More Bad News

    I wonder why workers aren't feeling optimistic per these polls? Hmmmm...wages not going up as fast as productivity, pensions disappearing, no health care, debt at an all-time high?

Three Polls Find Workers Sensing Deep Pessimism
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Three new opinion polls released yesterday found deep pessimism among American workers, with most saying that wages were not keeping pace with inflation and that workers were worse off in many ways than a generation ago.

The Pew Research Center found in a survey of 2,003 adults completed last month that an overwhelming majority said workers had less job security and faced more on-the-job stress than 20 or 30 years ago.

The nonpartisan Pew center, said, “The public thinks that workers were better off a generation ago than they are now on every key dimension of worker life — be it wages, benefits, retirement plans, on-the-job stress, the loyalty they are shown by employers or the need to regularly upgrade work skills.”

In a poll of 803 registered voters commissioned by the A.F.L.-C.I.O., Peter D. Hart Research found that 55 percent said their incomes were not keeping up with inflation, 33 percent said their incomes were keeping even and 9 percent said their incomes were outpacing inflation.

Check out the rest of the article.

Comments

[Stan Greer]

The New York Times report is quite misleading, as economist Alan Reynolds points out in a column today:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AlanReynolds/2006/08/31/statistical_politics

Reynolds notes specifically that real compensation (including wages and benefits) has outpaced productivity since 2004, and is growing at double the rate of productivity growth so far this year:

Non-farm business productivity rose by 3 percent in 2004, and hourly compensation rose by 3.6 percent; productivity rose by 2.3 percent in 2005, and hourly compensation rose by 4.4 percent; productivity rose at a 2.7 percent rate in the first half of 2006, and hourly compensation rose at a 6.2 percent rate. The headline should have read, "Productivity Fails to Match Rise in Worker Compensation."

Jon Tasini's analysis thus has no substantial factual basis, as the whole column shows with even greater clarity.

Stan Greer
National Inst. for Labor Relations Research

[Kevin F Droste]

Stan, can you clarify for me what you mean by hourly compensation? Is that just workers who get an hourly wage, or is it all salaries divided by 40? Also, is this an average growth and by that I mean if 10 people live on a street, and 9 make $11,000 a year, and 1 makes $101,000 per year, the average income in the neighborhood is $20,000? If the guy making $101,000 gets a $199,000 raise, and everyone else loses their job, the average is $30,000 and salaries have increased 30%. That doesn't really tell the true picture of what is going on in that neighborhood. Can you clarify what the numbers you cite truly mean? Thanks, KFD

[Stan Greer]

Kevin Droste --

As you could easily learn for yourself by doing a minimal amount of research, compensation includes wages, salaries, benefits, and bonuses.

All of those things are included when Jon Tasini and his sources talk about "labor's share of the economy," so, if you have a beef about my including salaries, then you have a beef with Jon to.

As the AFL-CIO and others know full well, the fact that a person is paid a salary rather than by the hour hardly makes him or her a plutocrat. It's ridiculous not to include salary-earners as well as wage-earners when one calculate's "labor's share." It's similarly ridiculous to exclude business benefit costs. (These are the insurance, pension and other costs covered by the business, not the employees.) It makes no difference to the business's bottom line if its labor costs rise due to increasing health-insurance costs rather than due to higher wages.

Stan Greer

[Kevin F Droste]

Stan, there was no beef with anybody. I wouldn't know where to begin to do the research on your statistics, other than to just accept them, as this is not my field of expertise. That is why I asked the question. Obviously, you assumed I was challenging you in some way, but that was far from the case. I was asking what I felt was a legitimate question because economics is not my field, although it appears it is yours, as I have read other posts in the past from you on this site, which I found intersting and thought provoking. I thought possibly I could learn something from you on these issues, but I am not sure I understand your answer to my question. Here is my understanding of your answer: that the statistics you quote in your original post include all "earners", both salaried and hourly. I gather from this that my example is possible in that the compensation has increased by more than the productivity, but it doesn't mean that that increase has necessarily reached down to the average or below average earner, and may just reflect large increases for high earners. Or the opposite may be true that it also may reflect that everyone has seen growth in their compensation above the increase in their production. Thanks for your help on this, and I am very sorry that you felt I was challenging you in some way. That is part of the problem with this type of communication is there is no voice inflection, no body language or other cues to tell each other the attitude behind the words. KFD

[KevinR]

I don't want to sound anti-intellectual here, but I just don't find this debate particularly important.

In my work, I work with people every day who have been in the same job for 20 years and are making minimum wage. Many live in single room apartments, with their entire families. They work hard, pay taxes and just want to make a decent life for themselves and their families.

I doubt they find a debate over which statistical universe we should consider when examining the scale of poverty, very useful.

