes) an hour.” – or $61,320+ per year (2011) for a welfare household

The Senate Budget Committee has released a report showing households living below the poverty line and receiving welfare payments are raking in the equivalent of $168 per day in benefits which come in the form of food stamps, housing, childcare, healthcare and more. The median household income in 2011 was $50,054, totaling $137.13 per day. The worst part? Welfare payments are equivalent to making $30 per hour for 40 hours a week. The median wage for non-welfare recipients is $25 per hour but because they pay taxes, unlike welfare recipients, the wage is bumped down to $21 per hour. From the report:

Second study:

Average Welfare recipient gets $40,000+ per year (CATO considered only six Federal programs and left out all state programs resulting in the lower figure) | Halfway to Concord (September 18, 2013 by Harold Bray)

...In August of this year the institute published a study, The Work Verses Welfare Tradeoff, on the welfare question for all 50 states. The researchers found the Federal government provides 126 separate programs targeted toward low income people. These programs provide cash or in-kind benefits such as food,

housing, or medical care, directly to individuals and community wide programs for low income communities expressly for the purpose of eliminating poverty. The annual cost to the Federal government of these programs, according to CATO, is $668.2 billion. Add in State programs that cost $284 billion and the annual welfare costs in the country often exceeds $1 trillion dollars.

Cato considered only six of the Federal programs and none of the State programs to reach their “average annual welfare benefit” number. The six programs are: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF is the successor to Aid to Families with dependent Children; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (food stamps); Medicaid (MediCal in California); Housing assistance (public housing , Section 8 housing assistance payments, and other rent subsidies); utility assistance, such as LIHEAP or the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

The women with infants and children program (WIC) is another revenue stream that provides supplemental food assistance, health care referrals, and nutrition education and support for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women and to infants and children up to the age of 5.

CATO used an “average” number for each State calculating the low cost counties benefits (mostly rural) and the higher paying counties (urban) to arrive at an “average” grant for each program. Left out of the study were programs such as job training assistance and child care, such as HeadStart, which has an annual budget of $19 billion. Also left out of the calculation were the Earned Income Tax Credit (maximum benefit last year was $5,372) and the child tax credit. Although not considered in their average benefit calculation, CATO found that “there is a significant tax penalty for those leaving welfare for work.” ...

Overall California ranks eleventh in the study, with an average “benefit” package of $37,160 (Hawaii was first at $60,590!). This does not count State supplemental assistance, job training assistance, child care, transportation assistance, etc.
- The hourly wage equivalent for a California recipient is $17.87 or double the minimum wage.
- The average TANF grant in 2012 was $723.
- The average SNAP (food stamp) grant was $416 per month, $4,992 per year

In Medicaid payments California ranked last among all states, with an average expenditure per household of $4,459 per year...

Housing assistance averaged $1,235 per month ($998 in rural areas, $1,472 in urban areas). CATO notes that only 11.4% of TANF recipients in California receive Housing assistance. The Contra Costa Housing Authority list Section 8 grants for the County as $1,225 for a two bedroom home, $1,711 for 3 bedroom home and $2,099 for a 4 bedroom home plus utility assistance for “heating, cooking, other electric, air conditioning, water heating, water, sewer, trash collection, refrigerator and range/microwave”.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:08 | 4626442 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Ah,yes. The miracles of Keynes (socialism)…two reports:

Ah yes, more dumbasses who read a hypothetical report from a right-wing 'thinktank' paid for by oligarchs and believe it be Gawds honest truth'

Can't you drooling idiots use google and look at actual facts..but why do that when you can have rich people tell you how great the poor have it (theoretically)?

Can't get more simple / comprehensive than this:

^ so much irony in that article. No doubt many zh'ers out there exactly like Ki Gulbranson.  Ain't need no stinkin' gumbermint money.. but I do like meh' medicare, earned income tax credit, free kids food...

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.


How about Social Security? And Medicare? Can he imagine retiring without government help?

“I don’t think so,” he said. “No. I don’t know. Not the way we expect to live as Americans.”


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:23 | 4626486 lordylord
lordylord's picture

James_Cole:  Can you please tell me why it is acceptable for the government to steal, use force/violence/coercion?   Where do you get your morals? By all means, dip into your own pocket and help your family, friends, and neighbors.  Don't stick your blood-stained hands in mine. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:30 | 4626512 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

James_Cole:  Can you please tell me why it is acceptable for the government to steal, use force/violence/coercion?


Not to engage your ridiculous straw-man other than to say, I look forward to your apology tour to the native Americans, Mexicans, Africans, Peutro Ricans…


On the topic at hand, if the poor in the US have it so grand please explain:

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:43 | 4626524 lordylord
lordylord's picture

What part was the straw-man and why must I apologize to these people?   You support the State.  The State uses force to collect taxes.  If you don't think you are supporting a system of theft and violence, you are VERY naive.

I never said the poor have it good.  Being poor is a great motivator to improve yourself.  Maybe having to live without a cell phone or cable will get these people off their asses. 

You still haven't answered:  Why is theft and violence acceptable to achieve your goals of a socialist utopia?  Spoiler alert:  Statists never answer this question.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:45 | 4626546 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture


US was built by slaves on land stolen from Native Americans & Mexicans. You want to bitch about violence / theft re: taxes, be real about your history or don't pretend you give a fuck about violence / theft perpetrated by .gov in a general sense.

As long as one totally ignores history (and most of reality) libertarian viewpoints are quite sensible, yes. 


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:57 | 4626560 lordylord
lordylord's picture

Sorry!  Up until about 1980, I WASN'T ALIVE!!!  Now that I am alive and can vote, I would never support the State and the theft and violence that goes along with it.  However, you do and you perpetuate such behavior through your consent.


Libertarians oppose the violence and force that GOVERNMENTS used against these people throughout history.  I am going to bang my head against a wall now having read your post.


You still haven't answered:  Why is theft and violence acceptable to achieve your goals of a socialist utopia?  Spoiler alert:  Statists never answer this question.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:12 | 4626619 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture



Sorry!  Up until about 1980, I WASN'T ALIVE!!!  Now that I am alive and can vote, I would never support the State and the theft and violence that goes along with it.  However, you do and you perpetuate such behavior through your consent.

Lol gawd did I call that. I'd probably get more intelligent responses talking to a lamppost. 

You still haven't answered:  Why is theft and violence acceptable to achieve your goals of a socialist utopia?  Spoiler alert:  Statists never answer this question.

I have advocated neither. What you are obviously referring to is taxes, and if you feel taxes are theft you are welcome to move to Kuwait, Bahrain, most of Afghanistan or pretty much the rural area of any poor country etc.. Taxes are what you pay to be allowed to live in certain desired areas of the world, they are by no means a requirement of living on Earth. There are plenty of places on Earth where you will be able to get by without paying .gov taxes. Please move to one, take your friends too. 




Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:26 | 4626655 zaphod
zaphod's picture

James Cole, 

Please explain to me how and when the United States stole land that naturally belongs to the Mexicans. To do this you are going to have to include in your explaination the fact that Mexicans are largely decendents from Spain, where the Spanish were the wealthy landowners and the native indians the poor. 

To make your argument that any land "naturally" belongs to the mexicans, you are going to have to include the fact that mexicans are europeans who settled into north american territory and displaced native indians but they are "natural" owners. While at the same time argue that another group of europeans who also settled into north america around the same time and displaced native indians are not natural owners. 

Please explain this to prove that you are not an ignorant troll who knows nothing about history and makes illogical arguments that are based on hate of a specific country and people.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:45 | 4626698 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Did I say it naturally belonged to the Mexicans? No.

To do this you are going to have to include in your explaination the fact that Mexicans are largely decendents from Spain, where the Spanish were the wealthy landowners and the native indians the poor. 

Like the Americans are naturally the descendents of the British? lol

Your whole argument is another stupid straw-man. And to underline the point, I don't think land 'naturally' belongs to anyone. The history of the world is various peoples fighting and taking things from various other peoples. It's totally idiotic to say oh well that's all in the past, from 1980 on it's a clean slate!

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:09 | 4626756 zaphod
zaphod's picture

1) You clearly do not understand what straw-man means

2) You said "I look forward to your apology tour to the native Americans, Mexicans, Africans, Peutro Ricans…"

What did lordlylord have to appologize to Mexicans for? You said it was not land based, but then quickly pull up a whole bunch of maps on the topic that shows what grade school children already know. 

Keep pushing your ideology to divide people based on false historical naratives to hate each other, where people you say are unworthly must bow down and appologize to you every day while other people you favor do not. It's pretty much all statists like you've got at this point.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:16 | 4626793 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

1) You clearly do not understand what straw-man means

You brought up the issue of 'natural' ownership, which plays into cetain peoples beliefs around natural rights etc., something I did not bring up nor worth arguing. I never said the Mexicans 'naturally' owned the land, just alluded to the fact that they were forced off the land by the Americans. If you were forced off your land by the Mexican .gov you would probably consider it theft as well. 

2) You said "I look forward to your apology tour to the native Americans, Mexicans, Africans, Peutro Ricans…"

LL said they're totally against .gov theft to which I suggested an apology tour to a small handful of the peoples the US has stolen from in the past to which LL clarified they're against government theft... after ~1980. 

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 06:27 | 4629516 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

That is completely untrue.

The majority of Mexicans have lineage like the Central and South American peoples dating back to the first days humans ever existed in those lands, pre-dated only by the Asian migration when no humans were on North American soil and the dominant species were large hunter cats.

You appear to me to be the ignorant troll.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:29 | 4626665 zaphod
zaphod's picture

lordylord, you have nothing to say your are sorry for. It is unfortunate that racists like James Cole have hounded you since birth to make you think you have anything to say you're sorry for. 

Just remember that James Cole's entire ideology is based on hatred for a specific people. People like him hate you for who you are while professing they are the moral ones. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:16 | 4626788 lordylord
lordylord's picture

I'm not sure of this guy's ideology.  It seems like he is saying that theft and violence has always been apart of history, so well fuck it, lets continue doing it.   And the funny part is that he probalby doesn't even know it himself.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:20 | 4626801 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

 It seems like he is saying that theft and violence has always been apart of history, so well fuck it, lets continue doing it.  

No, I'm saying history is painted gray not black and white - meaning the only appropriate response to the present is consideration of the moral ambiguity which produced it. Taking absolutist positions in the way you have here (and libertarians tend to generally) is ahistorical and nonsensical. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:35 | 4626827 lordylord
lordylord's picture

Thruthfully, it sounds like you tried really hard to defend your way of thinking while giving what appears to be some factual or intellectual response.  But really all you said was nonsense.  That statement says nothing.  Pseudo-intellectual babble. It doesn't explain the fact that you still support a govenment which like all governments are  good at nothing but theft, violence, intimidation, murder, and destruction.  Apparently, in your mind this is acceptable in the name of "progress" or "socialism".

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 20:22 | 4626928 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices. - Watterson

It doesn't explain the fact that you still support a govenment which like all governments are  good at nothing but theft, violence, intimidation, murder, and destruction.  Apparently, in your mind this is acceptable in the name of "progress" or "socialism"

No, it's just much more complicated than the moral absolutes you pretend exist. Why do you have any freedom at all? Is it a natural right? History proves otherwise. 


Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.


To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.



Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:05 | 4626765 JR
JR's picture

I wonder what’s your purpose of colossally misrepresenting American history? The slaves and the Mexicans were not there when the major developments of this nation took place.

Your LaRaza/American Indian history does not account for the massive developments of this nation.

In short, this was not their country any more than it was anyone else's.

“There has been so much concentration on the native Americans found in possession when the white man came that little thought has been given to those who preceded them (such as the Anasazi)… It is time white men understand that most of the Indians found in possession were latecomers, and all too little was known and who had preceded them.” – Louis L’Amour, Jubal Sackett

“The Indians that the white man met were no more the original inhabitants of the country than were the Normans and Saxons the original inhabitants of England. Other peoples had come and gone before, leaving only their shadows upon the land…” –Louis L’Amour, Haunted Mesa

As to the claim that America’s southwest was Mexican territory, it was not. It was New Spain territory, defined as “the former Spanish viceroyalty (1521-1821) in North America including the southwest United States.”

from Encyclopedia Britannica Colonial Period 1519-1821:  

“Near the end of the 16th century the northern frontier of New Spain in most areas was close to the present Mexican-United States boundary line

As for slavery, it has existed since the time of man and it was western civilization from England to the United States that finally put it down. The word slave comes from Slav because of the early Roman slaves who were from Slavic countries.  There were white slaves long before any blacks were enslaved, except by their own people.

For you to include this in America’s “founding,” makes one wonder about your real motivation.

And speaking again of the established indigenous cultures in North America, neither were they “eliminated” by the white man any more than by their own warring tribes eliminating one another. As just one example, it was the Navajo-Apache tribes that eliminated the good planting Indians who lived in peace and bothered nobody, the Navajo-Apaches migrating down the east side of the Rockies to destroy the peaceful tribes along the Rio Grande.

As a matter of fact, the Indians were defeated by the traders; they made him want things he could not produce himself – like rifles and ammunition.  As western historian Louis L’Amour put it: “The Indian had to trade or steal to get the rifles and other things he wanted that the white man had…The first white trader who came to the Indians brought their doom in his pack.”

