American life is improving for the lowest paid • Hacker News Board

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#91

Post by themagician » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #83

themagician wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is both true and mind boggling to me. I employ 5-10 unskilled people at any given time. Mostly for assembly and packing. They get two weeks PTO, and at least a week of paid vacation throughout the year when we close for holidays, mostly more. At the end of the day the total annual cost to provide this is well worth the drama it keeps out of the workplace. Sick days? Take as many as you need. I don’t want sick pe…

> This is both true and mind boggling to me. We all come into this with a lot of context. However, America has I think something like the highest average and median wages outside the Nordics [0, 1]. And the Nordics are potentially a statistical aberration. If somebody "gets" 2 weeks of paid time off, but at the end of the year their average salary is (50/52)% of someone who gets no PTO, are they really being paid for…

I pay hourly employees between $14-$20/hr. The standard is to let people accrue two weeks. I just give it all up front. It's easier this way, honestly, because people spend the time more evenly throughout the year. I guess I could reverse it so they are "earning" the PTO over time, but everyone seems happy with it the way things are, and that's fine by me.

For salaried employees I just give them an FTO policy instead. As long as things are getting done I just don't care. I'm not interesting in creating a hostile work environment to save a few thousand dollars a year.

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#92

Post by FabHK » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

will4274 wrote: post #67

FabHK wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, quite remarkable. Celebrating a 0.1% annual wage increase over the last 4 decades, one week (!) of paid vacation, and "help" with health insurance as progress. In 2019. It reminds me of the Onion article rejoicing that "Chinese Employers To Grant 15-Minute Maternity Break". https://www.theonion.com/chinese-employers-to-grant-15-minut... "Of course, this measure wouldn't need to be taken at all if pregnant worke…

When you consider that it's 0.9% in the past year, and 3.2% total in the 39 years prior to that, it seems more like something to celebrate. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm

Agreed, though the number you cited is increase of average real weekly earnings over that year, seasonally adjusted, while the much worse numbers quoted from the article are not even median, but 10th percentile of real wages, IIRC.

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#93

Post by henrikschroder » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #82

henrikschroder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even for high-paid white-collar jobs, you normally don't get a lot of paid time off in the US. Two weeks, typically. Three weeks is seen as generous. These days off are then typically used piecemeal, a day here, a long weekend there, some days around christmas, a family trip here. A whole week off is seen as weird. I worked at a company where that was the standard, but every five years (!) you could apply for a whole…

> A whole week off is seen as weird. Hang on. So even if you have paid leave, is a yearly week or two's holiday really not usual in the US? You know to go spend a week hiking or skiing in the Rockies, or fortnight camping, or whatever is your thing. Not being able to take a week or two straight to get away from civilisation would have me clawing the walls going stir crazy, and I'd probably find myself divorced. Quite…

If you only have two weeks total, getting two weeks straight is very hard, because you've probably had to use vacation days for other things, family obligations, christmas, etc, so you don't really have the time.

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#94

Post by stallmanite » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

peisistratos wrote: post #77

adventured wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real median household income is up over 43% since 1990. It's up 62% for the bottom 20%.[1] It's popular to claim that wages have gone nowhere for ~40 years, it's never supported by the actual data. The premise requires that one ignores the cost of health coverage in the US that is commonly paid for or heavily subsidized by an employer (the employee would have to pay far higher taxes for that otherwise, given the…

> actual data The data is available from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov . The Economist's gloomy figures were right, but are gloomier if pushed back a few years as 1979 was a nadir any how. > health The US is off the charts in terms of health costs compared to other industrialized countries, and big business has arranged it so it is the only industrialized country with people…

I can’t reply directly to his comment for some reason but please disregard the other poster complaining about your grammar. Your grammar is fine, perhaps the only change is “skyrocketing healthcare” should be “skyrocketing health care costs”.

One can assume that the poster can’t engage with your points rationally and resorted to name calling / xenophobia.

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#95

Post by FabHK » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

dj_gitmo wrote: post #90

peisistratos wrote: post #65

The article text does not really support the headline > By last year, the poorest 10% were still earning only a miserly 4.1% more per hour than they did (in real wages) 40 years ago. Median hourly pay for America’s workers was up a little more, by 14%. With exactly 40 years ago being in the midst of a wage downturn. Go back a little more and real hourly wages have fallen for both groups, despite GDP etc. booming for…

I actually like some things about the Economist and I subscribed for years. I feel like people would be better informed about the world if they read it. That said, it's absolutely dripping with ideology and you need to know how to read it. It's a cheerleader for Capitalism, kinda like the Financial Times. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thi...

