This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Median Male Worker Makes Less Now Than 43 Years Ago

Tyler Durden's picture





 

While the fact that a record number of Americans are living in poverty should not surprise anyone at this point, what should surprise many is that according to Table P-5 of the Census report of (Lack of) Income, the median male is now worse on a gross, inflation adjusted basis, than he was in... 1968! While back then, the median income of male workers was $32,844, it has since risen declined to $32,137 as of 2010. And there is your lesson in inflation 101 (which we assume is driven by the CPI, which likely means that the actual inflation adjusted income decline is far worse than what is even reported). The only winner: women, whose median inflation adjusted income over the same period has increased by 188%. That said, it is still at 65% of what the median male makes. So injustice all around. And now, it is time to be patriotic again and buy a Pontiac Aztek.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:20 | Link to Comment wombats
wombats's picture

But are the male workers at JPM and Goldman doing well?  That is the only question that really matters.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:24 | Link to Comment Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

In the distance the chants can be heard - guillotine, Guillotine, GUILLOTINE, GUILLOTINE!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:25 | Link to Comment MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

This just demonstrates the tragedy of free market wages. Raising the minimum wage for these poor workers would have resulted in much better equality in the workplace and far higher standards of living for American workers. This has been documented and proven beyond any doubt by harvard economist Alan Krueger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_B._Krueger). But of course that's far too reasonable for heartless libertarians who only care about themselves.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:33 | Link to Comment gball
gball's picture

Perhaps if business had less expenses to comply with gov't regulations such as unemployment insurance, workers comp, health benefits, compliance cost with gov't regulation, etc, wages could be higher.

would be interested in a study that showed imputed earning to employees factoring in benefits from unemployment insurance, empolyer subsidized health care, and workers comp.

And then the amount of money spent on regulation compliance.

That's consuming a lot of business income that could be used for wages.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:36 | Link to Comment Durrr
Durrr's picture

Could, but probably wouldn't, the profit margins would be wider though.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:44 | Link to Comment whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

This shows how Federal Reserve actions hurts all American.

Anyone see CNN joke debate last night? They didn't even ask Ron Paul Federal Reserve question. CNN is joke, they limit Ron Paul supporter comments on facebook and leave him out of online poll. Their "official" presidential polls are fucked up too.

We won't watch joke CNN anymore. Assholes don't realize increases Ron Paul allure.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:58 | Link to Comment Shocker
Shocker's picture

This is so true, we are replacing good high paying jobs with lower, non skilled jobs. Manufacturing has all but went away, any real skilled jobs either gone, or they are replacing them with less skilled/pay workers.

Super Rich move to Mega Rich

Rich Move to Super Rich

The Others Basically move down a notch.

Top Earners move to Middle Class

Middle Class Moves to Poor

Poor Moves to Super Poor

 

http://www.dailyjobcuts.com

 

-

 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:25 | Link to Comment Badabing
Badabing's picture

"Manufacturing has all but went away"
Also back in 1968 a household could survive on one salary but not today.
Inflation has forced us to double the work force.
Twice the jobs needed with less work avalable.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:53 | Link to Comment narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

2010 was the last year for which I could find data, but then the US was still, by far, the largest manufacturing economy in the world, with $1.7 trillion in value-addded manufacturing. China was second at $1.3 Trillion.

See http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/macro-view/manufacturing-surprise-the-us-still-leads-in-making-things/2134/

Wages are a separate matter. Labor started globalizing in the 1970's so a factory laborer in the US started competing with factory laborers in China. A Chinese laborer is willing to work for $2.00 a day. Hence, the most mobile jobs went over there, and wages came down here. It is inevitable that when labor competes on a global basis, wages will tend to a global mean. And that is a fairly low number. When the Chinese unionize, American wages will go up.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:04 | Link to Comment Reform1776
Reform1776's picture

>When the Chinese unionize, American wages will go up.

That's going to be great news for Fiscal Year 2130, but no so good of news for Fiscal Years 1973-2129...

They continue to offshore and globalize jobs year after year. Each time moving higher and higher up the food chain. If they haven't come for your job yet, they will, as soon as they can.

The supposed job Creation that was supposed to occur has instead been job Cremation.

Yet all they wish to do is now enact even MORE free trade agreements. They brag how many jobs it will CREATE, but always leave out how many jobs will be lost. Kind of like only counting the DEPOSITS when balance your checkbook...

 

 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Bullshit, naraployydexlesia.

The global wage arbitrage will just go to Africa.

Hell....China is already there making massive inroads in maintaining wage arbitrage.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:43 | Link to Comment Andre
Andre's picture

This needs looking into, because I suspect cooked numbers. Put it this way:

If Texas Instruments' Malaysian facility makes a bunch of chips, is that still considered "US manufacturing"? It is a US corporation, and the numbers are on the books, but it has zero impact on US tax income and employment.

It's (possibly) a nice end-around the numbers

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:03 | Link to Comment Reform1776
Reform1776's picture

Good point, likely for those types of numbers anything they can even remotely count they consider "US manufacturing".

Conversely, anything they can remotely count as "Overseas Profits", and not subject to US taxes, they count it that way for that particular calculation.

 

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 04:01 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

Only Zero Hedge can entertain me with a topic like this.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:30 | Link to Comment Guinny_Ire
Guinny_Ire's picture

Let's go old school. Cottage Industry Bitchez!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 16:28 | Link to Comment I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

but I don't want to be a dairy farmer!  (sigh)

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:43 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Right then, latrine digging it is! :>D

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:43 | Link to Comment John Bigboote
John Bigboote's picture

The number is also for gross income. Think about how bad net income is with all of the new expenses and shit that needs to be paid for. Anyone with kids knows what I am talking about. The net number is much worse than the gross number.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:30 | Link to Comment Chrome Child
Chrome Child's picture

+1 My friend. Couldn't agree more...