[Stan Greer]

Kevin Droste --

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your first question as hostile. I don't have readily available data that can answer the question you have. But clearly, discussions about worker pay and productivity shouldn't overlook employer-provided benefits. Jon Tasini and his source did this, and for this reason alone their analysis is very misleading.

[D Flinchum]

I have already mentioned "The Height of Inequality" by Clive Crook in September's "The Atlantic". From this article come these stats:

Between 1966 & 2001, median wage & salary income increased by 11% after inflation. Income in the top 10% of salaries increased 58% after inflation. Income in the top 1% of salaries increased 121% after inflation. Income in the top .1% of salaries increased 236% after inflation. Income in the top .01% of salaries increased 617% after inflation. This last group represents about 13,000 workers in the country. This is NOT investment income; it is wages & salaries.

[Stan Greer]

D Flinchum --

If business owners, managers and shareholders are now voluntarily choosing to compensate the employees they consider to be most valuable more, relative to other employees, than they did in the past, why is that any skin off your nose or mine? And what relevance can high compensation for 13,000 people, which in toto amounts, I'm sure, to less than one percent of our GDP, have to real or imaginary problems for average workers?

[Brennan Griffin]

Its all about the median compensation for progressives, which is where the value judgement comes in. The recent stats do point to the median compensation being lower over time.

Average or total compensation increases are nice, but if its not getting down to the working and middle class, why should I cheerlead for the rich getting richer?

Not that anyone is going to be convinced by blog comments. Back to the day job that might make a difference.

[D Flinchum]

Are you suggesting that the average worker should be optimistic, Stan?

[Stan Greer]

Brennan Griffin -- Where is your evidence that median overall real compensation (not wages only) is falling? I haven't seen it.

D. Flinchum -- Contrary to the propaganda of the New York Times and Jon Tasini, the average worker is pretty optimistic with regard to his or her own situation and prospects. And I trust the average worker's intuition on this matter.

See: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060903-095534-4275r.htm

for details.

[Brian O' Hanlon]

Dunno, whether this has been linked or not here.
More than workers are peeved it seems.

http://www.cooperationcommons.com/cooperation-commons/youtube-whistle-blowing

[D Flinchum]

This from the "Washington Times" editorial noted in SG's posting:
"Americans are actually remarkably constant in their optimism about their own economic prospects, their own jobs and their own futures, irrespective of gloomy macro trends. It can be a different, cheerless story when you ask for their opinion on the economy generally -- and it's worth a caveat that the numbers by definition don't include the unemployed."

In short US workers think that things are pretty "cheerless" in the overall economy, but at least the ones who aren't yet among the unemployed can't quite believe that it could happen to them. This is not an uncommon reaction. I see no reason for the average worker to be optimistic.....

[Stan Greer]

In other words, D Flinchum, the majority of Americans whose personal experience, as they see it, doesn't jibe with your ideologically-based perceptions are clueless.

[D Flinchum]

Not at all, Stan.

For the record, my husband and I are retired with good pensions and health insurance, living in a part of the country that is inexpensive to live in, and very happy with our lives. That doesn't mean that we don't see all around us the effects of outsourcing on the manufacturing base here in SW VA, the people working 3 jobs with no benefits to make ends meet, and VT IT grads not being able to find jobs in their field because of outsourcing and the importation of H-1B's.

I DO think that some workers who believe that the economy in general is NOT doing well at all but that they are OK are to some degree doing what we all do - denying that they may somehow have to deal with a generally unpleasant occurance, such as a loss of job. It's not optimism so much as denial. Some, of course, are doing fine and are perfectly correct.

It's like the 3 pack a day smoker who knows that smoking causes cancer, knows the statistics, even knows a few people, perhaps including relatives, who died of lung cancer; but somehow believes that because he's smoked for 25 years and doesn't have cancer YET (that he knows of), then he's just not going to get it. Some smokers - and workers - will be lucky and correct; good for them. Some won't.

I'd love to see the stats including the unemployed, however, and to see a breakdown of which type of workers believe that they are doing just fine. Wouldn't you? I suspect that might be quite interesting. It would also be helpful to know how the questions were phrased.

[D Flinchum]

A few ideologically-based perceptions from the EVP of the US Chamber of Commerce via Parapundit:

"Republicans are worried," added R. Bruce Josten, an executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a significant backer of pro-business -- and therefore predominantly Republican -- congressional candidates. "You have a portion of the middle class that doesn't believe it's benefiting from good economic news, and, in fact, it's not. . . . All the blame doesn't go to Congress, but voters are going to take it out on Congress anyway."

[0 apr credit cards]

Credit card
0 APR Credit card
Business Credit card
Airlines Mile Credit Card
Secured Credit card
Apply online for a Credit card
Credit card Debt Consolidation
Credit card Application
Credit card Company
Credit card Processing