Valmy keeps asking why everyone thinks America is on the verge of destruction. It's because he's a blinkered stooge of the salary class, reaping success from the ruins of blue collar America. :angry:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/01/donald-trump-and-politics-of-resentment.html
Quote...
It so happens that you can determine a huge amount about the economic and social prospects of people in America today by asking one remarkably simple question: how do they get most of their income? Broadly speaking—there are exceptions, which I'll get to in a moment—it's from one of four sources: returns on investment, a monthly salary, an hourly wage, or a government welfare check. People who get most of their income from one of those four things have a great many interests in common, so much so that it's meaningful to speak of the American people as divided into an investment class, a salary class, a wage class, and a welfare class.
It's probably necessary to point out explicitly here that these classes aren't identical to the divisions that Americans like to talk about. That is, there are plenty of people with light-colored skin in the welfare class, and plenty of people with darker skin in the wage class. Things tend to become a good deal more lily-white in the two wealthier classes, though even there you do find people of color. In the same way, women, gay people, disabled people, and so on are found in all four classes, and how they're treated depends a great deal on which of these classes they're in. If you're a disabled person, for example, your chances of getting meaningful accommodations to help you deal with your disability are by and large considerably higher if you bring home a salary than they are if you work for a wage.
As noted above, there are people who don't fall into those divisions. I'm one of them; as a writer, I get most of my income from royalties on book sales, which means that a dollar or so from every book of mine that sells via most channels, and rather less than that if it's sold by Amazon—those big discounts come straight out of your favorite authors' pockets—gets mailed to me twice a year. There are so few people who make their living this way that the royalty classlet isn't a significant factor in American society. The same is true of most of the other ways of making a living in the US today. Even the once-mighty profit class, the people who get their income from the profit they make on their own business activities, is small enough these days that it lacks a significant collective presence.
There's a vast amount that could be said about the four major classes just outlined, but I want to focus on the political dimension, because that's where they take on overwhelming relevance as the 2016 presidential campaign lurches on its way. Just as the four classes can be identified by way of a very simple question, the political dynamite that's driving the blowback mentioned earlier can be seen by way of another simple question: over the last half century or so, how have the four classes fared?
The answer, of course, is that three of the four have remained roughly where they were. The investment class has actually had a bit of a rough time, as many of the investment vehicles that used to provide it with stable incomes—certificates of deposit, government bonds, and so on—have seen interest rates drop through the floor. Still, alternative investments and frantic government manipulations of stock market prices have allowed most people in the investment class to keep up their accustomed lifestyles.
The salary class, similarly, has maintained its familiar privileges and perks through a half century of convulsive change. Outside of a few coastal urban areas currently in the grip of speculative bubbles, people whose income comes mostly from salaries can generally afford to own their homes, buy new cars every few years, leave town for annual vacations, and so on. On the other end of the spectrum, the welfare class has continued to scrape by pretty much as before, dealing with the same bleak realities of grinding poverty, intrusive government bureacracy, and a galaxy of direct and indirect barriers to full participation in the national life, as their equivalents did back in 1966.
And the wage class? Over the last half century, the wage class has been destroyed.
In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury. In 2016, an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage is as likely as not to end up living on the street, and a vast number of people who would happily work full time even under those conditions can find only part-time or temporary work when they can find any jobs at all. The catastrophic impoverishment and immiseration of the American wage class is one of the most massive political facts of our time—and it's also one of the most unmentionable. Next to nobody is willing to talk about it, or even admit that it happened.
The destruction of the wage class was largely accomplished by way of two major shifts in American economic life. The first was the dismantling of the American industrial economy and its replacement by Third World sweatshops; the second was mass immigration from Third World countries. Both of these measures are ways of driving down wages—not, please note, salaries, returns on investment, or welfare payments—by slashing the number of wage-paying jobs, on the one hand, while boosting the number of people competing for them on the other. Both, in turn, were actively encouraged by government policies and, despite plenty of empty rhetoric on one or the other side of the Congressional aisle, both of them had, for all practical purposes, bipartisan support from the political establishment.
It's probably going to be necessary to talk a bit about that last point. Both parties, despite occasional bursts of crocodile tears for American workers and their families, have backed the offshoring of jobs to the hilt. Immigration is a slightly more complex matter; the Democrats claim to be in favor of it, the Republicans now and then claim to oppose it, but what this means in practice is that legal immigration is difficult but illegal immigration is easy. The result was the creation of an immense work force of noncitizens who have no economic or political rights they have any hope of enforcing, which could then be used—and has been used, over and over again—to drive down wages, degrade working conditions, and advance the interests of employers over those of wage-earning employees.
The next point that needs to be discussed here—and it's the one at which a very large number of my readers are going to balk—is who benefited from the destruction of the American wage class. It's long been fashionable in what passes for American conservatism to insist that everyone benefits from the changes just outlined, or to claim that if anybody doesn't, it's their own fault. It's been equally popular in what passes for American liberalism to insist that the only people who benefit from those changes are the villainous uber-capitalists who belong to the 1%. Both these are evasions, because the destruction of the wage class has disproportionately benefited one of the four classes I sketched out above: the salary class.
Here's how that works. Since the 1970s, the salary class lifestyle sketched out above—suburban homeownership, a new car every couple of years, vacations in Mazatlan, and so on—has been an anachronism: in James Howard Kunstler's useful phrase, an arrangement without a future. It was wholly a product of the global economic dominance the United States wielded in the wake of the Second World War, when every other major industrial nation on the planet had its factories pounded to rubble by the bomber fleets of the warring powers, and the oil wells of Pennsylvania, Texas, and California pumped more oil than the rest of the planet put together. That dominance went away in a hurry, though, when US conventional petroleum production peaked in 1970, and the factories of Europe and Asia began to outcompete America's industrial heartland.
The only way for the salary class to maintain its lifestyle in the teeth of those transformations was to force down the cost of goods and services relative to the average buying power of the salary class. Because the salary class exercised (and still exercises) a degree of economic and political influence disproportionate to its size, this became the order of the day in the 1970s, and it remains the locked-in political consensus in American public life to this day. The destruction of the wage class was only one consequence of that project—the spectacular decline in quality of the whole range of manufactured goods for sale in America, and the wholesale gutting of the national infrastructure, are other results—but it's the consequence that matters in terms of today's politics.
It's worth noting, along these same lines, that every remedy that's been offered to the wage class by the salary class has benefited the salary class at the expense of the wage class. Consider the loud claims of the last couple of decades that people left unemployed by the disappearance of wage-paying jobs could get back on board the bandwagon of prosperity by going to college and getting job training. That didn't work out well for the people who signed up for the student loans and took the classes—getting job training, after all, isn't particularly helpful if the jobs for which you're being trained don't exist, and so a great many former wage earners finished their college careers with no better job prospects than they had before, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt burdening them into the bargain. For the banks and colleges that pushed the loans and taught the classes, though, these programs were a cash cow of impressive scale, and the people who work for banks and colleges are mostly salary class.