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:59 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Oh...that will settle all of America's ills....you not watching CNN anymore, whstblwer.

LOL !!!

You're right...Ron Paul's allure just increased by 500%....from 1% to 5%. of the electorate.

ROTHFLMAO !!!!

I hate CNN.....I do not watch it......Most of Ron Pauls ideas are sound enough...at least on paper.

But please.....<snicker> ..... CNN is the LEAST of our problems and Ron Paul will never be more than a marginalized, nutter in the eyes of the American bovines.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:09 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"But please.....<snicker> ..... CNN is the LEAST of our problems and Ron Paul will never be more than a marginalized, nutter in the eyes of the American bovines."

Hey sneery McDefeatist, guess who's fault that is. (Hint: you`ll require a reflective surface to face up to this fact.)

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:27 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

I did look in the mirror and realized I was you....a wide-eyed bovine who believes in the magical bullshit of Ron Paul or anyones attempt to attain and preserve freedom.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:45 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

That wasn't a mirror, that was a brick wall you were slamming your own face into while projecting your failings. You're going to need to learn the difference, and right smartly too.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:41 | Link to Comment SteveOoooo
SteveOoooo's picture

Morontron is a troll.

Why are we feeding him?

 

 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:39 | Link to Comment whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Jumbotron, I did not say will settle America ills, LOL. But I stop supporting bullshit media, no more viewing, no more advertising dollars from us. CNN think it matters they 'blacklist' Paul when we get our news from internet...shows out of touch.

I think you wrong about Paul view in eyes of America. It's why he being marginialized in media because status quo scared SHITLESS, Real polls and focus group tell story. Not bogus rigged bullshit from CNN.

Hear us CNN? we on to you and with social media, all our friends on to you too. It's spreading.

Everyone who reads here, get to work.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:01 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Really?

If the old guard media back in the days of the 60's and 70's, in which I grew up in, could be considered an old school washboard (remember those...I do...my great grandparents still used them in a old tin tub when I was a kid)

then today with the internet and blogs and tweets and Youtube could be considered a large capacity washing machine.

Lot more room for stuff....but still just churning and foam.

Except unlike the modern washer....the truth is not any cleaner,

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:52 | Link to Comment NeoCapitalist
NeoCapitalist's picture

If Paul wasnt already out of the running, he is now after he comments that 9/11 was the fault of our foreign policies, quoting several Jihadists.  Whatever the truth behind that statement is, I happen to believe that some of what he said is truthful pertaining to that matter, the GOP War Hawks will crush him into the ground.  Its a shame.. the only man who understands the bankers are the real problem, and is willing and able to challenge them, has now taken himself out of the race with somewhat unecessary comments...

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:29 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Great....so he talks a good game.

Just like our Founding Fathers.

You know the ones who wrote those great speaches.....came up with that little document...you know....the Constitution...the Declaration of Independence....the Bill of Rights.....even the Articles of Confederation.

Words so magnificently courageous.....so pregnant with Truth....so obviously Right....that it brought King George to his senses that he ordered his soldiers to return everything they stole...leave every house they took over to house themselves....and paid restitution for a 100 years of theft and malfeasence and murder.

And....oh...wait a minute......they were domestic terrorists.....weren't they?

Thank God, that the Founding Fathers would not have given a shit about what Janet Napalitano would have thought about them.  It was the same thing King George thought about them.

Yet....you blathering, useless, sons of bitches....particularly in the TEA PARTY....really....you really took THAT NAME?  The name of members of a terrorist group who took action not against King George specifically but against the EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY who at the time was the WAL MART of that age and was hollowing out the domestic tea market by flooding the American market with cheap imports.

Really?  Are you that stupid about your own history?  Are you that blind as to what it takes to obtain and preserve liberty?

Yes you are.  And you are also too cowardly to understand that violent, bloody revolution is the only thing....as Thomas Jefferson foresaw and warned about....that is efficacious in obtaining and preserving freedom.

After all....how many more ballots will it take to restore freedom?  How many more hundreds of years?  When the populace now knows that all it takes to enrich themselves is to vote this politican or that who will "BRING HOME THE BACON.....A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT.....A GREAT SOCIETY.......WAR ON TERROR.....ad infinitum....ad nauseum.

Am I advocating armed rebellion. NO!  A thousand times NO!

Am I a hypocrite?  No.  But you are with all your big talk of freedom and taking the country back.  In believing that by voting for one superman all the countries' ills will start to vanish and things will go back as they should.

I'm no hypocrite because, even though I know that armed rebellion it what has been needed for decades, it is ultimately a useless exercise.  For it is a real life Matrix we live...to constantly.....every 20 years in the opinion of Thomas Jefferson....be in a state of revolution.

So...I am quietly resigned to the fact that America....as all of human history's great empires...is in terminal decline and will reach some much lower equilibrium someday.  Maybe much sooner than anyone now imagines.

You blowhards are too stupid to realize it....and too cowardly to do the one and only thing that will win back your freedom...at least for a little while.....the way that it was won for you by your Forefathers....namely....to die for it.  And not on some distant land, sent there by a corrupt government.....but on your own soil, by your own hands.

 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:37 | Link to Comment whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

No you are advocating taht we rebel to be arrested and waste away in jail cell, when instead smarter way is to change system within. It's what status quo don't want us to know, and why you come on this board to tell us votes don't matter, it's smarter to go to jail so you don't have a vote!!!! LOL!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:54 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Obviously you did not read my post adequately.  I said I am not advocating violence because I know that in the end it will be a useless exercise.  It ultimately was for our Founding Fathers.

However, it is a fact that armed violence by our Founding Fathers did indeed win what little freedoms we have left.

It is indeed a fact the Jefferson actually hoped that the American people would not go more than 20 years without armed rebellion and bloodshed, for he knew all too well that that is what it would take.

