Half Of America Makes Less Than $27,520 A Year And 15 Other Signs The Middle Class Is Dying

[ayzee]

Believe it or not, there are HR reps who value and respect people who do long stints in "McDonald's" type positions.

Shows character, loyalty, and for lack of a better term... the ability to deal with ******** all day for measly compensation and the negative stigma of being a McDonald's employee. 

Those are the types of workers bosses know they'll be able pimp out, but at the same time know you'll appreciate your promotion. So it's a win win essentially.

 

[rillo561]

You guys have no clue about history. Are you saying people have become less ambitious? Why was being in the middle class working in the 50s better than middle class right now? Are you saying Americans as a whole got lazy? C'mon.

That's their whole platform, and most people who parrot it don't have a pot to piss in themselves.

 

[andycrazn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?hp&_r=4

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

What the folks crying about corporations or Obama not making their lives better will ever understand.

You think the rise of corporations have no role in the quality of our job market and the pay for workers? Look how Walmart compares to similar jobs

View media item 1017100
People can work the same position for their whole lifes and make less money later on in life because of things out of their control. This is the problem with America, we are letting corporations control our economy and this will only make the gap bigger.

 

[Mark Antony]

Absolutely, but the market is the market, and I'm addressing those that make no effort yet complain.

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

Absolutely, but the market is the market, and I'm addressing those that make no effort yet complain.

Do you think Americans got lazier? What is your explanation how the middle class in the 50s was better than middle class in current days? People literally have less now than in the past. This whole people are lazy excuse holds no weight, people are more discouraged than lazy.

 

[andycrazn]

What the folks crying about corporations or Obama not making their lives better will ever understand.

You think the rise of corporations have no role in the quality of our job market and the pay for workers? Look how Walmart compares to similar jobs

View media item 1017100
People can work the same position for their whole lifes and make less money later on in life because of things out of their control. This is the problem with America, we are letting corporations control our economy and this will only make the gap bigger.

you regulate these corporations and the corporations accept it. why? because they know its an extra barrier for new start ups to get past when they have the capital to absorb those costs. they can take a minor hit just to have a bigger control of the market and squeeze all the newbies out. the mom and pops cant take those hits and will get crushed from it due to rising costs that cant be easily passed on the customers.

Absolutely, but the market is the market, and I'm addressing those that make no effort yet complain.

Do you think Americans got lazier? What is your explanation how the middle class in the 50s was better than middle class in current days? People literally have less now than in the past. This whole people are lazy excuse holds no weight, people are more discouraged than lazy.

the dollar losing its value due to multiple of reasons one of them being off the gold standard.

 

[Mark Antony]

Absolutely, but the market is the market, and I'm addressing those that make no effort yet complain.

Do you think Americans got lazier? What is your explanation how the middle class in the 50s was better than middle class in current days? People literally have less now than in the past. This whole people are lazy excuse holds no weight, people are more discouraged than lazy.

I wasn't alive in the 50s, so I can't assume, I'll address what I see. You know economics is more complex than that examining it in current day, I can't imagine trying to examine 60 yrs ago with all certainty.

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

I wasn't alive in the 50s, so I can't assume, I'll address what I see. You know economics is more complex than that examining it in current day, I can't imagine trying to examine 60 yrs ago with all certainty.

What does this stat tell to you?

From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period

 

[andycrazn]

I wasn't alive in the 50s, so I can't assume, I'll address what I see. You know economics is more complex than that examining it in current day, I can't imagine trying to examine 60 yrs ago with all certainty.

What does this stat tell to you?

From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period

thats because we got taken off the GOLD STANDARD.

 

[Mark Antony]

Again "absolutely" , I understand this. But what point are you leading to? Yes the market growth is unfair and lopsided, no all Americans didn't become lazy, but despite that there are still decent wages to be made out there. Are you saying those that don't try to do better yet complain don't exist? What's the issue with addressing them?

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

Again "absolutely" , I understand this. But what point are you leading to? Yes the market growth is unfair and lopsided, no all Americans didn't become lazy, but despite that there are still decent wages to be made out there. Are you saying those that don't try to do better yet complain don't exist? What's the issue with addressing them?

