Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 354 posts

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#111

Post by bluefirebrand »

silisili wrote: post #49
roywiggins wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, over the last few years at least, that's mostly not true: wages outpaced inflation, and it outpaced inflation more for lower-income workers than higher. > In stark contrast to prior decades, low-wage workers experienced dramatically fast real wage growth between 2019 and 2023 https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/ ("real wages" are wages adjusted for inflation)

I'm obviously not an expert, but assumed the same thing. I watched a fast food joint near me go from 9/hr to 21/hr in just a few years. Maybe that was just pandemic pricing, I don't know. But getting >2x salary in such short order is outpacing pretty much everyone else, percentage wise.

This probably means that those wages were being suppressed hard for years and they finally weren't able to hire people at that wage anymore

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#112

Post by Mountain_Skies »

roywiggins wrote: post #36
yalogin wrote: post #24

What slowing wage growth? For the poorest the wages have essentially not increased for a long time right? It hasn’t even kept up with inflation. The recent bill actually makes it much worse.

As far as I can tell, over the last few years at least, that's mostly not true: wages outpaced inflation, and it outpaced inflation more for lower-income workers than higher. > In stark contrast to prior decades, low-wage workers experienced dramatically fast real wage growth between 2019 and 2023 https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/ ("real wages" are wages adjusted for inflation)

Activists love to use the Federal Minimum Wage, which has not increased in a long time (16 years), as their basis for that claim, ignoring how few workers are actually paid the Federal Minimum Wage. It's become a worthless metric for anything other than misleading arguments.

In addition to state and local governments setting their own minimums, the decline in young people and competition for workers in that sector from food delivery companies, has put wage pressure on fast food companies. Most wouldn't be able to open their doors if they tried to pay the Federal Minimum Wage. Had it been pegged to inflation, it would be $10.90/hour, which is less than what fast food workers are paid almost anywhere.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#113

Post by silisili »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #111
silisili wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm obviously not an expert, but assumed the same thing. I watched a fast food joint near me go from 9/hr to 21/hr in just a few years. Maybe that was just pandemic pricing, I don't know. But getting >2x salary in such short order is outpacing pretty much everyone else, percentage wise.

This probably means that those wages were being suppressed hard for years and they finally weren't able to hire people at that wage anymore

You're probably right, but it ultimately leads to wage compression which is for most of the middle class a disaster.

You don't have to look far to see everyday people complaining about the price of a burger or movie ticket.

IMHO, it doesn't "lift all boats", it pulls down the middle and upper middle classes. Yeah, the lower wage jobs made more money, but they didn't gain much if anything in affordability, since all of the necessities are produced by people also demanding more money.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#114

Post by fzeroracer »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #65
monero-xmr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wouldn’t the deportations increase the demand for low-paying jobs resulting in increasing salaries?

No, for two reasons. The first is that Americans often refuse to work those jobs (and for good reason, they pay incredibly poorly, have no benefits etc. It is generally a financial loss to do said jobs). We've tried multiple times to try and get Americans to work in the fields: it never works [1]. The second is that a large amount of our economy is heavily subsidized by said cheap immigrant labor and if you just straight up remove that labor, then the costs of everything goes up as many farms go out of business and die. That's just assuming that you somehow got Americans to go out and replace said jobs; suddenly removing 1+ million people from any labor pool would have drastic effects on the rest of the economy.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/wh...

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#115

Post by toast0 »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #71
agent_turtle wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decades of worsening conditions for the commoner is Ron Wyden's idea of a booming economy. Democrats are useful idiots. I can't anymore, folks. Republicans passed the largest tax cuts for billionaires, increased the deficit by trillions, and kicked millions of people of medicaid. Meanwhile, Trump is out there creating the most regressive tax system via tariffs we've ever seen which affect the poorest the most. Yet…

> Trump is out there creating the most regressive tax system via tariffs Tariffs incentivize domestic production. See the case of chicken tax and pickup trucks. While we do pay for tariffs now, later down the road we should not as more things would be made domestically. If you don’t do tariffs, there is no way to force producers to onshore.

The chicken tax encourages creative workarounds more than domestic production. Importing all the parts and putting them together in the US is production work, so fine. Importing chassis cab and putting a bed on in the US is silly, importing with seats discarded in the US is wasteful (Ford got dinged, but I don't think others did?)