It is indeed a fact the the PTB hope you and the rest of the Freedom Blowhard Brigade believe like you that it would be bad to rebel, get arrested and waste away in a jail cell.

The game is so maasively rigged and corrupt that you will never fix it from the inside.

So you are left with only two logical conclusions and action,

Resign yourself to decline and work in the system that is left.

OR take up arms as the Founding Fathers did.

But please,.....all of you ......quit your bitching and moaning about the loss of freedoms and please stop your hero-worhsip of Ron Paul or Rick Perry or Sparticus...blah blah blah.  Take control of the situation yourself.

And as I said before....if any of you think that our government has become as corrupt and evil as you say it is you have a moral, sacred, HISTORIC duty to take up arms and save the republic and the population from such tyranny.

Otherwise STFU and deal with it.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:10 | Link to Comment whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

But whatever you do, don't VOTE! Hear you loud and clear :)

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:45 | Link to Comment SteveOoooo
SteveOoooo's picture

"you have a moral, sacred, HISTORIC duty to take up arms"

Jeebus!

The Troll is inciting violence too!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:31 | Link to Comment whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

I don't agree. This what he say and he's right, they are not attack us because we free and prosperous. The GOP war hawks hate him already if he wants to end wars and bring troops home. He has many statements that challenge status quo...He also has statement that defend Israel.

“This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they are attacking us because we are free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit. . . they have been explicit and they wrote and said that “we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment and you have been bombing (audience boos). . . I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed then there’s some problem.”

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:56 | Link to Comment gball
gball's picture

profit margins would be higher, but wages would be higher too.

business knows the gov't provides medicaid, food stamps, other welfare programs to people that make low wages.  So the people goto the government to demand handouts b/c the gov't gives it to them.

If the gov't didn't provide handouts, workers would demand more from business.  Right now, they don't face the ire of the masses because the gov't takes care of them with minimal substinance.

would profit margins be higher.  yep.

would people end up with more money...i'd speculate yes becuase the business would pay higher wages directly to employees.  whereas funneling it through the gov't yields additional administrative expense and bureacracy.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:42 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Shhhh, it is workers paying the price of issuing debt money at interest.

But it is a secret.  They want you to look at all of those things you stated.  

Whatever you do, do not look at the problem.

pods

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:11 | Link to Comment Larry Darrell
Larry Darrell's picture

gball

Here's a breakdown for my average regular employee.

I pay out 45.96 per hour.  Of that, 24.43 ends up on his check.

Short list of some of the money he doesn't see which we pay on a percentage basis.

FRINGES (money he won't ever see because the system will crash.  If he does get, it will be in worthless currency)  $15.28

FICA      6.2%

Medicare     1.45%

State Unemployment     10%

Federal Unemployment     0.80%

Worker's comp     5.60%

General liability    1.53%

 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:37 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Throw in some sort of health insurance and you could knock a few more bucks off his take home.  Politicians wonder why the private sector isn't hiring.  Are they that fucking stupid (rhetorical)?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 16:44 | Link to Comment I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

yest, they are that stupid!

and not to mention the overhead charges per employee to keep the lights on.  Those computers and phones and paper don't pay for themselves you know!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:42 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Whlie I am most definately NOT a Keynesian....

I have to call BULLSHIT on you anyway, gball.

Whatever savings business would get would be stored up as increased profits that would still be laundered if possible overseas to escape whatever taxes were left.

Even if EVERY single regulation, tax, levy, fee, insurance, etc. was taken off the books you could never bring the #1 costs of every single business....both large and small....that being the employee itself...down to the wage costs of indentured slave workers overseas.

And since the cardinal rule of every company is to maximize profits and one of those ways to do that is spend less money maintaining your business then it has been....is now.....and in the future....an inevitable fact....that money spent on manpower move somewhere on the globe where it was cheaper for the company.

Wage arbitrage....for all of capitalism's good things....is its biggest bitch and is inescapable.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:05 | Link to Comment Z Beeblebrox
Z Beeblebrox's picture

So the cause is low demand for American workers because of globalization. I'd also add industrialization/automation/technology in there. I'm not sure what we can do about technology. It has been enabling class structures since the invention of farming. So perhaps the more relevant question becomes, what is the cause of globalization? Without central planning, would it really be cheaper to ship goods across the ocean than to produce them locally? Would people in other countries be willing to work for so little if their economies were left alone by NATO/IMF/colonizing types? What if international thugs stopped just taking what they wanted?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:32 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Central planning has nothing to do with being able to ship shit across the ocean....cheap energy...most in the form of petrolium does.  And that is coming to an end and with it globalization and the very rapacious,  boundary-less, unpatriotic capitalism that has been the driving engine since the end of WW 2.

But for the rest of your post....you mean if human beings would just stop being....well...corruptable..evil human beings?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:37 | Link to Comment RKDS
RKDS's picture

And if businesses didn't cut corners on safety, didn't pathologically lie to customers, didn't defraud small investors, didn't cheat on their taxes, etc....perhaps the regulations they cry about would rest alot lighter on their shoulders?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:56 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Amen !

+1000

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 16:50 | Link to Comment I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

But if they were exposed to a true free market, would those that engaged in such pathological behavior last so long as they do now?  Or would unfettered competition keep them more in line?  Regulation=moral hazard

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:53 | Link to Comment unnamed enemy
unnamed enemy's picture

what could be used for wages ends up being used for executive compensation, executive bonuses and executive perks. 

 

//i hate executives

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:19 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Bullshit.  Costs incurred preventing a tradgedy of the commons are in our long-term national interests.  If China or Mexico are fine with turning their countries into toxic latrines to subisdize business for the short-term - fine - they'll pay for it later.  Racing to the bottom, either by devaluing currancy, or allowing no-holds barred development at the expense of the future both stripmine profit from future generations. 