Attempts by people in the wage class to mount any kind of effective challenge to the changes that have gutted their economic prospects and consigned them to a third-rate future have done very little so far. To some extent, that's a function of the GOP's sustained effort to lure wage class voters into backing Republican candidates on religious and moral grounds. It's the mirror image of the ruse that's been used by the Democratic party on a galaxy of interests on the leftward end of things—granted, the Democrats aren't doing a thing about the issues that matter most to you, but neither are the Republicans, so you vote for the party that offends you least. Right? Sure, if you want to guarantee that the interests that matter most to you never get addressed at all.
There's a further barrier, though, and that's the response of the salary class across the board—left, right, middle, you name it—to any attempt by the wage class to bring up the issues that matter to it. On the rare occasions when this happens in the public sphere, the spokespeople of the wage class get shouted down with a double helping of the sneering mockery I discussed toward the beginning of this post. The same thing happens on a different scale on those occasions when the same thing happens in private. If you doubt this—and you probably do, if you belong to the salary class—try this experiment: get a bunch of your salary class friends together in some casual context and get them talking about ordinary American working guys. What you'll hear will range from crude caricatures and one-dimensional stereotypes right on up to bona fide hate speech. People in the wage class are aware of this; they've heard it all; they've been called stupid, ignorant, etc., ad nauseam for failing to agree with whatever bit of self-serving dogma some representative of the salary class tried to push on them.
And that, dear reader, is where Donald Trump comes in.
The man is brilliant. I mean that without the smallest trace of mockery. He's figured out that the most effective way to get the wage class to rally to his banner is to get himself attacked, with the usual sort of shrill mockery, by the salary class. The man's worth several billion dollars—do you really think he can't afford to get the kind of hairstyle that the salary class finds acceptable? Of course he can; he's deliberately chosen otherwise, because he knows that every time some privileged buffoon in the media or on the internet trots out another round of insults directed at his failure to conform to salary class ideas of fashion, another hundred thousand wage class voters recall the endless sneering putdowns they've experienced from the salary class and think, "Trump's one of us."
The identical logic governs his deliberate flouting of the current rules of acceptable political discourse. Have you noticed that every time Trump says something that sends the pundits into a swivet, and the media starts trying to convince itself and its listeners that this time he's gone too far and his campaign will surely collapse in humiliation, his poll numbers go up? What he's saying is exactly the sort of thing that you'll hear people say in working class taverns and bowling alleys when subjects such as illegal immigration and Muslim jihadi terrorism come up for discussion. The shrieks of the media simply confirm, in the minds of the wage class voters to whom his appeal is aimed, that he's one of them, an ordinary Joe with sensible ideas who's being dissed by the suits.
Notice also how many of Trump's unacceptable-to-the-pundits comments have focused with laser precision on the issue of immigration. That's a well-chosen opening wedge, as cutting off illegal immigration is something that the GOP has claimed to support for a while now. As Trump broadens his lead, in turn, he's started to talk about the other side of the equation—the offshoring of jobs—as his recent jab at Apple's overseas sweatshops shows. The mainstream media's response to that jab does a fine job of proving the case argued above: "If smartphones were made in the US, we'd have to pay more for them!" And of course that's true: the salary class will have to pay more for its toys if the wage class is going to have decent jobs that pay enough to support a family. That this is unthinkable for so many people in the salary class—that they're perfectly happy allowing their electronics to be made for starvation wages in an assortment of overseas hellholes, so long as this keeps the price down—may help explain the boiling cauldron of resentment into which Trump is so efficiently tapping.
It's by no means certain that Trump will ride that resentment straight to the White House, though at this moment it does seem like the most likely outcome. Still, I trust none of my readers are naive enough to think that a Trump defeat will mean the end of the phenomenon that's lifted him to front runner status in the teeth of everything the political establishment can throw at him. I see the Trump candidacy as a major watershed in American political life, the point at which the wage class—the largest class of American voters, please note—has begun to wake up to its potential power and begin pushing back against the ascendancy of the salary class.
Whether he wins or loses, that pushback is going to be a defining force in American politics for decades to come. Nor is a Trump candidacy anything approaching the worst form that could take. If Trump gets defeated, especially if it's done by obviously dishonest means, the next leader to take up the cause of the wage class could very well be fond of armbands or, for that matter, of roadside bombs. Once the politics of resentment come into the open, anything can happen—and this is particularly true, it probably needs to be said, when the resentment in question is richly justified by the behavior of many of those against whom it's directed.
The wage class is revolting.
Poor people are uneducated, unhealthy and have shitty lives. Film at 11.
Also, how the fuck is Trump addressing the needs of the poor is beyond me.
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2016, 02:22:35 PM
Also, how the fuck is Trump addressing the needs of the poor is beyond me.
He has a bad hairstyle.
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2016, 02:22:35 PM
Also, how the fuck is Trump addressing the needs of the poor is beyond me.
He's speaking the truth, telling it like it is!
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2016, 02:22:35 PM
Also, how the fuck is Trump addressing the needs of the poor is beyond me.
The Western poor don't benefit from immigration, or free markets.
The archdruidreport?
I always ask fast food workers to wear gloves before they handle my food.
Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.
Since universal suffrage.
A couple of technical complaints:
1) Tim, you bolded half the article.
2) This is the second election related thread Tim has started in the past few days (the other being "who would you vote for Trump v. Sanders"). At least that one was a poll. This is just one of a thousand "what does it all mean" articles that will be written on this election between now and the election. It belongs in the election megathread, or we are going to be swamped with election threads.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2016, 06:00:46 PM
2) This is the second election related thread Tim has started in the past few days (the other being "who would you vote for Trump v. Sanders").
:secret: That one was started in August.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2016, 06:00:46 PM
A couple of technical complaints:
1) Tim, you bolded half the article.
2) This is the second election related thread Tim has started in the past few days (the other being "who would you vote for Trump v. Sanders"). At least that one was a poll. This is just one of a thousand "what does it all mean" articles that will be written on this election between now and the election. It belongs in the election megathread, or we are going to be swamped with election threads.
That thread was posted in August
Then why are people still posting in it now?
Because Sanders & Trump went ahead in the poll in Iowa.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2016, 03:13:36 PM
The archdruidreport?
Sorcery and economics, it's like the 1980's all over again!
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2016, 04:35:14 PM
Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.