It's not an uncritical cheerleader, though. They do support free trade and globalisation, yes, but also drug legalisation, gun control, carbon taxes, gay marriage, etc.

For US presidential elections, they endorsed Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#96

Post by FabHK » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

will4274 wrote: post #68

peisistratos wrote: post #65

The article text does not really support the headline > By last year, the poorest 10% were still earning only a miserly 4.1% more per hour than they did (in real wages) 40 years ago. Median hourly pay for America’s workers was up a little more, by 14%. With exactly 40 years ago being in the midst of a wage downturn. Go back a little more and real hourly wages have fallen for both groups, despite GDP etc. booming for…

> The article text does not really support the headline While that's true, it' mostly because its a bad article rather than the headline being wrong. Of that 4.1% gain over 40 years, 0.9% were in the the past year. America is seeing an economic boom go on longer than expected and low unemployment is allowing people who left the labor market to re-enter and _slowly_ pushing wages up. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/r…

You're comparing apples (average) and oranges (10th percentile) here.

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#97

Post by njepa » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

dj_gitmo wrote: post #90

peisistratos wrote: post #65

The article text does not really support the headline > By last year, the poorest 10% were still earning only a miserly 4.1% more per hour than they did (in real wages) 40 years ago. Median hourly pay for America’s workers was up a little more, by 14%. With exactly 40 years ago being in the midst of a wage downturn. Go back a little more and real hourly wages have fallen for both groups, despite GDP etc. booming for…

I actually like some things about the Economist and I subscribed for years. I feel like people would be better informed about the world if they read it. That said, it's absolutely dripping with ideology and you need to know how to read it. It's a cheerleader for Capitalism, kinda like the Financial Times. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thi...

Unfortunately I think the Economist is one of those publications where it seems authoritative until they write about something you really know about and realize it is mostly just written in an assertive style.

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#98

Post by jjeaff » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #95

dj_gitmo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually like some things about the Economist and I subscribed for years. I feel like people would be better informed about the world if they read it. That said, it's absolutely dripping with ideology and you need to know how to read it. It's a cheerleader for Capitalism, kinda like the Financial Times. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thi...

It's not an uncritical cheerleader, though. They do support free trade and globalisation, yes, but also drug legalisation, gun control, carbon taxes, gay marriage, etc. For US presidential elections, they endorsed Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Are you implying that because their record of presidential endorsements have a (D) after their name, we can thus infer they are critical thinkers?

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#99

Post by wswkb » Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #82

henrikschroder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even for high-paid white-collar jobs, you normally don't get a lot of paid time off in the US. Two weeks, typically. Three weeks is seen as generous. These days off are then typically used piecemeal, a day here, a long weekend there, some days around christmas, a family trip here. A whole week off is seen as weird. I worked at a company where that was the standard, but every five years (!) you could apply for a whole…

> A whole week off is seen as weird. Hang on. So even if you have paid leave, is a yearly week or two's holiday really not usual in the US? You know to go spend a week hiking or skiing in the Rockies, or fortnight camping, or whatever is your thing. Not being able to take a week or two straight to get away from civilisation would have me clawing the walls going stir crazy, and I'd probably find myself divorced. Quite…

>Not being able to take a week or two straight to get away from civilisation would have me clawing the walls going stir crazy, and I'd probably find myself divorced.

That's interesting, as I recall many couples get divorced after being on vacation together because they spend most of the year separated but they discover during vacation that they can't stand each other.

Re: American life is improving for the lowest paid

#100

Post by FabHK » Sat, May 18, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #98

FabHK wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an uncritical cheerleader, though. They do support free trade and globalisation, yes, but also drug legalisation, gun control, carbon taxes, gay marriage, etc. For US presidential elections, they endorsed Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Are you implying that because their record of presidential endorsements have a (D) after their name, we can thus infer they are critical thinkers?

No, that was a second point: The Economist is often portrayed as a right-wing or libertarian magazine, and I think that's an unfair and inaccurate portrayal. The list of endorsements supports that (unstated) point.

(EDIT: typos)