Regarding health-care expences - I don't see how it makes any difference whether I pay for my own health care premiums (in exchange for a higher wage) or if my employer does (for a lower wage) other than the collective bargaining savings that belonging to a larger employee group allows.  Accordingly, it's probably more efficient for larger employers to have corporate health plans, and smaller businesses to leave it up to their employees, or do the HMO thing (which, surprise! is what generally happens)

 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 17:14 | Link to Comment MrSteve
MrSteve's picture

I suspect we all pay for a poisoned biosphere, not just the greedy fools who spilled the toxins into our food and water supply. Bhopal, Love Canal, Chernobyl- really, the list is too long. One fifth of the world's fresh water is in the Great Lakes and the fish in it are too toxic for pregnant women to eat. (see Wisconsin DNR warnings- they are posted on public fishing docks, etc.)

The longer I live, seeing watersheds ruined by industrial pollution, the more I support every environmental restriction on chemical and atomic pollution. Fracking chemical to free natural gas in shale may be one of the worse things we have done. Deep underground water supplies were the last pure water on earth.

Obama's failure to get serious about nuclear proliferation (of the worst kind) in Iran will be just another page of failure in his term of office. What part of the planet won't be effected by commoditizing nuclear weapons?

Get used to every day decontamination. It is the future of our planetary commons.

 

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:18 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

+1  

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:33 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

OH sure...federally mandated $6 an hour and all would have been peaches and cake.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:35 | Link to Comment Internet Tough Guy
Internet Tough Guy's picture

$6 an hour? That's a moral outrage; it would shatter the national economy.

By the way, did you see the cool new stealth fighters the Air Force is buying?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:57 | Link to Comment Shocker
Shocker's picture

Lets see you try to live at $6/hour. Oh you can live barely, just plan on living with 10 people, no car, no real means to do anything.

Sure you will eat, and survive. But thats about it

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:10 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Welcome to the New World Order get your iron rice bowl and STFU!  In fact, you may need to be re-educated, so pack your duffel bag and get on this FEMA/UN train.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:34 | Link to Comment Internet Tough Guy
Internet Tough Guy's picture

Laissze-faire capitalists say that's socialism, Trotsky! How dare those poor people expect to survive.

Meanwhile, those same angry white males continue to see their wages slide in real terms, as more and more of them fall from the ladder of prosperity into the mass of po' folk they so despise. From proud working man to despised social parasite. Ironic.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:39 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Lot of hate in your words.

I'm not sure those people you hate so much hate the poor for being poor.  They hate the generational welfare recipients who never did anything but incease in number.  Sometimes they correctly direct their anger at the government which perpetuated their eating, sometimes not.  But very few hate poor people for being poor, especially in this economy when they see good, honest, hardworking people unable to get a job of any type.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:57 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Lot of truth in those words.  Particualarly if you ever listen to Neil Boortz.

The government was responsible for most of the first gneration of welfare recipients.

Now.....it's mostly the fault of the bankers, financiers and businesses who perpetrated the lie that eternal growth through the issuance of cheap and eternal debt could solve all ills and preserve and promote the so called "American Dream"

Government also had a hand in it....but they always do.  However, between wage arbitrage which is the driving factor in maintaining capitalism's prime directive....namely preserving and making more capital (profits) and the issuance of cheap debt to the masses who are being hollowed out by 40 years of wage arbitrage......

Mix..shake.....BOOM !

Welcome to that which you have feared and hated......poverty....bitchez!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:09 | Link to Comment Reform1776
Reform1776's picture

+1K

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:09 | Link to Comment The Third Man
The Third Man's picture

Poverty, which is just another government statistic, isn't so bad. What did Dylan say?

"When you got nothing...you got nothing to lose."

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:58 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Janis Joplin

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:49 | Link to Comment SteveOoooo
SteveOoooo's picture

But she DID lose her life. 

Stupidly. 

Point?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 16:58 | Link to Comment I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

many of us don't hate the poor, just that we hate the lazy, corrupt and the inept.  Sometimes those two subsets of people coincide.  Sometimes not. 

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 02:25 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Sometimes, the lazy, corrupt and inept get elected!  (Hell, almost ALL the time!)

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:59 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Stupid MF'ers watching moronic ballgames on the elites Al Waleed/Rothschild TV networks that control the dumb f**king sheep.  All the networks are the same.  Until people unplug their mind control box - nothing will ever change.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:34 | Link to Comment pupton
pupton's picture

I think you have missed the point, comrade.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:39 | Link to Comment MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Since joining this blog I have to say that I have been quite appauled at the reasoning ability of many of the commenters. Admittedly I have put forward many contrarian views, but I expect to receive arguments to the contrary rather than childish slander. Logic 101 - an argument consists of a series of propositions followed by reason and evidence in support of those propositions. For example, Free market prices are a disaster (proposition) because equity prices are falling (evidence) due to the lack of foresight and maturity of the ignorant investing public (logic). You may repond to me with ad-hominems or propaganda, but I will live up to my own standards of virtue and solid principles.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:49 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

You just might be my favorite troll, ever.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:05 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

The oozing pomposity is my favorite.  Def a solid troll.  Always unique arguments.  Hamy, you got some competition.

When they get this good, I give them the green arrow. 

pods 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:10 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Me thinks this is Hamy 2.0  Great stuff!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:16 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

There was a guy on the old Daily Reckoning board named SF3006.  He was my all time fav.  BOOM!

Hamy made a pop in the other night.  Moonlighting?

pods

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:02 | Link to Comment ceilidh_trail
ceilidh_trail's picture

I thought that was Harry, not Hamy...

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:13 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Coulda been.  Between Harry, Hamy, Wanquer et all I get cornfused sometimes.

pods

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:31 | Link to Comment JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

 

 

Hammy / Janus / MillionBillionDollar are sooooooooooooo worth the read!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:53 | Link to Comment DefiantSurf
DefiantSurf's picture

What? I think you said something but all I heard was blah blah blah....