And it was not the buying or taking of the Indians’ land that ruined him. It was the settlement of the land. It was the fact that an “Indian couldn’t live on a fixed ten acres or a hundred acres and live as he liked. He needed lots of hunting ground, and country that would support 50 Indians would support 10,000 planting white men.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 21:00 | 4627028 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Good job JR.  You've obviously studied more history than new age dogma.  There was a reason so many Indians lived in protected cliff dwellings.  It was to be avoid extermination by the other tribes.


Sun, 04/06/2014 - 06:22 | 4629514 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"Other peoples had come and gone before, leaving only their shadows upon the land…”

Nope. That lineage of race was the very first human segment to ever step foot on North America, period.

You can argue which tribes killed each other but all the tribes came of ONE racial lineage departed from Asia since before there ever existed such things as pyramids, coins or writing.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 14:17 | 4630123 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture


The Clovis Culture was not in North America first, nor were they the only hominids present. I suggest you do some research. There's a lot about ancient history that is not known or understood. Here's a few non-Clovis artifacts found across North America to get you started...



Sun, 04/06/2014 - 14:29 | 4630148 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Still more...

But you knew all this and decided on the the appropriate La Raza/Social Justice talking points anyway, right?

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 16:34 | 4630398 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Nope, you're still wrong and -1 for both your comments.

Mon, 04/07/2014 - 00:47 | 4631412 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

read the links, idiot.

Mon, 04/07/2014 - 02:10 | 4631465 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture


I've had enough of this.

Enough research has been performed over the last century to confirm it isn't true.

We're done.

Mon, 04/07/2014 - 08:49 | 4631800 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

No, we're not.

You're done. You have no facts beyond what you want them to be. You have no truth beyond what you demand others believe. Quote the research performed. Explain the existence of sites that contradict your convenient political interpretation of the "original owners" of this continent.

I will always be here to prove otherwise.

Run, if you must, but your lies will not escape their undoing.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:37 | 4626831 BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

Shorter: those old white guys used violence, so we must support more violence!

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 06:20 | 4629512 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

more honest: a true libertarian will take full account of all his/her personal property & income that is the product of theft & return everything that is in fact the product of theft, the rest being free & clear as per true libertarian values. If you're in the USA that leaves very little but not precisely zero. In America land either belongs to First Nations people or is stolen. Period. There's no grey area.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:13 | 4626463 adr
adr's picture

I had a welfare neighbor. Six kids, $3500 a month in direct payments. $480 in food stamps, plus WIC. She would get a $3500 EIC each year as well. With the HEAP program they never paid over $20 a month for combined utilities and got free trash pickup. She always complained it wasn't enough. They got free cable internet and Obama Phones.

She pulled in more money than I did after taxes and drove a $45k Pathfinder. Total bullshit.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:29 | 4626508 lordylord
lordylord's picture

As Harry Reid would say, you must be lying.  But in all seriousness, how many times did she vote for Obama in 2012?


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:59 | 4626194 lordylord
lordylord's picture

"no responsibility for future generations"

More like no responsibility for themselves.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:03 | 4626219 gafgroocK
gafgroocK's picture



Joseph Stiglitz is first on my Tree Branch LIST.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:36 | 4626055 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

Good thing we got the Affordable Care Act just in time.  Whew, that was close.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:00 | 4626752 NMC_EXP
NMC_EXP's picture

"'s called [Neo-]Feudalism."


It is inevitable that the top economic tier will siphon wealth out of a system.  This is tolerable so long as wealth is being created and dispersed in the lower tiers.

There are three ways to create wealth:  agriculture, mining, and manufacturing.  There is not enough of this going on to replace what is drained away. 

Cheap credit fueled consumerism has maintained the middle class illusion.  That fiction is nearly over.

Neo-feudalism is the future.



Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:06 | 4625891 pragmatic hobo
pragmatic hobo's picture

average can be misleading ... what's the median salary?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:17 | 4625938 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

How is it that bankers and politcians are not in the top ten list?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:20 | 4625958 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Slightly over 52,000 as of 2013.  Inflation adjusted.



Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:25 | 4625992 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

That's household income, but many (most?) households will have 2 wage earners.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:33 | 4626036 James_Cole
Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:35 | 4626047 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture are correct.  Sped read it.....and missed that part.  Apologies.  Quite right on the 2 wage earners.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:22 | 4625975 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Well, the median will almost certainly be less because the sky-high salaries of the oligarchs will skew the average values higher.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:09 | 4625898 agstacks
agstacks's picture

The part that burns me the most, is I will be punished for sitting on the sidelines and not buying a house thinking I'm responsible.  I think I'm smart not waiting to buy at the top, but the depths of full retard haven't even begun to be realized.  My brother just bought a house with a $2500 mortgage and 10k property taxes and he makes just a bit more than I do.  Somehow when the housing market shits the bed he will be made whole and suffer no loses and my taxes will help make that so.   

I am inclined to start the George Costanza, opposite man approach and do everything I know I shouldn't.  Oh, and he loves the "told you you shouldn't have bought silver at $27!"

He is 100% long in the S&P with narry a hedge.  Yet, I get the feeling he will retire early and I'll still be waiting for reality to show itself 30 years from now.



Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:16 | 4625936 Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

You too can be long the S & P in a triple index fund. Catch him up.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:59 | 4626414 kliguy38
kliguy38's picture

yeah no shit.....just go full retard......that's what a good sheep does......for heavens sake DONT buy silver at 20/oz......hehehehehehehe.......after all its"Volatile"......hehehheeheehhe................just admit like being a sheep

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:23 | 4625978 magnumpk
magnumpk's picture

Go with your gut. Don't buy a house, at least not now.  The homeownership dream/mentality is going away and won't come back for years, if ever.  Renting, keeps you free from a mortgage and property taxes and gives you flexibility/mobility.  I've owned a home for 15 yrs, but that was a different time and I wouldn't do it again.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:45 | 4626100 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

One point of contention.  Renting does NOT protect you from property taxes.  A percentage of the property tax of a rental unit (if it's multi-family) and all of it on a monthly basis if it is a single unit...such as a house,  is baked into your rent.

And rents are much higher in most cases than mortgages.  Either will be paying rent.  One is to a bank which is the landlord until you pay out......the other is a landlord proper.  And either way property tax is included.

Flexibility / mobility ?  Questionable.  One you can walk away from and give the finger to the bank.  The other the landlord can hound you with penalties for breaking a lease.  It all depends.

At least with renting you have the possibility of holding the landlord accountable for stuff breaking in your home, particularly if it is a multi-family unit.  But here in Florida you have no recourse.  I rented a double wide mobile home for a couple of years.  Won't ever do that again.  Not only did I pay higher rent than a mortgage and higher utilites because the thing had shitty insulation but I was still responsible for shit breaking in that dump.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:39 | 4626361 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

"One is to a bank which is the landlord until you pay out......the other is a landlord proper.  And either way property tax is included."