Whats the point of addressing 1%? These same people have ALWAYS existed. You bringing them attention is making it seem like its something new. You're not addressing the problem of the economy you're addressing a completely unrelated point that does not effect anything being discussed. Its like bringing up drug addicts on welfare, this was a popular argument on here about how this would change the government assistance system but it literally changed nothing

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0

 

[pdino]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/

"...I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office" -- Warren Buffett (Consistently ranked top ten world's weathiest people.)

- Buffet himself declares that he pays a 17.4 percent rate on taxable income. His staff, like Bosanek,  pay an average of 34 percent

"Buffett has been advocating for a minimum tax on top wage earners -- those like himself who benefit from the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular earnings. His proposal, popularly known as the Buffett rule, has the support of the Obama administration but is strongly opposed by Republicans in Congress."

I believe the top .1% not 1%, but .1%, should get taxed significantly more. Many economists and billionaires agree. Buffett and Mark Cuban off top of my head

 

[Mark Antony]

Well what do we do and how do you propose we do it?

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

Well what do we do and how do you propose we do it?

Increase tax for higher wages like they were in the previous glorious decades. With these tax dollars we can invest into schools and create government jobs and create small businesses. Also trim the fat on government spending and cut the military budget substantially.

 

[Mark Antony]

Already been done.

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

Already been done.

Taxes are no where near what they were during Americas glory years. Do your research man

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us...-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

 

[andycrazn]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/

"...I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office" -- Warren Buffett (Consistently ranked top ten world's weathiest people.)

- Buffet himself declares that he pays a 17.4 percent rate on taxable income. His staff, like Bosanek,  pay an average of 34 percent

"Buffett has been advocating for a minimum tax on top wage earners -- those like himself who benefit from the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular earnings. His proposal, popularly known as the Buffett rule, has the support of the Obama administration but is strongly opposed by Republicans in Congress."

I believe the top .1% not 1%, but .1%, should get taxed significantly more. Many economists and billionaires agree. Buffett and Mark Cuban off top of my head

they just gonna disappear. you acting like big businesses dont have back up plans to these things. word to the businesses that prepared for the 15 dollar an hour minimum wage in seattle

 

[Mark Antony]

"Glory years". Because its just that simple. You don't have the answers, and "research" things on a macro level.

 

[Betonblck]

Already been done.

Taxes are no where near what they were during Americas glory years. Do your research man

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us...-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

That's hard to do when half of America wants lower taxes on the rich.

 

[rico x hood]

Do you think Americans got lazier? What is your explanation how the middle class in the 50s was better than middle class in current days? People literally have less now than in the past. This whole people are lazy excuse holds no weight, people are more discouraged than lazy.

Because in those days people had no choice but to work hard. All the safety nets we have now weren't there. If you didn't work you didn't eat. Kids were pulled out of school early so they could get jobs. Government regulations were lax and all those titans of industries that NT hates were able expand into multiple industries and people were able to work in those industries. You once again are championing a time of limited to no government regulation and saying we need to go back to those times...by government regulation. It makes makes absolutely no sense.

I really feel like you've recently read some book or article about this specific idea and now it's your new world view. It isn't practical, at all.

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

Because in those days people had no choice but to work hard. All the safety nets we have now weren't there. If you didn't work you didn't eat. Kids were pulled out of school early so they could get jobs. Government regulations were lax and all those titans of industries that NT hates were able expand into multiple industries and people were able to work in those industries. You once again are championing a time of limited to no government regulation and saying we need to go back to those times...by government regulation. It makes makes absolutely no sense.

Are we going to act like Unions werent more prevalent in these no regulation times? Government regulations werent lax on the financial industry that caused the last financial crisis? Who are really effected by all these regulations? Clearly not the people making the most money.

 

[bandit country]

Increase tax for higher wages like they were in the previous glorious decades. With these tax dollars we can invest into schools and create government jobs and create small businesses. Also trim the fat on government spending and cut the military budget substantially.

Lol, so you want to add and subtract government jobs at the same time? Cut and spend?

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

"Glory years". Because its just that simple. You don't have the answers, and "research" things on a macro level.

So are you saying lower tax rates for the wealthy individuals hasnt historically led to recessions? Im sorry but you dont have an argument, you provide 0 facts.

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

Lol, so you want to add and subtract government jobs at the same time? Cut and spend?

Trim fat does not necessarily mean cut government jobs. Yes I would like to cut military spending so yes in that sector there will be job cuts but when I say trim fat im talking about excess spending by departments for no reason