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:09 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

"But of course that's far too reasonable for heartless libertarians who only care about themselves."

Sounds like propaganda to me there sparky. You just aren't as good as Redneck Repugnicant/Libertarians for Prosperity.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:17 | Link to Comment prains
prains's picture

Sir, your berth on the USS Retardulon awaits. Bon Voyage.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:30 | Link to Comment Little John
Little John's picture

You got your logic - I got mine.  Gold is money, paper is paper.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:45 | Link to Comment pupton
pupton's picture

How many years at Harvard did it take you to acquire this sense of superiority???

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:53 | Link to Comment Lets_Eat_Ben
Lets_Eat_Ben's picture

Old MDB is a quality troll I must admit. I have recently discovered how fun it is to spout non-sensical bullshit in a haughty tone. It drives people crazy. Then I like to rebuttal by looking perplexed and saying, "I guess I'm not following your initial assumption." Try it next time you have a few drinks. It's a riot.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:23 | Link to Comment The Third Man
The Third Man's picture

Spelling is very important (proposition), but other posters will take offense at your misspelling of the word appalled (evidence), with the result that the best of arguments will be overlooked (logic), despite your best efforts to live up to your own standards of virtue and solid principles (...whatever that means).

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:35 | Link to Comment Withdrawn Sanction
Withdrawn Sanction's picture

Yes, of course.  One badly flawed survey instrument of NJ fast food joints overturns the basic tenets of economic action.  Card & Krueger's study wasn't even properly refereed before being published in the AER. 

That shouldn't even pass the giggle test for trolls....but, sadly, it did. 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:36 | Link to Comment Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Could you do me a favor and explain to me how a centrally-planned economy based on a private bank's money supply and money cost machinations constitute a free market? 

Eat a dick DOHllar!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:58 | Link to Comment MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Most of the wages in the chart above are wages set by private companies. Public sector wages and benefits on the other hand are soaring. This demonstrates that smart central planners are able to produce higher paying jobs because they are learned enough to allocate capital efficiently.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:10 | Link to Comment Guinny_Ire
Guinny_Ire's picture

sarcasm alert! sarcasm alert!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:10 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

"This demonstrates that smart central planners are able to produce higher paying jobs because they are learned enough to allocate capital efficiently."

 

Or when you work with a blank check paid for by someone else you can set up wages however you like.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:15 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Dog this is good !

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:34 | Link to Comment JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

 

 

why would ANYONE vote him down?? that is sad.. it is a sad state of America that we are living in surrounded by idiots! This Guy / Gal is FANTASTIC!

WAKE UP SHEEP!

SARC/ should not have to be mentioned all the time you dumb fuckers!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:47 | Link to Comment RKDS
RKDS's picture

Sounds like another clueless fool who's never worked in the public sector.

Wages and benefits there have been falling, while the layoffs that "never happen" are making job security a thing of the past.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:42 | Link to Comment pslater
pslater's picture

"This just demonstrates the tragedy of free market wages."

Wrong.  This demostrates the debacle created by 45 years of liberal economic theory and the debasing of the US dollar for 98 years by the Federal Reserve, a private corporation.  As exhibits A and B I offer:

A) Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program from the mid sixties (the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, nationalized healthcare (Medicare), and turning Fannie Mae into a 'public/private' corporation.  how'd all that work out?

B) The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.  in addition to being one of the proximate causes of the Grteat Depression, they have mis-diagnosed virtually every significant economic event for the last 98 years while trashing the US $ which now buys less than 2% of what it did in 1913.

And finally, EVERY economic study that's ever been done on minimum wages shows that raising these wages is counterproductive and hurts those at the bottom of the economic ladder the most.

Do some research, read something besides the NYT, and try not to display your economic ignorance so publicly.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:03 | Link to Comment Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

won't buff out

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:54 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Your're facts are correct, pslater.....but still have little to do with the truth.

Let's say I eliminate the minimum wage and medicare.  I instantly allow business to book a higer profit, even if they do not make any more income than the year before, simply from the cost savings alone.

But let's say that they do book more income and more savings from no medicare costs and no minimum wage.  Do you honestly think the company would give a 1:1 ratio of wage increases to their employees?  That is to say...for every dollar they do not have to spend on increase minimum wage and medicare they will altuistically give to their employees?  Of course not....particularly if in the beginning of my post they did not book any additional income from growth but simple savings from decreased costs and regulations. 

Why?  It violates the prime directive of capitalism...namely make a profit....which today means....make a profit every single frikkin' quarter or we will slaughter your stock price.

Now....let's say that company DOES do the altruistic thing and give their employees the entire savings from the lack of taxes and regulations.  GREAT !!!  Until their competitor looks overseas and says...."Well...I can save my company X millions of dollars a year by moving manufacturing to China and with low energy costs (at one time) still be able to sell my widget for cheaper than my altruistic competitor across the street.,

Then Mister Altruistic CEO sees that his stock price is hammered vs. his competitor who moved to where the wage arbitrage gave him an advantage.....well.,...just how long to you think MR. Altruistic would last before doing the same thing to his company....first...by keeping wages stagnant....then if that didn't work, by laying off people, and then if that did not work...shipping their manufacturing overseas as well.....probably across the street from their not so altruistic competitor.,

I hate the government.  I hate their regulations and their taxes and their socialist control..

But please....let's get real.....Capitialism is nothing more than economic Darwinism.  It does not give a shit about the American worker...or workers in general anywhere.  For the cornicopian dream of eternal growth to have a chance at succeeding you must have wage arbitrage to fulfill the prime directive of capitalism, namely making a profit.

If capitalism can not make a profit.....then ....what good is it?  Not saying any other system is better....but if you want a better capitalism....you have to have better people running it.