Well, that's what the Communist leaders who used to control your country would have wanted you to believe. But the reality is (or was) closer to what the article says: "In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury", and that certainly is a lot less true today. Unfortunately, that line is about the only thing the article gets right.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 23, 2016, 06:15:54 PM
Because Sanders & Trump went ahead in the poll in Iowa.
I sort of assumed he would have just started a new thread for that, like for every other minor world event or new slate article. :P
It amuses me how many poor dumb people support the GOP. I mean, Princesca's grandfather only ever had a fourth grade education, but he's been a lifelong Democrat because, in his words, the Republicans "don't care none about the working man". If he managed to figure that out, why can't any of them? :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2016, 06:14:08 PM
Then why are people still posting in it now?
It takes Tim threads about half a year to become relevant.
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2016, 11:42:13 PM
It amuses me how many poor dumb people support the GOP. I mean, Princesca's grandfather only ever had a fourth grade education, but he's been a lifelong Democrat because, in his words, the Republicans "don't care none about the working man". If he managed to figure that out, why can't any of them? :hmm:
It is odd how much the poor blue collar GOP worker thinks a billionaire represents their values and cares about their daily struggles. :huh:
Quote from: dps on January 23, 2016, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2016, 04:35:14 PM
Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.
Well, that's what the Communist leaders who used to control your country would have wanted you to believe. But the reality is (or was) closer to what the article says: "In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury", and that certainly is a lot less true today. Unfortunately, that line is about the only thing the article gets right.
Is this actually true? I am not saying that some of the hourly wage workers could not afford such lifestyle, but was it true for the majority? Or, perhaps, it was true for the whites only?
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2016, 11:42:13 PM
It amuses me how many poor dumb people support the GOP. I mean, Princesca's grandfather only ever had a fourth grade education, but he's been a lifelong Democrat because, in his words, the Republicans "don't care none about the working man". If he managed to figure that out, why can't any of them? :hmm:
People usually make decisions emotionally, and use rational thinking only to justify them after the fact. For a lot of people, moralism or, let's face it, plain racism, fires up emotions on a higher intensity than economic issues.
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2016, 11:42:13 PM
It amuses me how many poor dumb people support the GOP. I mean, Princesca's grandfather only ever had a fourth grade education, but he's been a lifelong Democrat because, in his words, the Republicans "don't care none about the working man". If he managed to figure that out, why can't any of them? :hmm:
I guess it's a function of painting the Democrats as detached liberal elite who don't know about "the real world" and want to take a way your liberties, plus a healthy dose of patriotism, pretend folksiness, and finding convenient scapegoats.
Quote from: Martinus on January 24, 2016, 11:25:19 AM
Quote from: dps on January 23, 2016, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2016, 04:35:14 PM
Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.
Well, that's what the Communist leaders who used to control your country would have wanted you to believe. But the reality is (or was) closer to what the article says: "In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury", and that certainly is a lot less true today. Unfortunately, that line is about the only thing the article gets right.
Is this actually true? I am not saying that some of the hourly wage workers could not afford such lifestyle, but was it true for the majority? Or, perhaps, it was true for the whites only?
True for the majority and true for whites only are not mutually exclusive in the US. By far and away whites are majority, in the past it was even more so. And the answer is, yes. You could get a factory job with only a high school diploma (or often less), and make a comfortable living. Were you rich? No, not really. But a single earner could support several dependents in a middle class lifestyle. Was it tougher being a black or a single women? Yeah. It also helped a lot if you were part of union. The Union took care of you
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2016, 11:47:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 24, 2016, 11:25:19 AM
Quote from: dps on January 23, 2016, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2016, 04:35:14 PM
Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.
Well, that's what the Communist leaders who used to control your country would have wanted you to believe. But the reality is (or was) closer to what the article says: "In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury", and that certainly is a lot less true today. Unfortunately, that line is about the only thing the article gets right.
Is this actually true? I am not saying that some of the hourly wage workers could not afford such lifestyle, but was it true for the majority? Or, perhaps, it was true for the whites only?
True for the majority and true for whites only are not mutually exclusive in the US. By far and away whites are majority, in the past it was even more so. And the answer is, yes. You could get a factory job with only a high school diploma (or often less), and make a comfortable living. Were you rich? No, not really. But a single earner could support several dependents in a middle class lifestyle. Was it tougher being a black or a single women? Yeah. It also helped a lot if you were part of union. The Union took care of you
The tough part for blacks and other minorities was getting and keeping the job. "Last hired, first fired" was a thing (it wasn't always about race; in fact, primarily it was about seniority, but in practice, blacks were the last hired), but if you were a minority and latched onto a full-time job, yeah, you could have a decent lifestyle. Maybe not quite as comfortable as a white worker with the same job, because there was discrimination in wages as well as in hiring, but still, a decent lifestyle.
Also, since Trump's supporters are primarily working class whites (historically the largest demographic in the United States), focusing on their relative decline is the key factor in explaining his rise. The shibboleths that have governed the liberal order over the past few decades have brought few material or political advantages for this group, so I don't blame them for looking elsewhere for a champion (even though Trump would be likely to do more harm than good) no matter how much middle-class and elite finger waving it engenders.
Should the white working class believe that mass unskilled immigration from the 3rd world is good for them?
Thing is, they are rebelling against both parties. They may not like the tolerance of the liberals, but they aren't really keen on Free market fundamentalism either. I think what this shows is while they voted with Republicans they didn't really buy into to right wing economics. They sided with right because the right was "tougher" on minorities. I know several people got all butt-hurt about me posting Lee Atwater quotes, but the Trump voter is the type who signed on to the Republican party back in the late 1970's and 1980's. The Trump candidacy is giving that type of voter exactly what he wants. Deport the Mexicans, ban the Muslims, put the boot down on these recent black protests (or as Trump put "rough'em up a little".
Quote from: Ancient Demon on January 24, 2016, 01:36:27 PM
Should the white working class believe that mass unskilled immigration from the 3rd world is good for them?
No, but then a quick google search reveals that the number of estimated illegal immigrants present in the country is down from over a decade ago - and estimates show America is receiving fewer new illegal immigrants year over year. So seems like an odd time to make that one's primary voting issue.
At least I think that's what you were referring to when you said 'mass unskilled immigration from the 3rd world.'
I think Obama's attempt to have an immigration bill may have helped push it back to the forefront. And it's not like it ever was a non-issue.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2016, 02:30:54 PM
I think Obama's attempt to have an immigration bill may have helped push it back to the forefront. And it's not like it ever was a non-issue.
I guess it is good that I didn't say that, no? ;)
Quote from: garbon on January 24, 2016, 02:26:19 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on January 24, 2016, 01:36:27 PM
Should the white working class believe that mass unskilled immigration from the 3rd world is good for them?