You forgot the ultimate landlord.  .GOV!!  Even if you own your property outright, your property taxes are your "rent" to .Gov.  Don't pay the rent?  LOSE YOUR LAND!

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:03 | 4626760 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Well...yeah.  I haven't forgot.  Just didn't highlight that fact in my rebuttal about being free from property tax when you rent.  I've argued that very point for years to people who talk about owning outright their own land / house and who seem to think that gives them some sort of freedom.  No one owns ANYTHING except for their personal thoughts and beliefs.  And even then it's a 24/7 battle to even keep your mind free from all the bullshit that is slung at it everyday from a multitude of sources.

But of course you are correct.  If you have to pay property don't own shit.  Never have....never will.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 03:58 | 4629466 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Very right. There's no reason to own in today's economy. It's for suckers. If you want to ensure you're "protected" against the property taxes that go into your rent you need only find an ideal mix'n'match of incomes, rental prices, legal ability to sublet & do so. You can rent out a place big enough to re-rent parts of it, or all of it, and pocket the difference as income. If you live in part of that rental then your rent can be paid for just like an owner but with no mortgage, no sunk equity. The only way that plan goes south is if tenants fail to pay and/or cause expensive damages & it comes down on you and you can't get out of it if you first failed to avoid the trap. Similarly if jobs & wages are hit hard in an area you may never find tenants to sublet to which puts you in a position needing to drop it on the spot. With no equity sunk in you have that freedom while the owner is stuck underwater and/or unable to find tenants. Renting is freedom, "owning" is slavery because property tax is rent & you pay for eternity.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:29 | 4626006 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Ten years ago I bought an investment property in Argentina with a business partner.  Since then they've gone through a financial crisis and they are in a financial crisis right now.  To my surprise we have a buyer who wants the property for more than we paid for it.  Our biggest problem is the capital controls that don't allow us to take the money out of the country.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:51 | 4626137 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Capital controls in some cases are a good thing.  Keeps the instances of money laundering least through property purchases.  And keeps foreigners from making a buck at the expense of the country.

Not saying you were acting like one of the 1%.  But, really, investing in 2nd or Third World Latin American country....particularly one with a long history of socialism like Argentina strikes me as not particularly smart.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:57 | 4626185 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The only time I ever lost money was listening to partners, one bad deal was in Florida with a RE broker friend, the other in Argentina.  She was from there and talked me into it.  Maybe she knew the money would end up staying there with her.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:02 | 4626217 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

LOL !  You and Mark Sanford.  Something about that Argentinian Tail.....I mean Appalachian Trail.'s not like I haven't had to learn hard lessons about partners....both business and female....myself.

Peace out, 'bro.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 03:53 | 4629463 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

He won't and those who prepare opposite will make off with made cash. He's a sheep & you know it. Sheep get sheared then the mint sauce comes out.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:08 | 4625899 FuzzyDunlop21
FuzzyDunlop21's picture

Im from Saginaw Michigan. Place is a shithole. A family friend is in construction. He cant find workers because no one wants to risk losing their disability check. Its disgusting. I visit there for 5 days every year for christmas, then I gotta get the hell out.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:57 | 4626180 underman
underman's picture

Same problem here.  I own a small business.  Tried to hire a very qualified person - but she didn't want her income reported, because she'd lose her disability income.  WTF!  I also remember how she was trying to get her husband (a former cop) on disability - due to his addiction to online porn. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:35 | 4626680 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Was passing through KY a couple of weeks ago and the cashier at the gas station/food mart was a mid 30's female, a little rough looking, but decent figure. She was telling a customer how she made more when she was in accounting, but now she has to work atbthe lower paying job so it did not affect her disability? Didn't make any sense what she was saying. She did not lok disabled. She had to stand behind a counter all day, probably had to lift boxes and stock shelves.

How could that be easier than accounting?

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 03:45 | 4629457 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

It's the faulty taxation system. Her income is lower to report so in addition to lower taxes she has an effective tax-rebate from being on disability. She's aware enough of how the 'rules' work so is it her fault to optimize loss vs income for those rules? Until the rules change or she immigrates, she's stuck, so she'd be a sucker to do it the hard way, wouldn't she?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:08 | 4625901 Gyoza Mimi
Gyoza Mimi's picture

The quality of ZH articles fluctuates with Tylers that write them, and they easily range from insightful to pain dumb.

In the old days, a single income would enable a family to live a very comfortable middle class lifestyle in most cases.  But now those days are long gone. 

In what "good old days"? A cherry-picked nostalgic period of white poicket fences of 1950s-early 1960s? If any period can be described as the most atypical in the US history, then it will be exactly that ZH referred to as "old days".

Why not think of some other historic segment, such as late 1920s, as representative of the "normal" for the US? Then we will find that it is normal for Americans to fight Americans, or for half of the population to be hungry and be happy to clean shit for food. Then, today's "normal" doesn't look bad after all.


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:19 | 4625953 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

In the early part of the 20th century a majority of the population lived on a farm, had a well and an outhouse, some subsistence crops and livestock.

Now the majority are trapped in urban/suburban centers of consumerism, paying rent, ever increasing taxes & fees, forced into debt serfdom working low paying service jobs and corralled by militarized police and thugs.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:27 | 4626003 FoodStampPrez
FoodStampPrez's picture

How many people could actually afford to buy 40 acres today and farm it? Maybe the top 5%, and that's probably a stretch.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:42 | 4626086 Gyoza Mimi
Gyoza Mimi's picture

Ah, these were the days. Daisy chains in the morning, picnics in the afternoon. Unarmed scheriffs dropping by just to wish you a good day. All until Obamacare ruined it all!

In the early part of 20th century the majority of the population did live on a farm. Average life expectancy was 37 years and the best healthcare coverage avaialbe was asking a dead man on a stick to do magic. The farm life usually entailed working 7 days a week, starting from 5 am and going past sunset. Child labour was a norm, as parents were unable to complete all the work without employing their children as full-time handymen. Wives didn't work, because there were no jobs for them. Outside household that it. Because at the house, they worked from sunrise to sunset. Owning a pair of new boots was a sign of prosperity. Going hungry was a norm, in case the Earth didn't give this year. But there were plenty of options available - like move to a city, live in unventilated barrack sharing the room with 15 other people, and working 12 hours a day just to make enough to buy a dinner.