And I'm sorry....after 10,000 years of recorded human history...I just don't see better people on the horizon.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 00:52 | Link to Comment SteveOoooo
SteveOoooo's picture

"And I'm sorry....after 10,000 years of recorded human history...I just don't see better people on the horizon."

You are living proof.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 17:14 | Link to Comment LooseLee
LooseLee's picture

I hate the moronic psychology that believes the world revolves around stock prices. Stocks are not capitalism but a potential fraud born out of capitalism. They (stocks) can also be non-fraudulent and a real means of capital formation. However, since the mid 1990's I fail to see where they have been. Capitalism based on stock prices has become the fraud known as crony-capitalism...

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:07 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Don't you have a podium appearance today?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:07 | Link to Comment ceilidh_trail
ceilidh_trail's picture

Doesn't your teleprompter have a podium appearence today? Fixed that for ya.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:19 | Link to Comment jakethesnake76
jakethesnake76's picture

Sir you are Heartless. How many of the least qualified don't get jobs because of your phony minimum wage??? BTW i know ranchers that now hire Illegals because the local kids won't work for minimum wages and won't show up when hired. This idea is now so pervasive that a government job where i work all the people get paid the same in departments depending on years served so the guy that never hits a lick makes same as guys doing all the work TELL ME HOW FAIR THAT IS???

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:42 | Link to Comment xtop23
xtop23's picture

This is quite possibly the most idiotic post I've ever read on ZH

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:26 | Link to Comment trendtrader377
trendtrader377's picture

Riddle me this einstein, if the min. wage is great why isn't it @ 72.5 or better yet 725. Then we can all make the same as lawyers and bankers. It should be very clear to everyone that the min wage only serves to exclude those who are unskilled from the labor force. Typically those who are unskilled are poor. Rasing the min wage only makes the situation worse for the poor.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:53 | Link to Comment RKDS
RKDS's picture

Funny, I had a different take on it - if minimum wage is such a luxurious wage, why don't the banksters do God's Work for $7/hour too?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 16:13 | Link to Comment I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

equality is for losers

so you would have businesses hire at much better wages the "poor workers" who haven't bothered to obtain any marketable skills and who also want to have generous bennies for output of questionable value?  right..... /SARC

So the person who worked and studied and improved themselves would get paid the same as some one who partied.  Yeah, that's fair.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 17:21 | Link to Comment LooseLee
LooseLee's picture

I've known a lot of partiers and those who didn't have any marketable skills (or lied about them) who got the promotions and higher paying 'jobs'. Its called the 'good ole boys club' and is partially what's behind the inequality of opportunity in this country....

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:01 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

I want your avatar back !!!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:28 | Link to Comment TheGameIsRigged
TheGameIsRigged's picture

REVOLUTION!!!  We need MASSIVE change - in Gov'ts (both national and local)  We need America to wake up and take back what is RIGHTFULLY ours!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:07 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

So....tell me...just how are you going to go about ...this REVOLUTION!!!!!!...as you say?

Just how are YOU going to take back what is RIGHTFULLY ours?

 

To make it easier for you....you need to answer these two questions....

1:  What is RIGHTFULLY ours?

2:  How was it acquired in the first place?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:09 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

To plasizow...the second post at the top

(Why the hell did this reply get here....oh wel....)

Until the counter-Revolution and the one's chanting guillotine, Guillotine, GUILLOTINE....would come under its knife edge.

Besides....most of the ones who would chant that would probably think that Guillotine was a nutritious, drink mix made of malt and chocolate.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:30 | Link to Comment DormRoom
DormRoom's picture

1968.  Wasn't that also the year supply side economics became fashionable?  And likely lead to the huge income gaps between the top 1% and the bottom 99%?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:35 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

Wait a sec Tyler #7....  I have to call bullshit.

If you're using inflation adjusted dollars and picking points at which men made more money in history -- we could take this chart even further back and claim workers made more 180 years ago as well.  

And one should ask a more fundamental question:  Why shouldn't male workers be making less than they made 40 years ago???  If we're inflation adjusting, we should only expect the number to be equal -- not more and not less.   But -- We've added women to the equation over the last 40 years -- doesn't that logically mean that male workers are in less demand? 

 

 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:40 | Link to Comment abouziz
abouziz's picture

we should expect the number to be more because GDP has grown. If it were to follow inflation (assuming same proportional distribution) it would mean society produces as much today as in the 1960s.

I would agree with your point on female workers creating competition, and would add that emerging market cheap labor has also kept pressure on wages.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:44 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

So you are saying that we shouldn't expect an economy to grow and become more wealthy over time, given people's hard work and savings?

If you look at 180 years ago, you will find that inflation adjusted incomes are WAAAYYY up.  This is because the indutrial revolution made each person's labor more valuable by leveraging it with clever use of automation and increasing specialization of labor.  The same amount of labor that would barely allow you to feed yourself 180 years ago today provides a fairly comfortable existance all the way up to a super lavish lifestyle, depending on how much leverage you can get to your labor/savings.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:26 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Why shouldn't male workers be making less than they made 40 years ago???

We live in a world brimming with untapped resources, empty lands, and idle factories. Human scientific, technological, and theraputic knowledge keeps increasing. Human population keeps increasing, allowing greater specialization and division of labor. One would expect a much better standard of living - either more wealth or greater leisure - for the whole world. Perhaps things did get worse in USA due to mounting socialistic policies and interventions. The caveat is that you need to adopt some kind of arbitrary utilitarian standard to make these judgements for society. Personally, I'm a big fan of video games and probably would have been much less happy 43 years ago.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:14 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

women earn less because men work more dangerous, but higher paying jobs.

Equalized, job-for-job and normalizing for the vastly higher time off women take, women actually are paid more than men.  The myths that the MSM spout about this are complete bullshit, along with those about pay across race lines

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

I agree with you, but I'd change your reasoning as follows: Women earn less because they are not as productive as men. 