No, but then a quick google search reveals that the number of estimated illegal immigrants present in the country is down from over a decade ago - and estimates show America is receiving fewer new illegal immigrants year over year. So seems like an odd time to make that one's primary voting issue.
Actual facts and what people who don't regularly read the news *feel* the facts are are often different. See also: crime rates.
Quote from: Syt on January 24, 2016, 02:34:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 24, 2016, 02:26:19 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on January 24, 2016, 01:36:27 PM
Should the white working class believe that mass unskilled immigration from the 3rd world is good for them?
No, but then a quick google search reveals that the number of estimated illegal immigrants present in the country is down from over a decade ago - and estimates show America is receiving fewer new illegal immigrants year over year. So seems like an odd time to make that one's primary voting issue.
Actual facts and what people who don't regularly read the news *feel* the facts are are often different. See also: crime rates.
Well actually, I think reading/watching the news is what leads to altered perceptions with regards to crime rates. :D
Quote from: garbon on January 24, 2016, 02:26:19 PM
No, but then a quick google search reveals that the number of estimated illegal immigrants present in the country is down from over a decade ago - and estimates show America is receiving fewer new illegal immigrants year over year. So seems like an odd time to make that one's primary voting issue.
Actually, I think the opposite is true--what you just said is a reason for it to be at the forefront now. Illegal immigration isn't down from a decade ago because of increased enforcement. It is down because the economic opportunities are dwindling for the types of jobs the immigrants have had available to them. That is something that also affects the citizens they were competing with for jobs. It doesn't seem illogical for those people to become increasingly desperate.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 24, 2016, 06:43:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 24, 2016, 02:26:19 PM
No, but then a quick google search reveals that the number of estimated illegal immigrants present in the country is down from over a decade ago - and estimates show America is receiving fewer new illegal immigrants year over year. So seems like an odd time to make that one's primary voting issue.
Actually, I think the opposite is true--what you just said is a reason for it to be at the forefront now. Illegal immigration isn't down from a decade ago because of increased enforcement. It is down because the economic opportunities are dwindling for the types of jobs the immigrants have had available to them. That is something that also affects the citizens they were competing with for jobs. It doesn't seem illogical for those people to become increasingly desperate.
You sure that's true? I mean, it was true seven years ago when unemployment was at nine percent, but unemployment is nearly half of what it was back in 2009.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2016, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 24, 2016, 06:43:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 24, 2016, 02:26:19 PM
No, but then a quick google search reveals that the number of estimated illegal immigrants present in the country is down from over a decade ago - and estimates show America is receiving fewer new illegal immigrants year over year. So seems like an odd time to make that one's primary voting issue.
Actually, I think the opposite is true--what you just said is a reason for it to be at the forefront now. Illegal immigration isn't down from a decade ago because of increased enforcement. It is down because the economic opportunities are dwindling for the types of jobs the immigrants have had available to them. That is something that also affects the citizens they were competing with for jobs. It doesn't seem illogical for those people to become increasingly desperate.
You sure that's true? I mean, it was true seven years ago when unemployment was at nine percent, but unemployment is nearly half of what it was back in 2009.
I have no idea. garbon posted it.
it's because mexico doesn't suck so much nowadays. iirc, there have been threads on this
@mass migration :lol: people think this is happening
Mexico still sucks.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 24, 2016, 07:15:07 PM
it's because mexico doesn't suck so much nowadays. iirc, there have been threads on this
I really don't know what has been happening since 2009 to immigration numbers, but Mexico is not exactly kicking ass at the moment, and the major drop in 2009 was almost certainly the result of what was going on in the US, as Mexico was probably hurt worse by the downturn.
There's also that quasi-civil war thing, going on.
coulda sworn there were a few articles years back that suggested that.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-mexican-immigration-20151118-story.html
sounds like lots of factors, but the main one probably being that the crash knocked the perception of america as a rich country with $ to everyone who comes.
(edit) still don't buy the "america actually doesn't have jobs for immigrants," because minsky/yi/one of the economic guys keeps posting how mere wage/shitty employment has risen in the past several years rather than good employment. wage employment is immigrant employment, so it doesn't sound like their economic opportunities here have dwindled.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 24, 2016, 10:29:36 PM
(edit) still don't buy the "america actually doesn't have jobs for immigrants," because minsky/yi/one of the economic guys keeps posting how mere wage/shitty employment has risen in the past several years rather than good employment. wage employment is immigrant employment, so it doesn't sound like their economic opportunities here have dwindled.
:huh: I can't speak for all the low skilled immigrants that come here, but I doubt they are too different than most of my ancestors that came just over a century ago. That is, I think they are hoping more out of immigrating than a minimum wage job for themselves and something similar for their kids.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 24, 2016, 11:18:51 PM:huh: I can't speak for all the low skilled immigrants that come here, but I doubt they are too different than most of my ancestors that came just over a century ago. That is, I think they are hoping more out of immigrating than a minimum wage job for themselves and something similar for their kids.
this is a kinda weird response
(1) pretty sure mexican illegal immigrants are low-skilled laborers and always have been
(2) illegal immigrants are unlikely to read up on the economist/whatever news sources are saying wage employment is up but non-wage employment remains down. they jump over and either get a job or they don't. if the mcjobs are on the rise, then the illegal immigrant has a job - goal obtained
maybe this is what happened-
the article mentioned an economic slump in 1990s mexico. a decade of poor economic conditions there resulted in people jumping over because it was easy and cheap, why not. over the years, it's gotten less easy and more expensive. and the 1990s economic slump is no longer the case. so maybe the 1990s slump created a situation where by 2000~ tons of mexicans were eager to jump over. this continued (despite it becoming increasingly more expensive/less easy to jump over) because everyone thought "america = $." then the crash happened, and even wage employment jobs were hard to come by. so, perceptions changed. while the expense/ease of jumping over has always been considered, it was trumped by positive perception. this perception being no longer the case, the expense/ease coupled with new negative perception means fewer mexicans jumping over.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 24, 2016, 11:33:31 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 24, 2016, 11:18:51 PM:huh: I can't speak for all the low skilled immigrants that come here, but I doubt they are too different than most of my ancestors that came just over a century ago. That is, I think they are hoping more out of immigrating than a minimum wage job for themselves and something similar for their kids.
this is a kinda weird response
(1) pretty sure mexican illegal immigrants are low-skilled laborers and always have been
(2) illegal immigrants are unlikely to read up on the economist/whatever news sources are saying wage employment is up but non-wage employment remains down. they jump over and either get a job or they don't. if the mcjobs are on the rise, then the illegal immigrant has a job - goal obtained
maybe this is what happened-
the article mentioned an economic slump in 1990s mexico. a decade of poor economic conditions there resulted in people jumping over because it was easy and cheap, why not. over the years, it's gotten less easy and more expensive. and the 1990s economic slump is no longer the case. so maybe the 1990s slump created a situation where by 2000~ tons of mexicans were eager to jump over. this continued (despite it becoming increasingly more expensive/less easy to jump over) because everyone thought "america = $." then the crash happened, and even wage employment jobs were hard to come by. so, perceptions changed. while the expense/ease of jumping over has always been considered, it was trumped by positive perception. this perception being no longer the case, the expense/ease coupled with new negative perception means fewer mexicans jumping over.