I wonder why those crying for "good old days" don't remember what "good old days" actually were?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:53 | 4626129 negative rates
negative rates's picture

And before that cowboys rode on horses and lived to average age 27. Today we think were so good that we don't need to store a years worth of food for the animals, and instead we try to preserve it so we can keep the price high all year long unless an independent can come along occasionally to compete with the big boys from time to time. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:57 | 4626184 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

I would agree that there is no "good old day"

But you know body ever gathered around the radio at night after a good hard day's work on the farm, actually producing something of real value, working with nature....even fighting with it at time....and listening to the latest escapades of the Kardashian whores.

They would actually be whores in the city.  That would be the honest assessment and reason of their celebrity.

One thing about the good old days.  Life was more honest.  Everyone knew life was a bitch and then you died.....and no one went into debt to buy iShit.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:06 | 4626239 antidisestablis...
antidisestablishmentarianismishness's picture

Hey, quit ruining our apocalyptic visions! 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:50 | 4626859 JR
JR's picture

In the early part of 20th century the majority of the population did live on a farm. Average life expectancy was 37 years…

Geoff Canyon expains the fallacy of that “average life expectancy” claim. It was the early infant mortality rate that skewed the average.

Says Canyon, “it’s clear that infant mortality was the issue in the 1800s, not general early death… it’s fair to say that the majority of the reported prolonging of life is due to reducing childhood mortality.

“Comparing just life expectancy for 20 year-olds, in 1850 a young man could expect to live to 60.1. In 2004, that same man could expect to live to 76.7. That’s a significant improvement, but considering that in 1850 the germ theory of disease was just being formalized, it seems a little less impressive.

See: Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011

Tue, 04/08/2014 - 14:58 | 4636560 fallout11
fallout11's picture

The problem with discounting the (massive) early infant mortality rate, and similar "outliers", is that if you were one of those 1 in 3 that died prior to the age of 20 then it kind of mattered to you.  Further, the cited data for 1850 was for extremely well settled and developed Massachussetts only....if you lived in Missouri or Montana instead, you could reasonably halve those values. Finally, epidemics were fairly frequent affairs prior to 1900, for example a single yellow fever outbreak killed over 30% of the population of Memphis, TN in a single year (1878), creating localized pockets of severely reduced life expenctancy. 
In short, Mr. Canyon cherrypicked his data, which is why the widely cited/published "average life expentancy" claim is in fact widely cited/published and considered broadly factual, apples to apples, and his is not.  Mr. Canyon also claims (elsewhere) that inflation is overstated and wages today are as high or higher (in purchasing power) as they ever were (*eyeroll*). Amateur historical revisionism at its finest.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:43 | 4626092 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington,


As per most of human history, Gov control is the norm, liberty is the exception.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:48 | 4626117 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Tax man told me I had to be licenced and be in business to sell flowers on valentines day one day a year. He been taxing for 30 years and it's always been that way. I told him I've been on the other side for 30 years and that aint no way to run a tax system as can be seen by todays bad taxes. I told him I was the guy who won't be going into business because of his tax laws. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:04 | 4626221 underman
underman's picture

It's even worse for every small town inbetween the big cities.   Entire towns making minimum wage, dependent on gubmint handouts, living on the edge.  And to make matters much, much worse...continuing to breed generations that will be multitudes worse off than the previous.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:20 | 4625961 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

Errrrr......that's kind of why they're reffered to as the 'GOOD old days" opposed to the 'CRAPPY old days'. Other than the nit you picked, any thoughts on the actual contents of the article?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:23 | 4625977 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

My wife and I both work. If .gov didn't suck over half of our incomes in taxes, one of us could afford to stay home too. It's .gov that is sucking the life out of everyone.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:35 | 4626050 pods
pods's picture

My wife works as well, just does not collect a paycheck (stay at home mom).

It is not nearly as difficult as one thinks.  

The first, and most important thing to do is learn to distinguish between a want and a need.


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:46 | 4626101 centerline
centerline's picture

Back in 2008 I told my wife what was coming (in general).  That the middle class is going to get clobbered.  And we will have to make choices to continue to have balance in our lives.

I actually created a list of things, in order, that would be removed/altered/shut down/whatever as we stair-step down to a lower standard of living.  I would have liked to just do it all at once, but my wife really did not believe me at the time so much.  Now, that is list is coming in handy.

Funny how all the trends are linked together.  There is no way anyone could ever really control all of this.  Sort of answers the question of whether what is happening is more of a plan, or just a series of events playing out with no real plan at all.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:11 | 4626248 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Good to know you have a wife who could adjust.  And realize a "lower standard" of living is an illusion sent to you by Madison Avenue and the lie of the "American Dream" spouted off by politicians.

Nothing worse than having a woman who believes that shit.  You never hear the end of it.  You end up taking the blame for the end of a Utopia that a 100 years of cheap energy and Federal Reserve induced debt creation made for us.  They believe that little blip in time was normal.  Ignorance of history and a long term perpsective....these things you will find a sore lacking of in most women.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:32 | 4626333 itchy166
itchy166's picture

And the young men never leave adolescence... 


Sat, 04/05/2014 - 00:19 | 4627429 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

need: food.

Income: gets food

stay at home mom: either grows your food or doesn't. The answer is? You probably are very lucky with a high income job & everyone else will suffer because there isn't enough to go around.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:41 | 4626083 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

mistake is  your wife bought into feminist scam to get women out of homes from doing natural work and put them out as temp corporate slaves for no new net gain to the family unit after taxes and childcare. Why do you think government supported the movement? Because they figured they can take 2 instead of 1. More money for elite 0.01% to play around with (government revenue) which they control via politicians they sponsor.


Unless you both work for the government....

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:52 | 4626138 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Hell no. Neither one of us do. I'd drink all my alcohol and shoot myself in the back of the head 5 times before I would work for .gov.
And I'm glad my wife works. It keeps her out of my hair. If she was at home all day every day, she would go crazy and so would I.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 20:44 | 4626984 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

With a nail gun?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:25 | 4625989 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

You forget a few things:

Firstly the tremendous gains in productivity through science and technology which should have resulted in much better times

Seondly, the rapacious effect of the finance function which is now ripping double the portion of GDP that it previosly did

And thirdly, the tremendous drain on wealth through badly thought out wars and malconsumption that has crippled the body and mind of Americans thus making them dependent on food stamps and medicare.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:01 | 4626207 pods
pods's picture

Fourthly, the reason for all of this is fractional reserve banking with conjured loans being lent at interest.

Compound function.


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:26 | 4625997 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

In what "good old days"? A cherry-picked nostalgic period of white poicket fences of 1950s-early 1960s? If any period can be described as the most atypical in the US history, then it will be exactly that ZH referred to as "old days".