A number of things factor into women being less productive than men, none of which are negative (except, perhaps, in the eyes of a public school drone). Child rearing and housework are two examples that will surely draw some ire.

Bottom line: if you want to be good at something, and to get paid a lot while doing it, you have to perfect your skill.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:11 | Link to Comment Mariposa de Oro
Mariposa de Oro's picture

Sorry Trav,

Beg to differ this time.  I have more education than most of the males (technicians) in my department, similar time in career, and still make about 15% less.  I'm an electronics technician.  Also, as to taking time off, eh, not so much.  Yes I have a child.  She's now 23.  For about half of her childhood, she lived with her father in another state.  Aside from the two years I stayed home with her when she was born, I've been in the work force in one career or another.  The only time I was paid equally to men was during my time in the active Army.  And yes, I did the same work.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:30 | Link to Comment equity_momo
equity_momo's picture

Get back to the kitchen or the bedroom.

At least one good outcome when this 100 year fossil fuel , credit driven population bubble finally bursts is that we can go back to living how we were designed. Man - hunt/gather. Woman - nest/nurture. Everything else is a destruction and twisting of the family unit.

There are so many perversions to modern society i dont expect you to understand but feel free to bleat on about your 15 fucking %.  

Whooooooooooosh.

Bring out the progressive fuckwards and guilt tripped paper-pushers.. red arrow is right there.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:01 | Link to Comment Mariposa de Oro
Mariposa de Oro's picture

And here's a hearty "Fuck you, Asswipe." I'm not complaining about the lousy 15%.  Just stating an observation.  As for that bedroom/kitichen thingy.  Been there done that, did a damn good job of it to.  Just decided that doing it for an abusive, ugrateful POS was more trouble than its worth.  I've also been a breadwinner/bedroon/kitchen type in a subsequent relationship.  I could do it again easily if I wanted to.  But why?  The quality of most males isn't worth it as you've so quite ably shown.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:23 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are pushing on a string, idiot.  People who HAVE to work can't simply be told to stop working for the good of mankind.  Rather, capital must be built up such that once again a single wage earner can support an entire family.  This means gutting governemnt regulations and decreasing or eliminating income taxes.

It was the same way with child labor.  Progressives and unionists would have you beleive that THEY stopped child labor, when in reality it was the increasing incomes of industrial workers that allowed first the children to stop working, then the women (yes, the women worked back then as well).  Those nations which have not built up an industrial base have been pressured by those same groups of unionists and progressives to outlaw child labor.  The result has been starvation and child prostitution.  Good job guys.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:26 | Link to Comment Don Birnam
Don Birnam's picture

@wombats

Granted that ZH software now incorporates the "up/down" rec device, for auld lang syne,

+1

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:20 | Link to Comment wombats
wombats's picture

Who cares about the proletariat...or the unwashed masses?  They don't count.  They are just the hired hands.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:21 | Link to Comment AngryGerman
AngryGerman's picture

people back then drank and smoked in the office. so more drinking and smoking, more money?

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:22 | Link to Comment wombats
wombats's picture

I'll drink to that!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:07 | Link to Comment gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

I'll drink to, and off of, those!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:22 | Link to Comment the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

sad

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:22 | Link to Comment brian0918
brian0918's picture

The only reason the median female salary has skyrocketed is because women have been forced into the workplace just to keep the family going. It's not longer possible for one parent to work and feed the family.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:29 | Link to Comment baby_BLYTHE
baby_BLYTHE's picture

exactly. The BLS can lie and massage the hell out of the data all the want. They will never be able to hide the naked reality that it takes two full-time incomes to support the standard of living once enjoyed only a few decades ago in this country.

The entire fabric of a society altered in just a few short decades by the evils of Fiat Money, Federal Reserve System and Fractional-Reserve Banking.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:59 | Link to Comment Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Those are but symptoms of a larger problem-- the triumph of Cultural Marxism in western society.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:18 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild

To me... Fiat money, central banking, and fractional reserve lending seem to be 'symptoms' that know no 'cultural' bias.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:29 | Link to Comment lizzy36
lizzy36's picture

It is.

Just not in the syle Americans have been told they have become accustomed to.

You see 40 years ago, houses were 1400 sq' feet. There were 2 bathrooms, small kitchen and 2 tv's tops. Kids shared rooms. And, gasp sometimes there was only one car.

I am DEFINATELY not saying that woman should stay or men should be sole breadwinners. I am saying that what we have been told we need to "keep a family going" and what we actually need are two very different things.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:37 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

It's not longer possible for one parent to work and feed the family.

HYPERBOLE ALERT!!!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:03 | Link to Comment Agent P
Agent P's picture

I had the same thought and gave you a +1 for it, but you have to admit, you wouldn't be able to afford the setup you mentioned today on one $32k gross salary.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:53 | Link to Comment Elliott Eldrich
Elliott Eldrich's picture

You are failing to take into account improvements in construction productivity since then. 40 years ago carpenters were swinging hammers, now they use compressers and air-powered nail guns. All of the components that go into a house are mass-produced, modular and easily installed, and those have also gotten cheaper and better. Not to say that McMansions are an ideal we should strive towards, but I don't have a problem with the idea of a house averaging around 2,000 sq. feet today versus 1,400 back in the 70's. I can easily chalk that one up to better mass production of components and better assembly and construction techniques on-site.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:44 | Link to Comment pupton
pupton's picture

Thank the price inflation and the tax code for that. 

Now there is some bullshit in Tyler's assertion that women don't have equality in wages, since that is not what this data is intended to illustrate.  This does not say for a particular occupation or job that a woman makes less than a man.  It says the median for ALL women, doing all jobs.  And let's face it, there are more women working in low wage and part time jobs right now.  Compare the number of Fortune 500 CEOs male/female.  Then have a look at the check out lane at Safeway, the coffee jockey at starbucks, bank tellers, etc.  But, there are more women attending college these days and I suspect that women will continue to close the gap and move into more white collar jobs.