LaCroix, are you saying that things are great for low skilled workers in this country? I'm working on the assumption that they are definitely not, and that low skilled workers are in fact getting squeezed from a number of factors. If you agree with me on that, then I'm not sure what you are arguing. If low skilled workers are getting squeezed, and immigrants are disproportionately low skilled, then it is logical that a) they are also getting squeezed, and b) all else being equal, they will immigrant in smaller numbers.
I also don't believe that you need to read the economist to get a sense that blue collar workers are under some pressue in this country.
I think mexican illegal immigrants coming to america looking to find $ were satisfied with the mcjobs they found. I mean, they wouldn't have kept coming if not. a mexican illegal immigrant is/was probably more satisfied with his mcjob than an american, because expectations are different. also, are the poor getting more squeezed today than they were a decade ago? I've heard there's a risk that the middle class is falling and there are more poor people as a result, but not that the conditions of the poor have gotten worse.
I don't think an illegal immigrant knows anything about his new country expect what he hears from everyone back home. hence the discussion re: perception.
You win, LaCroix, I too now can't understand why immigrants aren't rushing to this country when they can find chances to work at McDonalds.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 25, 2016, 01:02:22 AM
You win, LaCroix, I too now can't understand why immigrants aren't rushing to this country when they can find chances to work at McDonalds.
I mean, what other work do you think they had in the past? haven't they always worked mcjobs? these no-english speaking mexicans weren't working IT
Quote from: Camerus on January 24, 2016, 01:00:05 PM
Also, since Trump's supporters are primarily working class whites (historically the largest demographic in the United States), focusing on their relative decline is the key factor in explaining his rise. The shibboleths that have governed the liberal order over the past few decades have brought few material or political advantages for this group, so I don't blame them for looking elsewhere for a champion (even though Trump would be likely to do more harm than good) no matter how much middle-class and elite finger waving it engenders.
Ok, so the uneducated, lazy white trash is feeling like their fare has worsened over the years - which is true. What, if anything, can politicians do about this in your view (that does not involve simply diverting their attention to some scapegoat)?
Incidentally, I think the primary reason for the destruction of the wage class is the total shift in the economy, in a way where the middle level jobs are simply becoming obsolete and disappearing from the market, leaving only either high paying highly skilled creative professional jobs on one end and low paying service jobs (mainly operating some form of "zero hours contracts" and "sharing economy" stuff - neither of which is a good way to live) on the other.
Other than turning to planned economy and creating jobs for the lower class, the only thing politicians can do is to encourage unions for the low skilled workers and/or create some sort of minimum guaranteed national monthly income - both of which are pretty socialist.
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 01:25:57 AM
Incidentally, I think the primary reason for the destruction of the wage class is the total shift in the economy, in a way where the middle level jobs are simply becoming obsolete and disappearing from the market, leaving only either high paying highly skilled creative professional jobs on one end and low paying service jobs (mainly operating some form of "zero hours contracts" and "sharing economy" stuff - neither of which is a good way to live) on the other.
but there's still a need for managers, office admins, IT, etc. how has the economy shifted? manufacturing has had its slow and steady decline, but what else has changed?
A bit surprised that the wage class is larger than the salary class.
What's wrong with Trump's hair anyway?
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:06:04 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 25, 2016, 01:02:22 AM
You win, LaCroix, I too now can't understand why immigrants aren't rushing to this country when they can find chances to work at McDonalds.
I mean, what other work do you think they had in the past? haven't they always worked mcjobs? these no-english speaking mexicans weren't working IT
As I said before, I don't think most immigrants have been coming here just to get that sweet minimum wage gig right off the boat. Some probably, but not most. They have been coming because both they and their children can take advantage of the opportunities here to have a better life.
An example--two of my great grandparents came from Italy, probably around 1900. No english, no money, probably like most Italian immigrants at the time. My great grandfather got a job as a coal miner--probably pretty shit work back then. My great grandparents made it a point that their children would not be Italian but American--they resolved none of them would learn Italian. My grandmother says that she remembers that some days she would wake up early and hear her parents conversing in Italian, but as soon as they realized she was there would switch to english so she wouldn't pick up the language (they spoke english by the time she was born). They put a huge emphasis on their children's education. So I can't exactly speak to what their mindset was when they came here--I never met them--but I strongly suspect that it went beyond the chance to get a gig as a coal miner.They made a conscious decision that their family would stop being italian and start being american because that promised a better future. And in fact my father ended up becoming judge so I think they were right.
If potential unskilled immigrants are beginning to see the US as a place of not so much social mobility, where they can still get that shit entry level work, but neither they nor their children will have a real good shot at the higher rungs, I would think lots of them will stay away. And I think that the economics of the country shows just that--that social mobility is not where it should be, and that becoming middle class is harder and harder. Also, look at what has happened to the real minimum wage over the past half century or so--those shit jobs have been getting shittier.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:35:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 01:25:57 AM
Incidentally, I think the primary reason for the destruction of the wage class is the total shift in the economy, in a way where the middle level jobs are simply becoming obsolete and disappearing from the market, leaving only either high paying highly skilled creative professional jobs on one end and low paying service jobs (mainly operating some form of "zero hours contracts" and "sharing economy" stuff - neither of which is a good way to live) on the other.
but there's still a need for managers, office admins, IT, etc. how has the economy shifted? manufacturing has had its slow and steady decline, but what else has changed?
When I was a kid, and went to a bank, I saw a huge number of teller counters. This one did time deposits, that one did foreign exchange, the one over there did deposits and cash withdrawals, yet another one did account opening, etc. Armies of tellers staffed them. Now, most people use the ATM machines and online banking. The bank tellers don't call themselves tellers anymore. They are licenced wealth managers responsible to sell you life insurance products and mutual funds.
30 years ago when I went to a car park, they needed two people at the entrance. One handed out the parking tickets. The other took the cash and the tickets back. Very soon they replaced these with machines. Drivers would pay at a cashier's office. So two clerks became one cashier. Now most carparks use RFID electronic money that eliminated the need for the cashier. A few IT people and mechanics could support many carparks.
