71–76 of 76 posts
What does this show? Are people earning less or more?
I see it says men are earning less, but women earned more, which I mean makes sense. But is it saying that men earning less is due to women earning more?
And if I understand, it also says women earned more but have started to stagnate as well?
Who knew such an admiral goal: "having women entering the workforce en mass" would have such a depressing result: "it is now much more difficult for a family to survive on one income" What is the solution? Obviously, we would like to keep moving forward and allow anyone that is willing and able to do the job they want, but if anyone would like to be with their children, or take time off while a spouse works, that sho…
An idea that I really like is to do what countries like Singapore and the Scandinavian countries do: create a public sovereign wealth fund, and then do what States like Alaska do: divert the dividends from the fund directly to the people. Alaska's Permanent Fund is only allowed to invest in Alaskan companies and is "only" $75B in size ( https://www.alaskajournal.com/2021-02-24/fund-continues-bull... ), and even then…
The greatest tool for building wealth is time. That is an asset that organizations have that individuals do not. Look at the endowments of top tier universities. There is no reason that governments can't do the same and benefit from the long lifespan of a non-human entity.
This has the benefit of aligning government interests with the interests of the people. It also makes government more supportive than punitive as revenue only increases by cultivating an environment for business to flourish.
https://www.transformingsociety.co.uk/2019/10/28/explaining-...
Studying income inequality in the US by gender and age group while completely ignoring race feels wrong when it's such an impactful variable, especially considering it's getting worse over time. In 2016, the median net worth of non-Hispanic White households was $143,600. The median net worth of Black households was $12,920. Between 1983 and 2013, White households saw their wealth increased by 14%. But during the same…
There are wealthy families and poor families of every race. Focusing on race as the reason for income disparity is detrimental to the success of the whole. When race is marked as the reason for income inequality we get programs targeted at a specific race. It encourages building "institutional racism".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just means it's now harder for families to make it on a single income that used to be the responsibility of the father. This drives wages lower as we're seeing and makes it harder on everyone.
Logically speaking, it doesn't make any sense. It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. Practically speaking, people will spend their money on limited resources like land and basically lose out on most of the gains. That's the primary way "housing as an investment" earns money, by extorting the wages of future workers. If there are more workers (women and men) then you get to earn ev…
This is only true for DINKs, families with access to free childcare, or families in which both parents work schedules that can be arranged to make childcare possible, such as having non-overlapping workdays.
The cost of child care where I live in MD is slightly greater than my wife's maximum post-tax earning potential, so we've chosen for her to stay home with the children.
Moving back near family in NJ for the free childcare would reduce my income enough to negate any extra earned income from my wife working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. In my experience, the higher earning potential can be maintained, though overall salary growth is lower, as you start to hit a bit of a theoretical earnings ceiling. Though, that is generally of limited consequence when you're at those levels. Another issue not addressed is lack of employment flexibility. If you are in the top 5% of earners, by extension you are likely limited to the top 5% of all availab…
If you are in the top 5% of earners, you have the ability to save enough money so you can switch to whatever level of employment you want. Someone with a more "mainstream" income barely or never saves enough money to have the kind of security to just try out other employers or fields or regions. I am willing to bet a top 5% earner would be able to land a top quintile job just by asking people in their network.
I’m skeptical. My peers and I are in the top 1% of earners. We cannot save enough money to just opt out of our 1% incomes. Real estate is too expensive. (Bay Area)
I suspect many people in the top 5% are wage slaves as much as anyone else and have very little available in terms of viable options to continue the same lifestyle.
I’m in the top 1% but I still live in a 400sqft inlaw unit. Real estate is very expensive where you get those high incomes.
I suspect many people in the top 5% of earners aren’t my age though (30) and have generational wealth going on if not wealth from buying their home a long time ago when things were cheaper.