Certainly that's what they're referring to and yes it's idiotic. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:32 | 4626035 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I'll grant you that his articles are terrible, but Michael Snyder is not one of the Tylers. Just because a person contributes an article  it doesn't mean one of the Tylers penned it. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 20:50 | 4626999 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture



I've read Snyder before ZH and there is NO Way he's a tyler.


the glaring evidence is the epic  lack of humor (in the writings at least, wouldn't presume to know if he actually has a sense of humor)..


What sets ZH apart for me is the humor.  


And you glorious fucks!


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:38 | 4626069 oklaboy
oklaboy's picture

dunno, maybbeeeeee

1. the the govt/pop ratio was way less

2. when the federal register was 2,700 pages

3. when taxes wree 18% of gross.

4. when the EPA did not exist

5. when we made things, not printed or ctrl p them

6. when is was yes sir/no ma'am, not WTF u lookin at cracka?

7. when  crack was a fracture in the concrete

8. when chillin was what you did to bottled beer.

9. when coke came in a bottle, not a baggie

want a few more good old day points?




Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:49 | 4626124 Gyoza Mimi
Gyoza Mimi's picture

You can add a few more:

10. Life expectancy was 37 years

11. A new pair of underware  once a year was a luxury that not everyone could afford

12. Working terribly unsafe (pure capitalism it was - labour dies, you hire a new one, big deal) jobs just to earn enough to buy food for dinner was a better option than most people had

13. Women didn't work - at least not jobs that made money - they were just household appliances dedicated full-time to cleaning and cooking

Hey, sure people were poor, hungry, unhealthy and with no prospects of getting any better. But the federal register of 2,700 pages more than compensated for that, right?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:25 | 4626316 oklaboy
oklaboy's picture

drum roll please

10 Life E in 50-60's was 61.3

11. yellow on front, brown on rear? were is this coming from? don't let facts ruin the discussion.

12. You mean staying at a job and retiring after 30 years? so horrible. I guess like the EPA subjecting people to chemical experiments.

13. And motherhood was the most important job in the world? When you didn't dump your 8 year old bi-racial son on your parents and run off, leaving them to raise him?  


I know 47 million american not starving now. And how many did in the 50's-60's. They were called soup kitchens, not EBT cards. And it was awfully hard to buy lingerie with a bowl of soup.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:44 | 4626700 Gyoza Mimi
Gyoza Mimi's picture

Since ZH was overrun by raging BBA-hopefuls a few years back, it also brought a handful Tylers with articles to match.


OK, my pimple-ridden friend, come, sit down, I will share my secrets with you. First, you need to learn an important skill of comprehending information. It is very important. Because when you jump up and scream random things completely off-topic, people may treat you like an idiot. Well, given that you are not quite there yet, let me spell it out to you what I mean.

The article's hypothesis predicates on the assumption that the golden years of the US - 1950s and early 1960s - are the "old days" indicative of what the "typical" US used to be until it was ruined by socialists, communists, Nazis and Lord Voldemort assisted by Darth Vader. The issue is, as I pointed out, that the history of the US - whether you go back to the days of early settlers or formation of the Republic - shows one thing and one thing only, which is 1950s were an aberration, a once in 400 years anomaly in terms of the living standards. I don't expect you to know why, but take my word for that. So, refute my position, you should have (at least, the logic dictates so) shown that the 50s is not a one-off event. In turn, you, employing your best Google-searching skills, pile everything you could find about 1950s in 10 seconds, screaming "this is what it was in 1950s, take that!". Off topic, random, not cool. Not cool at all.

Second, benchmarking against once in 4-centuries anomaly is no different than taking valuations at the most extreme top of an asset bubble and presenting them as "normal. This is either stupid or dishonest, depending on the drivers behind you making such statement. The simple fact is that now, even with whatever apocalyptic horrors of the present US ZH paints, the quality of life of the majority is better than it has been for the most part of the last 400 years. Even if you benchmark against the 50s, the quality of living now is better for many reasons. However, painting white picket fence, smiling housewife and promise of 100% pension by GM after 20 years of honest work assembling cars as the top that we must go back to is plain dumb.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 20:43 | 4626979 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Based on your sensibilities being so frequently affronted by the utter stupidity of this site and those who may disagree with your elitist preconceived notions, you may want to reconsider spending/wasting your time here.

Nobody holding a gun to your head to be here, is there? We surely won't miss you.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 20:52 | 4627002 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

"100% pension by GM after 20 years"? Not even a government troll like you ever got a deal that sweet. Aberration? Sure, no shit. No one here would argue different. Guess you are not a Leave it to Beaver fan, so what? Can't anyone have a little nostalgia without having and idiot's head explode?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 21:04 | 4627038 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture



what's a BBA hopeful?


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:26 | 4626652 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Dipschit, you are not describing the 1950s or 60s.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:45 | 4626850 CH1
CH1's picture

10. Life expectancy was 37 years. 11. A new pair of underware  once a year was a luxury that not everyone could afford

That's plain old bullshit.

Those life expectancies are totally skewed by infant mortality. Those who lived past infancy (yes, that was a big problem), lived into their 60s or better. Even at 1000 BC, they talked about a lifespan being seventy years, and eighty if you were strong.

Plus, people in the middle ages DID bathe and change underwear.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:14 | 4625923 Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

No one wants to acknowledge it, but the stagnation, decline, and gutting of the middle class, if plotted on a graph, a similar if not exact line would parallel it and that line is the proliferation of women into the workplace, the vacating of the home by women in taking care of their, also declining number of primarily white chirren, UNACCOMPANIED by a similar increase in the number of jobs created to absorb these tens of millions during the same period. 

Go ahead and thumb it down, but it's the truth. 


Women in the workplace.

No jobs to absorb all that wanted to escape the apparent drudgery of the homeplace. ( and the accompanying breakup of tens of millions of marriages, nearly all of which alliances have their roots in workplace romances). 


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:29 | 4626011 11b40
11b40's picture

I don't see how abortion has anything to do with the number of jobs available to the number of workers.  

If there were no abortions, logic tells me there would be more people looking for work, not fewer.  Just what am I missing here?

While I totally agree that excessive divorce rates and child-bearing out of wedlock is detrimental to society, there are many more factors that come into play here than to just blame it on abortion.  


Sat, 04/05/2014 - 00:14 | 4627420 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Indeed. A person smart enough to have an abortion is smart enough to save up for when they can afford children.

Sat, 04/05/2014 - 14:25 | 4628305 Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

I've not cited causality as purely abortion driven, That is only one factor. The secondary 'design' of abortion, particklerly for white women, was to free them up to enter the work force. They were bored out of their minds as stay at home moms, or simply going nuts being poor mothers. 

Abortion is one factor that fed this phenomenon. The others I've noted are equally or more strenuously heavy contributors to the stagnation of incomes and the assumption of 25% debt factor to live that much more beyond their means, and dealt death blows to savings. 