Anybody hardworking enough can do repetitive tasks like counting cash and handing out parking tickets. It is just a lot harder if the bar is raised and people need to learn how insurance policies are structured, and how to program RFID electronic money IT systems.
unskilled immigrants from not-mexico haven't flooded the country for probably sixty+ years. it's expensive to get here if you don't live in mexico. so, I'm not sure whether old era immigration can be applied to what happened in the 1990s+. I don't think many post 90s era mexicans moved to the US expecting social mobility. they earned more from mcjobs than they did back home. then the crash hit and there were fewer low-level jobs, so word traveled back that america isn't a hotspot for a good job (mexican standards)
@mono: I thought there was some discussion between Minsky and others (Ide?) that automation hasn't actually reduced all too many jobs... at least so far. but I could be misremembering or I misunderstood that convo.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:53:21 AM
@mono: I thought there was some discussion between Minsky and others (Ide?) that automation hasn't actually reduced all too many jobs... at least so far. but I could be misremembering or I misunderstood that convo.
The unemployment rate in Hong Kong has remained low, at 2-3%, throughout the last few decades. There were some ups and downs of course, but the long-term trend has been low. People are still getting jobs, that's for sure. But instead of earning a lower middle class income as a generic bank teller, the people are now making minimum wage as janitors. The kinds of jobs they are getting are very different. All the reasonably paid and respectable jobs that the average Joe used to be able to get are disappearing. You are either a lawyer or a janitor. The middle road is gone.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:35:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 01:25:57 AM
Incidentally, I think the primary reason for the destruction of the wage class is the total shift in the economy, in a way where the middle level jobs are simply becoming obsolete and disappearing from the market, leaving only either high paying highly skilled creative professional jobs on one end and low paying service jobs (mainly operating some form of "zero hours contracts" and "sharing economy" stuff - neither of which is a good way to live) on the other.
but there's still a need for managers, office admins, IT, etc. how has the economy shifted? manufacturing has had its slow and steady decline, but what else has changed?
Aren't the jobs you mention salary-based? I don't know the conditions in the US, but it would seem odd to me if managers and office admins were paid by the hour. :hmm:
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2016, 01:44:44 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:35:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 01:25:57 AM
Incidentally, I think the primary reason for the destruction of the wage class is the total shift in the economy, in a way where the middle level jobs are simply becoming obsolete and disappearing from the market, leaving only either high paying highly skilled creative professional jobs on one end and low paying service jobs (mainly operating some form of "zero hours contracts" and "sharing economy" stuff - neither of which is a good way to live) on the other.
but there's still a need for managers, office admins, IT, etc. how has the economy shifted? manufacturing has had its slow and steady decline, but what else has changed?
When I was a kid, and went to a bank, I saw a huge number of teller counters. This one did time deposits, that one did foreign exchange, the one over there did deposits and cash withdrawals, yet another one did account opening, etc. Armies of tellers staffed them. Now, most people use the ATM machines and online banking. The bank tellers don't call themselves tellers anymore. They are licenced wealth managers responsible to sell you life insurance products and mutual funds.
30 years ago when I went to a car park, they needed two people at the entrance. One handed out the parking tickets. The other took the cash and the tickets back. Very soon they replaced these with machines. Drivers would pay at a cashier's office. So two clerks became one cashier. Now most carparks use RFID electronic money that eliminated the need for the cashier. A few IT people and mechanics could support many carparks.
Anybody hardworking enough can do repetitive tasks like counting cash and handing out parking tickets. It is just a lot harder if the bar is raised and people need to learn how insurance policies are structured, and how to program RFID electronic money IT systems.
This is pretty much spot on, Mono.
One thing that struck me when I went to Athens in June was how, when you entered the Acropolis, there were three people there handling tickets (one sold you the ticket, the other one assisted the first person, and the third person, standing a few yards away, tore it as you entered through the gate). I immediately thought that no wonder their economy is in shambles, given that they employ 3 people for something that could have been handled by a machine.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:53:21 AM
unskilled immigrants from not-mexico haven't flooded the country for probably sixty+ years. it's expensive to get here if you don't live in mexico. so, I'm not sure whether old era immigration can be applied to what happened in the 1990s+. I don't think many post 90s era mexicans moved to the US expecting social mobility. they earned more from mcjobs than they did back home. then the crash hit and there were fewer low-level jobs, so word traveled back that america isn't a hotspot for a good job (mexican standards)
@mono: I thought there was some discussion between Minsky and others (Ide?) that automation hasn't actually reduced all too many jobs... at least so far. but I could be misremembering or I misunderstood that convo.
Do you have something against capitalising first letters of sentences?
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 03:34:08 AMAren't the jobs you mention salary-based? I don't know the conditions in the US, but it would seem odd to me if managers and office admins were paid by the hour. :hmm:
oh, right. forgot the thread we're in. :D
QuoteDo you have something against capitalising first letters of sentences?
no, I do it pretty often.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 03:56:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 03:34:08 AMAren't the jobs you mention salary-based? I don't know the conditions in the US, but it would seem odd to me if managers and office admins were paid by the hour. :hmm:
oh, right. forgot the thread we're in. :D
QuoteDo you have something against capitalising first letters of sentences?
no, I do it pretty often.
FYI, it seems like a small thing, but I often completely skip your posts because reading posts that intentionally ignore grammar or spelling rules is tiring. I'm not telling you that you should change your unique snowflake writing style, but I'm just laying out one data point here on the effects of it.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:53:21 AM
unskilled immigrants from not-mexico haven't flooded the country for probably sixty+ years. it's expensive to get here if you don't live in mexico. so, I'm not sure whether old era immigration can be applied to what happened in the 1990s+. I don't think many post 90s era mexicans moved to the US expecting social mobility. they earned more from mcjobs than they did back home. then the crash hit and there were fewer low-level jobs, so word traveled back that america isn't a hotspot for a good job (mexican standards)
@mono: I thought there was some discussion between Minsky and others (Ide?) that automation hasn't actually reduced all too many jobs... at least so far. but I could be misremembering or I misunderstood that convo.
Lots of immigrants from Central America have come up through Mexico into the US since the '90s.
Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 08:10:35 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 03:56:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 03:34:08 AMAren't the jobs you mention salary-based? I don't know the conditions in the US, but it would seem odd to me if managers and office admins were paid by the hour. :hmm:
oh, right. forgot the thread we're in. :D
QuoteDo you have something against capitalising first letters of sentences?
no, I do it pretty often.
FYI, it seems like a small thing, but I often completely skip your posts because reading posts that intentionally ignore grammar or spelling rules is tiring. I'm not telling you that you should change your unique snowflake writing style, but I'm just laying out one data point here on the effects of it.
LaCroix: man, are you lucky!