Who's making small cargo vans domestically? Nobody. So they're all 25% more expensive, so you might as well buy a big cargo van when a small one would do.

Honestly, governments buy enough light trucks, that 'buy american' requirements would likely keep at least one company making them here.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#116

Post by tired-turtle »

WalterBright wrote: post #106
kyralis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is when the status quo would have increased taxes. That may not be a cut of current taxes, but in the longer timeframe it is absolutely a tax cut.

Framing it as not increasing taxes being a cut is misleading. It's just as disingenuous as scaling back a proposed budget increase and calling it a "cut". The FTC wouldn't let businesses get away with such language, why should the government get a pass?

If a bill due at the end of the month is forgiven on the 25th, were expenses cut? What if the debt is forgiven on the 2nd of the next month?

I’d wager most people would consider those scenario cuts. However, in your framework, the verbiage is different despite a shared outcome.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#117

Post by agent_turtle »

murderfs wrote: post #60
agent_turtle wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You view this as zero sum. How many new business owners would be created if people had enough to save? How many new businesses would exist if more money was flowing in the economy? Should businesses exist if they can't pay livable wages? These aren't hypothetical questions. We have an answer for them all over the country where state minimum wages are rising in Democratic states.

Is the answer a good one? https://www.nber.org/papers/w34033

yeah, actually. If the worst thing you can find when paying living wages for workers is a small drop of 2.7% employment among fast food chains, that sounds like a great trade off.

Seriously, do some introspection here.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#118

Post by fzeroracer »

ta20240528 wrote: post #102
XorNot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McDonalds were going to do that anyway. And what's the point of a minimum wage of it doesn't provide a living? That's just letting private enterprise piggyback off the welfare system.

Good question - it has a partial answer: minimum wage is to provide a living to a single young person for a shortish period. Not a family. Especially not families with - for other reasons- only one breadwinner. The problems of poverty (to the extent the US even experiences it) are broader than demanding someone make uneconomic decisions with their investors capital.

> Good question - it has a partial answer: minimum wage is to provide a living to a single young person for a shortish period.

This is false and not at all the reason why the minimum wage exists. It was created to bust sweatshops. You are making the same argument as the people that were defending sweatshops. It may be the argument proponents make now to argue against raising it, but it was not why it was created. Roosevelt literally said that the intent was that any business unable to provide a basic living wage for their workers was one that should not exist.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#119

Post by tossandthrow »

silisili wrote: post #113
bluefirebrand wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This probably means that those wages were being suppressed hard for years and they finally weren't able to hire people at that wage anymore

You're probably right, but it ultimately leads to wage compression which is for most of the middle class a disaster. You don't have to look far to see everyday people complaining about the price of a burger or movie ticket. IMHO, it doesn't "lift all boats", it pulls down the middle and upper middle classes. Yeah, the lower wage jobs made more money, but they didn't gain much if anything in affordability, since all o…

All arguments against lower class people getting higher wages are IMHO wildly inappropriate.

"you need lower wages to avoid wage compression", "you need lower wage so we can have more employed people"...

If wage compression occurs, then companies have to deal with Theo senior employees seeking elsewhere - or pay them fairly.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#120

Post by silisili »

tossandthrow wrote: post #119
silisili wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably right, but it ultimately leads to wage compression which is for most of the middle class a disaster. You don't have to look far to see everyday people complaining about the price of a burger or movie ticket. IMHO, it doesn't "lift all boats", it pulls down the middle and upper middle classes. Yeah, the lower wage jobs made more money, but they didn't gain much if anything in affordability, since all o…

All arguments against lower class people getting higher wages are IMHO wildly inappropriate. "you need lower wages to avoid wage compression", "you need lower wage so we can have more employed people"... If wage compression occurs, then companies have to deal with Theo senior employees seeking elsewhere - or pay them fairly.

Today, I'd agree. It felt like a dirty thing to even write.

Historically, the lower wage jobs were for kids or bored folk, who'd eventually move onto something better and higher wages.

Recently, the economy isn't great and people take what they can find. There's absolutely no shame in that. I know people in tech who were making low to mid 6 figures now doing retail. The jobs just aren't there, and I constantly fear I'll be in the same boat soon.

But that inevitably does lead to wage compression, which to be clear isn't the fault of the lower wage earners.

Post reply on HN