We have no  way of knowing Ever, what 55 million abortions have done to our world. And that's just here in the United States.  The consequences can only be gleaned in retrospect, such as the coming decline of the White race due to being out reproduced by Hispanics and Black populations. That's going to be great for their races, but it's going to cause holy hell for whites. And that's only one that can be identified with certainty. 

Who among those 55 million would have invented the NEXT BIG  THING?  None of them?  One of Them?? Was there a Henry Ford in there, or a Steve Jobs, or Warren Buffet?  Or great leader, male or female??  

I can say that our world would now be far different had those abortions been limited, and I'm only guessng that it would be a better one based on the fact the more people there are the likelihood of geniuses, and savants, and creators, is greater than it is now. 


Mon, 04/07/2014 - 16:12 | 4633352 11b40
11b40's picture

More mouths to feed, bodies to house & clothe.  More criminals & poverty, stress on the environment, etc.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:29 | 4626022 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

Good point, and now we can see just why the feminist/multi-culti movement is so heavily supported by the puppets in gubbermint. What better way to double the workforce and thus drive down average wages, than to convince women that being homemakers and moms is 'stupid' and doing so just means they're submitting to 'exploitation by an evil patriarchal system', and not fulfilling their REAL awesomeness.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:30 | 4626025 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

Dumb Cunts (of course I'm talking about the men.)

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:55 | 4626166 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Who, the young little cursed ones?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:30 | 4626030 pods
pods's picture

I have read articles on women in the workplace and I agree with their conclusions that it was an inflation reaction, not a cause.
You show correlation but not causality.

The big push for women working was in the 70's. I think a bettter look for causality would be the unpegging of the FRN from gold.

Inflation ate away at wages to the point where two incomes were needed to keep the same results.

In the 90s on, two incomes were not enough, so debt had to be taken on to keep up your standard of living.

The two income households were the symptom, not the problem.

BTW, just because you say it's the truth, doesn't really make it so.



Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:23 | 4626644 11b40
11b40's picture

Aw, pods.  Don't spoil his story with facts and alternative scenarios.  One word causes are so comforting.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:39 | 4626838 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Thanks Pods, I think you are correct. I never wanted to work until my kids were older, fully content being a stay at home mom. But no matter how we budgeted and lived as simply as possible it was unachievable... unless we took on debt. I wanted to take on the debt. My husband did not and won.

At the time I was heartbroken and our marriage suffered for it. I now have fallen down on my knees, apologized and thanked him for his decision. I think we would be under a freeway ramp if I got my way. He has done the same for calling my interest in PMs a crock of irrational crazy shit. We are even, forgiven each other and at peace.


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 21:11 | 4627071 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture



Marriage partnerships are a BITCH and the BEST all at once!


and I love your presence here.  




Have a great night Mr. Miffed: whoever you area. 

Sat, 04/05/2014 - 14:11 | 4628285 Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

Nor does your 'analysis' make it so.  

You can deny causality all you want, but having been in the employment business, all thru this revolution of women entering the workforce, I can state with some serious authority that women migrating to the work place AND not having chirren, (White Women, 99%) thru voluntary means or abortion, has CAUSED a dirth of white folk, meanwhile Hispanic, and Black chirren births outnumber whites 6 and 4 to 1.  THAT is causation of first order.

Deny it, but I can guarantee you that when two people compete for one job the job will go to the lowest bidder, and when you have compounded that with two women and two men competing for the same job salaries overall compress, companies no longer worry about labor supply.

When we had to scramble to get men for those jobs, the men always came out with significant increases, the employers were far more accommodating.

Sorry, but you have assumed "inflation" ate away but neglect to factor in that women in the work force CAUSED prices to rise because of more demand for the stuff the men traditionally owned. 

I say it's so, because it is.

Take the women out of the work force and see how much more men would be making today.  At least twice as much or more.

And then take out the increases in 'quality' and quantity riven by women for bigger, fancier homes, furniture, and the like and it isn't very difficult to see that while one person such as the woman here who was forced to go to work when she would rather stay at home, why she forgets to factor in the new employees, by the tens of millions of women, who drove prices up for her particularly. 

Debt was taken on due to middle class avarice, as well as, want it now, immediate gratification, and the spoiling of chirren with assets to assuage the absence of their mothers. 

The cultural, societal, economic upheaval of women in the work force has had repercussions that only the ostrich would deny.  


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:45 | 4626379 bitHedge
bitHedge's picture

So the liberation of half the human labor force from low skill jobs by technology made us poor? 


Therefore the industrial revolution ended the agrarian age and made unemployment go up?


O o o, and not enough of the right race were born?


What has happened, is the US by pure luck of geography over the location of the last world war gained superpower status in military and economy. The world rebuilt by the 70's; which is when the USA living standard peaked. The affluence of that period created weak, shit for brains, generation called the babyboomers. They squandered the wealth and liberty that their fore fathers built for them. Every financial bubble and foreign war since has been an attempt to keep these entitled people at the standard of opulence that they had become entitled to; whether it be the looting of resources or cheap credit.


Now they bitch and moan about how it's the minority/woman/Jews/banks that have caused everything.

Sat, 04/05/2014 - 00:10 | 4627413 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Actually it has no correlation. The actual correlation is the population grown (too many people) and the movement of jobs overseas.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:17 | 4625947 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

No income taxes at 35K a year...

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:21 | 4625969 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Which is funny, since after all taxes and paying for my families health insurance this is close to what I take home. Strange why I am not laughing.


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:27 | 4626000 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Not just no income taxes. You probably get a nice big check from Uncle Sam to boot. There's no incentive to work at those incomes, or to move up the ladder in life. Remember the chart showing someone earning about $29k had the same earnings as someone earning about $60k when you factor in all the government goodies?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:19 | 4625952 magnumpk
magnumpk's picture

Hmmmm.  What to do?  Let's see, print money?  Check.  Print more money?  Check.  Repeat as necessary.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:21 | 4625963 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

This is by design to feed the corporations and government.

If people can't be self-sufficient they become dependent.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:34 | 4626045 Rusty Nayle
Rusty Nayle's picture

Funny the author mentions Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Anyone from SE Michigan knows that driving up Jefferson Ave. from Detroit across Alter Road into Grosse Pointe is like flipping on the lightswitch...

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:37 | 4626062 I Write Code
I Write Code's picture

Nobody pays income taxes anymore on $35k incomes, which is something of an issue politically, but that's another topic.

Also even these august professions probably pay rather higher in urban areas - maybe just high enough that income taxes do start to bite.  Of course then, depressingly, these professions pay even *lower* in much of the less urban parts of the country.