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 03:34:08 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:35:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 01:25:57 AM
Incidentally, I think the primary reason for the destruction of the wage class is the total shift in the economy, in a way where the middle level jobs are simply becoming obsolete and disappearing from the market, leaving only either high paying highly skilled creative professional jobs on one end and low paying service jobs (mainly operating some form of "zero hours contracts" and "sharing economy" stuff - neither of which is a good way to live) on the other.
but there's still a need for managers, office admins, IT, etc. how has the economy shifted? manufacturing has had its slow and steady decline, but what else has changed?
Aren't the jobs you mention salary-based? I don't know the conditions in the US, but it would seem odd to me if managers and office admins were paid by the hour. :hmm:
Lots of low-level managers are on hourly wages, though many of them are more akin to what you might call a foreman than a professional manager. As for office admins, well, it depends on the office.
Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 08:10:35 AMFYI, it seems like a small thing, but I often completely skip your posts because reading posts that intentionally ignore grammar or spelling rules is tiring. I'm not telling you that you should change your unique snowflake writing style, but I'm just laying out one data point here on the effects of it.
I don't think it's that unique :(
All I hear when LaCroix posts is "Blah blah, I hate Star Wars."
Quote from: dps on January 25, 2016, 05:01:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 03:34:08 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:35:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 01:25:57 AM
Incidentally, I think the primary reason for the destruction of the wage class is the total shift in the economy, in a way where the middle level jobs are simply becoming obsolete and disappearing from the market, leaving only either high paying highly skilled creative professional jobs on one end and low paying service jobs (mainly operating some form of "zero hours contracts" and "sharing economy" stuff - neither of which is a good way to live) on the other.
but there's still a need for managers, office admins, IT, etc. how has the economy shifted? manufacturing has had its slow and steady decline, but what else has changed?
Aren't the jobs you mention salary-based? I don't know the conditions in the US, but it would seem odd to me if managers and office admins were paid by the hour. :hmm:
Lots of low-level managers are on hourly wages, though many of them are more akin to what you might call a foreman than a professional manager. As for office admins, well, it depends on the office.
Wow, that's just bizarre to me. Could the destruction of the "wage class" be also caused by the fact that most businesses are moving to salary-based payments like the rest of the civilised world, leaving only the shittiest job with an hourly wage?
Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2016, 01:33:43 AM
Wow, that's just bizarre to me. Could the destruction of the "wage class" be also caused by the fact that most businesses are moving to salary-based payments like the rest of the civilised world, leaving only the shittiest job with an hourly wage?
I thought most private practice lawyers charge an hourly wage? :P
Seriously though, the same with a lot of trade-skill jobs (plumbers, contractors, etc)...in Amerika, at least. Though one might argue a large difference between charging hours, and being employed on an hourly wage...though often even trade jobs have an "employer" and still work on hourly wages.
Many U.S. civil service jobs also work on hourly wages instead of salaries (police departments, for example).
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 26, 2016, 02:28:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2016, 01:33:43 AM
Wow, that's just bizarre to me. Could the destruction of the "wage class" be also caused by the fact that most businesses are moving to salary-based payments like the rest of the civilised world, leaving only the shittiest job with an hourly wage?
I thought most private practice lawyers charge an hourly wage? :P
Seriously though, the same with a lot of trade-skill jobs (plumbers, contractors, etc)...in Amerika, at least. Though one might argue a large difference between charging hours, and being employed on an hourly wage...though often even trade jobs have an "employer" and still work on hourly wages.
Many U.S. civil service jobs also work on hourly wages instead of salaries (police departments, for example).
These seem like two completely different things to me.
It is reasonable to charge by the hour if you work in a service industry, when you have flexible working hours and often work for several different people during your work day. On the other hand, if you work a basically 9-5 job, it is completely bonkers to do so.
So, yes, for lawyers, plumbers and contracts make sense to charge by an hour. For office managers, civil servants and policemen it does not.
The cops like it that way because they get overtime.
I imagine it would work well for, say, factory jobs too...if your country had a bustling manufacturing sector and low unemployment (where that demand for overtime could kick in as well)...but it seems the margin there is much thinner. Since we've exported most of those jobs overseas...it's not working out so well, for us, or for Asian wage slaves. That b
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2016, 05:16:34 AM
The cops like it that way because they get overtime.
In Europe, most salary jobs get overtime nonetheless. The only jobs where you are not entitled to overtime are higher managerial ones. In fact, wage jobs are the ones that you do not get overtime by definition. :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2016, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 08:10:35 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 03:56:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2016, 03:34:08 AMAren't the jobs you mention salary-based? I don't know the conditions in the US, but it would seem odd to me if managers and office admins were paid by the hour. :hmm:
oh, right. forgot the thread we're in. :D
QuoteDo you have something against capitalising first letters of sentences?
no, I do it pretty often.
FYI, it seems like a small thing, but I often completely skip your posts because reading posts that intentionally ignore grammar or spelling rules is tiring. I'm not telling you that you should change your unique snowflake writing style, but I'm just laying out one data point here on the effects of it.
LaCroix: man, are you lucky!
Not as fortunate as I am. :D
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 26, 2016, 05:55:35 AM
Since we've exported most of those jobs overseas...it's not working out so well, for us, or for Asian wage slaves.
Asian wage slaves can always use more love :)
Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2016, 04:52:56 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 26, 2016, 02:28:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2016, 01:33:43 AM
Wow, that's just bizarre to me. Could the destruction of the "wage class" be also caused by the fact that most businesses are moving to salary-based payments like the rest of the civilised world, leaving only the shittiest job with an hourly wage?
I thought most private practice lawyers charge an hourly wage? :P
Seriously though, the same with a lot of trade-skill jobs (plumbers, contractors, etc)...in Amerika, at least. Though one might argue a large difference between charging hours, and being employed on an hourly wage...though often even trade jobs have an "employer" and still work on hourly wages.
Many U.S. civil service jobs also work on hourly wages instead of salaries (police departments, for example).
These seem like two completely different things to me.
It is reasonable to charge by the hour if you work in a service industry, when you have flexible working hours and often work for several different people during your work day. On the other hand, if you work a basically 9-5 job, it is completely bonkers to do so.
So, yes, for lawyers, plumbers and contracts make sense to charge by an hour. For office managers, civil servants and policemen it does not.
I think you are confusing things. Some of the best paid jobs are paid by the hour. I think you are conflating hourly pay rates with undesirable jobs. Assuming an employee is entitled to overtime pay, there is no difference between an hourly rate and annual salary other than the administrative burden of paying by the hour (although calculating the overtime entitlement for a salaried worker can also be a pain at times). In circumstances where the salaried employee is not entitled to overtime then the hourly paid employee has an advantage since they are paid for all time worked and overtime at a premium.