One thing that will never be equal is the biological fact that a woman must carry the child and not the man.  The woman is going to miss out on career opportunities is SHE CHOSES to have children.  "Equality" of opportunity doesn't guarantee equality of results.

My two cents.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:30 | Link to Comment V in PA
V in PA's picture

"But, there are more women attending college these days and I suspect that women will continue to close the gap and move into more white collar jobs"
*********************************************
Couple hundred thousand waitresses might disagree.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/why-did-17-million-students-go-to...

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:54 | Link to Comment pupton
pupton's picture

V, I read your article.  First, it says "waiters and waitresses".  They do not slice and dice the data by sex, so I'm not sure what your point is.  Unless the point of your linking to that article was to show that many people who lack the "cognative ability" are wasting their money going to college because they will still just be a blue collar worker when they graduate.  Either way, more women in college than men is a statistic I read earlier this year and I think it points to equal opportunity and women closing the gap on men by taking advantage of that opportunity.  If they choose to get a worthless degree, well that is their choice.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:12 | Link to Comment V in PA
V in PA's picture

I did assume 2/3 of the 317,000 were waitresses with 1/3 waiters, but I feel it is a fair assumtion.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:06 | Link to Comment ptoemmes
ptoemmes's picture

Elizabeth Warren - The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GHg3GAeQ1Y

 

Recorded in 2004 and reposted in 2010.  

 

Pete

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:15 | Link to Comment Guinny_Ire
Guinny_Ire's picture

forced by who? The necessity to make ends meet (2 new cars, cable tv, those club soccer dues) or by the inherent social presure that you're not accomplished as a woman if you stay home? Poor households have always had mothers that worked historically. My wife's great great great great grandmother was listed as a "washerwoman" in the 1860 census. People consume more wants. The definitions have changed and will continue to do so.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:20 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Aaron Russo has some interesting thoughts on this in this must watch youtube clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJCTFZf03A

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:38 | Link to Comment JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

 

 

Nice Grab Hulky!

Aaron Russo is worth watching.. if for no other reason than some good counter weight to what Cable News offeres all day every day, in heavy rotation, layered..

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:30 | Link to Comment Bwahaha WAGFDSMB
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:23 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

Forced?  LOL...haven't talked to too many feminists out there huh?

Women in the west love working because now they don't have to rely on anyone getting in the way of their "life experience" bucket list.  They can afford to travel and self-indulge until they realize in their mid 30s that against a backdrop of steeply declining fertility, youth, and beauty, that they're simply not a catch.  You add that into the wear and tear of a decade and a half of being exclusively navel-gazingly self-obsessed and you have someone who presents about the same quality of mate as a barrel of shit straight out of Fukushima 4's SFP.

And when this realization dawns on them that there is no fairy tale ending because that shit was always a fairy tale, they end up on dating sites, bitter and jaded, and having to answer to men asking them why they are 39 and NBM or still getting fuck n' chucked by cougar hunters who are 15 yrs their junior.  This leads to a lot of hatred.  Because they were promised or believed that the "meaning of life" must be at work, having misapprehended that men weren't actually happier, we just don't fucking complain and bitch all the time about it.  Unaware of the world beyond their own emotions, they assumed that by imitating men they could acquire the happiness they imputed to us.  Bzzzzt.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:34 | Link to Comment V in PA
V in PA's picture

Bravo!

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:05 | Link to Comment Toolshed
Toolshed's picture

That's the best analysis I have ever read.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:32 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

men weren't actually happier, we just don't fucking complain and bitch all the time about it.  

*snort*

I'll just sit back and take my junks, this is the same ole same ole, won't be anything new in these posts @ the 'Hedge. . .

"women's lib" pre-dated Aaron Russo by a few centuries, though of course, there was "social norm" conditioning / rules of gender behaviours throughout - hello? religion? the Victorian era? - and NO one is very happy any more, irrespective of their genitals.

but Trav, you're just the extreme version, and your post is as usual, pre-dicktable.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:48 | Link to Comment Mariposa de Oro
Mariposa de Oro's picture

At least YOU'Re not bitter and jaded. :o)

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:27 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Trav is just mad because none of the women he picks up on dating sites agree with him on how 97% of the population should be sterilized, and how he, as a high IQ (but totally worthless) individual should be crown king and get to fuck all the college chicks he likes with his racially pure dick.

lol

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:14 | Link to Comment Mariposa de Oro
Mariposa de Oro's picture

Thanks tmosley. He does sound very threatened by a woman who has more brains and ability than him. Yes, I know that type well. Have a great day. Its nice to get confirmation that not all men are jerks.

:o)

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 13:30 | Link to Comment zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

 

I'm a firm believer that this is the reason. Now, after SS ponzi bust, TPTB wants all grand parents to fill office maintenance and parking lot attendants’ jobs. 

 

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:29 | Link to Comment RaymondKHessel
RaymondKHessel's picture

The reason is many-fold. Women want to work. Being a Valium housewife might get old. And the "Joneses" keep wanting more. 40 years ago look at the average size of a home. Is that proporational too? One car? Not two or three? There are many reasons.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:22 | Link to Comment Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

43 years of stagflation, bitches.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:23 | Link to Comment Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

This graphic is an indictment of Keynesianism, and it belongs on every telescreen in the USA.  More than anything else, this (depressing) chart shows the evil behind .gov meddling in the economy.  How shameful.

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:56 | Link to Comment reader2010
reader2010's picture

You've got it all wrong. Guys are happier than any other time in history because they've got their hands on toys like iPads/iPhones, adult daycare centers like Facebook, and free horny sites like youporn. Most of them have been reduced to the state of domestic pets. And they're amusing themselves to death.

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