It really is different now, living a middle-class life on a household income of even $60,000 a year is so much less secure than in the 1960s, and even less fashionable.  Are you keeping up with the Kardashians?  Probably not.  Is your family jetting off to Spain for a week's vacation like the President's?  Probably not.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:27 | 4626499 adr
adr's picture

Oh you pay taxes on $35k if you're married and both make $35k. The first time you file after getting married you'll probably find a nice withholding penalty levied against you as well.

A single person making $35k probably isn't going to pay much in taxes. But a married couple bringing in $70k sure is.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:38 | 4626068 CunnyFunt
CunnyFunt's picture

If the figure for laborers includes the union brethern, then it makes it all the worse.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:51 | 4626139 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture


When the next crisis strikes, the economic suffering in this nation is going to get even worse.

Yeah, but I'll feel better knowing that we'll finally be out of the eye of the economic fail storm.

Everyday that shit doesn't collapse is another day where shit get worse and worse.  Think of it like a roller coaster that slowly goes up the cascade, preparing its riders for that eventual plunge.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:54 | 4626160 Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

The people making those salaries need to spend a few years to learn a trade or a skill and be willing to travel.   


Everyone I know in the skilled trades makes a whole lot more than that.  Some sheeple are satisfied with just getting by with as little work as possible.  It is a sacrifice to learn a trade and pay one's dues. 

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:56 | 4626173 negative rates
negative rates's picture

And it sucks only living to a hundred too.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:54 | 4626735 August
August's picture

And the Afterlife could be even worse. 

I have this vision of a tremendous, radiant white throne... occupied by Ray Kurzweil.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 15:57 | 4626182 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

but...but....but the little screen in my elevator keeps flashing that employment is at 2008 peak levels and unemployment down around 6.2% - so basically we are GOING GANGBUSTERS so ZH must be lying about all this bed economic news.

Yeah, thats the ticket.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:04 | 4626228 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

I have a friend that milks, I mean works, for local government. He wants to retire, but has just realized that his promised pension is now nowhere near what he needs to stay afloat. A great salary 20 years ago is now so-so and 50% of that is not good at all--inflation has taken a crap on his dream of leisure.

Anyways, he has now also discovered that any civilian job he might get pays so little that he would need to work 40 a week, plus pension, to take home the same that he is now. And of course NONE of those positions will even allow him to work more than 30 thanks to ObamaCare. He is not happy, and is now trying to run for public office.

I have had to choke down my desire to laugh when he explains it all to me, like I alrady don't know this.


"My guillotine will work 50 a week without complaint."

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:07 | 4626241 Duc888
Duc888's picture



....offshoring manufacturing jobs for 30+ years, what could possibly go wrong?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:07 | 4626246 wakablahh
wakablahh's picture

Assume average wage of 3K a month.  A lot of married couples BOTH work, so that's 6k gross a month per household.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 16:24 | 4626314 kurt
kurt's picture

An Argument FOR Shanty Towns:

If we make so little money, we need to make common areas, squatter's villages, shanty towns. Built from old garage doors, materials off Craigslist, "curb alerts". Why? The low income worker, in a temporary shelter, LOCKABLE, can regain his foothold outside of mortgage or high rent servitude; get on his feet. You can make an insulated yurt out of $12.00 foam core wall boards.

The fact that some towns have called homeless "illegal campers" who are arrested the moment a BLANKET is spotted, chased from bridge to tree thatch, to river bottom, is testament to America's ugly edge. Free housing towns with lockable units is compassionate. This would also put downward pressure on rents, given the opportunity of a choice.

Furthermore, I'd place the towns as close to exclusive gated planned communities as I could.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:20 | 4626484 Emergency Ward
Emergency Ward's picture

"Yet I rather like the novelty of living in this way
Though my bill of fare is always rather tame,
But I`m happy as a clam on the land of Uncle Sam
In my little old sod shanty on my claim."

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:22 | 4626492 adr
adr's picture

The dumbest thing you can do if both have to work is get legally married and get fucked by the combined income. If I wasn't married I would get back $8k of the cash I send to the IRS. 

I've been telling people to get married at the church, have the girl change her name but never get a marriage license. You don't want it and you don't need it.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:01 | 4626754 August
August's picture

>>>marriage license. You don't want it and you don't need it.

I agree, but I'd be concerned that sooner or later an agent of the Unwanted Presence will get wind of your unlicensed marriage, and you'll be smacked with all sorts of fun back tax adjustments, penalties, interest, garnishments, rifle-butts etc.

Still, it's worth a shot.  Plan carefully... loose lips sink ships....

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:27 | 4626817 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

It's great to see someone else has figured this out. Ten years ago we calculated we paid $5k a year to the government for the privilege being married. I shudder to think of what we pay now. I have wondered if it would be worth getting a legal divorce just to screw the government. But we have a family trust and I pay medical so it may not monetarily be advantageous at this time.


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 17:31 | 4626504 Judge Crater
Judge Crater's picture

"The power to tax is the power to destroy," according to Chief Justice John Marshall.  While hedge fund billionaires were paying the 15% carry tax on their income, thanks to bracket creep, middle class households were paying 30% or higher rates on their earning, when you include federal and state taxes.  The most egregious example of unfair taxation is the tax on Social Security pensions, where the threshold earning amount in 1984 for individuals was $25,000 and in 2014 it remains $25,000, unadjusted for 30 years of inflation.  "Only little people pay taxes." And the dwindling middle class.

By the way, the 1983 Reagan law on imposing taxes on Social Security pensions for current pensioners in 1984 was probably an ex post facto law, outlawed by the U.S. Constitution.  

If the taxpayer's combined income (total of adjusted gross income, interest on tax-exempt bonds, and 50% of Social Security benefits and Tier I Railroad Retirement Benefits) exceeds a threshold amount ($25,000 for an individual, $32,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, and zero for a married person filing separately), the amount of benefits subject to income tax is the lesser of 50% of benefits or 50% of the excess of the taxpayer's combined income over the threshold amount. The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983."

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 22:09 | 4627203 tony bonn
tony bonn's picture

these numbers are evil and the result of planned, engineered impoverishment of america. on the other hand, some of the people i have met in these professions are overpaid even at these rates. the .01% are wicked.

Sat, 04/05/2014 - 00:02 | 4627402 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

We don't need wages for mortgages! Let them eat cake!!

Sat, 04/05/2014 - 01:46 | 4627531 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Ok, this is why I don't do video games and rather shoot guns for real. Geez I need a drink!


Sun, 04/06/2014 - 06:28 | 4629518 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

True, but funnier memes come from video games & other internet madness like boxxy.

Sat, 04/05/2014 - 04:17 | 4627639 RichardParker
RichardParker's picture

"They have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

When I read this I immediately thought of the nomenklatura (congress) in Washington.


Sat, 04/05/2014 - 10:12 | 4627867 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

"All we need is a little inflation." ~ multi millionaires

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!