The hourly paid employees in a difficult spot are those who are paid by the hour because they have "flexible hours" meaning their hours of work are uncertain and unpredictable. But don't confuse that segment of hourly paid workers with the rest.
Well to this I have a couple rebuttals:
1. I think the "salaried" class is worried about rising health care costs, education, housing, child care and so forth that you need a small fortune for. I don't think their interests are all about getting cheap iPhones and would happily trade that for cheaper fundamentals. Salaried people happily saved up for $3,000.00 PCs and hey they were better status symbols back then.
2. This problem is world wide and hardly limited to the US.
But true that offshoring has been something that has come with serious social problems. My hope was that our welfare states would get us through the rough waters until the jobs started coming back. Sometimes I hear that this is taking place, other times I don't :P
But granted that arrangement where one dude working at the factory could support a whole family are long gone...but then it is hard for one salaried person to do that same.
In respect to the OP, there is a LOT of assertion there. A lot of "This happened, and it is because of this!" without any actual evidence of a link at all.
Meh. It is just a rant.
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2016, 12:43:21 PM
In respect to the OP, there is a LOT of assertion there. A lot of "This happened, and it is because of this!" without any actual evidence of a link at all.
Meh. It is just a rant.
Yes :lol:
People with salaries DESTROYED the manufacturing economy to get cheaper gadgets. Sure.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 26, 2016, 05:55:35 AM
I imagine it would work well for, say, factory jobs too...if your country had a bustling manufacturing sector and low unemployment (where that demand for overtime could kick in as well)...but it seems the margin there is much thinner. Since we've exported most of those jobs overseas...it's not working out so well, for us, or for Asian wage slaves. That b
Yes. My employer is an American manufacturing company. The way they do things is most people get paid by the hour (machine operators, train drivers, lab technicians, maintenance staff) and a few get salaries (those in IT, admin, management, engineering). The ratio is something like ten to one.
Quote from: Zanza on January 26, 2016, 01:09:49 PM
if I work overtime I have to compensate by taking time off.
Interesting. If I work overtime I'm expected to be at work on time the next day. For example, last night I was at the office until after 11 PM, and today walking at 9:08 AM my old boss made a comment on it. I like your system better.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2016, 01:23:48 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 26, 2016, 01:09:49 PM
if I work overtime I have to compensate by taking time off.
Interesting. If I work overtime I'm expected to be at work on time the next day. For example, last night I was at the office until after 11 PM, and today walking at 9:08 AM my old boss made a comment on it. I like your system better.
You mean made a comment about being 8 minutes late?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2016, 01:23:48 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 26, 2016, 01:09:49 PM
if I work overtime I have to compensate by taking time off.
Interesting. If I work overtime I'm expected to be at work on time the next day. For example, last night I was at the office until after 11 PM, and today walking at 9:08 AM my old boss made a comment on it. I like your system better.
I used to work in a place like that. I was reprimanded for calling sick on a Saturday after I had worked 12 hours a day for two weeks straight (including Sunday).
I don't work there anymore.
Bah, I figured I don't want to get involved in this thread after all and deleted my post. Too slow obviously...
So I originally wrote that I am basically paid for working 1800 hours a year (225 workdays x 8 hours) and if I work more than eight hours a day, I have to take that overtime as time off.
Anyway, as you already quoted it: In my company, we have fully flexible times, so you can basically come and go as you wish (between 6am and 8pm). The only limitation is obviously if you have scheduled meetings, where presence is expected. I am also allowed to work from other places than my office if my boss agrees - which he usually does.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2016, 01:23:48 PM
Interesting. If I work overtime I'm expected to be at work on time the next day. For example, last night I was at the office until after 11 PM, and today walking at 9:08 AM my old boss made a comment on it. I like your system better.
I also don't have to compensate it on the next day. Last year, I often worked 9-10 hours a day as we had a rather work intensive project. I compensated that by taking 19 or 20 full days off, one week in February for skiing, one week in August for kite surfing and one week in September for mountain climbing. I guess I usually have like 10-20 extra days off per year thanks to the overtime rules.
Quote from: Zanza on January 26, 2016, 01:40:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2016, 01:23:48 PM
Interesting. If I work overtime I'm expected to be at work on time the next day. For example, last night I was at the office until after 11 PM, and today walking at 9:08 AM my old boss made a comment on it. I like your system better.
I also don't have to compensate it on the next day. Last year, I often worked 9-10 hours a day as we had a rather work intensive project. I compensated that by taking 19 or 20 full days off, one week in February for skiing, one week in August for kite surfing and one week in September for mountain climbing. I guess I usually have like 10-20 extra days off per year thanks to the overtime rules.
And this is textbook as to why German manufacturing is failing.
Quote from: DGuller on January 26, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
You mean made a comment about being 8 minutes late?
Yes, not a horrible comment, and actually I'm usually a lot later than that. And she isn't my boss anymore anyway.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2016, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 26, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
You mean made a comment about being 8 minutes late?
Yes, not a horrible comment, and actually I'm usually a lot later than that. And she isn't my boss anymore anyway.
:hmm: Wow, that was quick. I guess she wishes she didn't say anything now.
Quote from: DGuller on January 26, 2016, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2016, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 26, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
You mean made a comment about being 8 minutes late?
Yes, not a horrible comment, and actually I'm usually a lot later than that. And she isn't my boss anymore anyway.
:hmm: Wow, that was quick. I guess she wishes she didn't say anything now.
AR reading Hansie's book 'Workplace Ethics' seems to have done the trick. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2016, 06:16:00 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2016, 05:16:34 AM
The cops like it that way because they get overtime.
In Europe, most salary jobs get overtime nonetheless. The only jobs where you are not entitled to overtime are higher managerial ones. In fact, wage jobs are the ones that you do not get overtime by definition. :huh:
It's the exact opposite here. With a few exceptions, employers are required to pay overtime for workers paid by the hour, but don't have to do so for salaried workers. In fact, that's the main reason to put someone on salary--you don't have to pay them overtime. For that reason, there are legal restrictions on who can be put on salary. Basically, you can't legally pay anyone a salary instead of an hourly wage unless they're a manager or executive, and anyone who is on salary also has to be paid a certain minimum annually (which used to be $24,000 IIRC, but that's gone up I believe). Note that the inverse isn't true--there's no legal requirement that managers and executives be paid a salary instead of an hourly wage (which is why some managers are paid hourly wages instead of salaries).
If a salaried employee is recieving overtime they are a de facto hourly employee.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2016, 04:51:37 PM
If a salaried employee is recieving overtime they are a de facto hourly employee.
For the most part, yeah.
In fact, it's been my experience that most employers don't even track closely how many hours their salaried employees are actually working.
The State of Texas does...oh yes.
But they never pay overtime. You get Comp Time.
Straight outta?