
The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten a Raise in 15 Years - api
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-american-middle-class-hasnt-gotten-a-raise-in-15-years/
======
api
I post because it's true and interesting, but the real trend goes back a lot
further: to ~1970.

[http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/producti...](http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-
and-real-wages.jpg)

Among other things, I think this exonerates Silicon Valley. Information tech
did not cause this. I've smelled an agenda to frame SV and its larger economic
and cultural orbit for middle class woes for several years, mostly emanating
from curmudgeonly journalistic and literary circles. I think it's total
baloney... the dates just don't match up. This murder occurred while the
suspect was in diapers.

Interesting in light of all the recent discussion around Peter Thiel's new
book which argues that fundamental (as opposed to just incremental)
technological innovation has slowed in most areas since roughly the same date.
I would add the above graph to the very long list of things that went off the
rails in the 70s.

I'm very heartened by all this talk, especially given that it's coming from
multiple points on the political landscape. I'm hearing liberals,
conservatives, and libertarians all talking about how something really broke
around that time-- something I've personally believed _very_ strongly for many
years. For years I've said that on or around 1970 "the future was cancelled."
As for why-- I don't know. I scribbled down my own hypothesis here:
[http://adamierymenko.com/c/](http://adamierymenko.com/c/)

~~~
hammock
You might enjoy this: [http://strikemag.org/bullshit-
jobs/](http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/)

Specifically the part where it talks about how the current establishment is
squeezing the value-creating workers (teachers, police, factory workers,
artists, mechanics, etc) while ballooning the "bullshit jobs" (school and
hospital administration, lobbyists, PR researchers, consultants, etc)

~~~
VLM
After reading the article I don't think the author has actually worked BS
jobs. I have. BS jobs are more stressful because all you do all day is battle
others with BS jobs, directly or indirectly. You're the footsoldiers of empire
building. (edited to emphasize, we have a centrally controlled economy focused
on limiting freedom, so rather than having 100 competing firms where
footsoldiers would be highly advantageous, we have the .gov paid off to limit
the marketplace to maybe 2 competing firms, each of 50 departments fighting
tooth and nail with whichever department is weakest, lets say 25 of 50 of
supposedly friendly internal departments, and the locals are a lot closer and
more fun to fight than the competitor, so most of the foot soldier fighting is
internal, not with customers or competitors)

Humans are strong worthy opponents and battling them all day is tiring, either
directly or indirectly as what amounts to being a toolsmith. TPS reports and
such.

A "real job" is much more asymmetric warfare. You, with high technology, cheap
energy, financial capitalization tools, an advanced mechanized transport
system, and health care support, vs a poor defenseless forest of trees. I
wonder who will win?

Even retail vs customer is fundamentally asymmetric warfare, not person to
person warfare.

Nationally, as per the article, we probably do spend only 10 or so hours per
week working on average. But we also spend maybe 30 hours per week national
average fighting other people, either directly or more likely as support
troops.

The purpose of this new procedure or report or process is solely for exec A to
screw over exec B. Don't worry about the customers we have .gov on our side to
eliminate competition.

I don't feel bad about working these jobs. Some high level crook paid off the
government to collect a huge amount of money in an unfair market. If I don't
collect my share for basically doing nothing, the crook will get it. The
system is designed so its completely outside my control other than accepting
my cut for doing not much. Well OK then. My carefully designed TPS reports or
new procedure or whatever will report my feudal overlord is better than the
other feudal overlord. Whatever.

~~~
Chinjut
For all your mentions of the government, it's hardly the primary source of
competition-oriented jobs, is it? I mean, even without the government's help,
there are a lot of jobs in Company A and Company B simply fighting each other
for greatest share of a fixed pie of consumer attention (e.g., large parts of
marketing and advertising, though the phenomenon is far from restricted to
these), no?

------
programminggeek
I think the fall of the middle class has a lot to do with a lot of different
factors, but probably the biggest is the lack of negotiation that happens in
our country by the average person.

We are a country of price takers, not price setters. Most people are taking
whatever price they are offered with no push back. No raises this year? Well
maybe next year. Maybe a tiny bonus. Etc.

Unions had their own set of problems and at some point might be unsustainable,
but when people stop negotiating deals, they get taken advantage of.

I've changed jobs more than some people I know because it would get me a
better deal, and it has. But before that, I experienced myself and watched my
parents stick to the same job without getting appropriate raises and bonuses
for the work they did.

In our current economy the best way to get a raise seems to be to switch
companies because companies don't like giving raises and people don't like
asking for them. Eventually what used to be a early raise negotiation will be
a yearly job negotiation. It's starting to happen with younger workers and the
more that is normal, the less efficient all these businesses will become.

All because people stopped negotiating.

~~~
debt
Maybe people are afraid. The new mantra is "you're lucky to even have job"
with this economy. People are less inclined to push back because they don't
want to potentially jeopardize their job.

I agree that ideally people should always be pushing back, but if it's
potentially between a raise or you're fired(at least in the minds of people
requesting the raise), then people will be more cautious.

Also, young(cheap) workers are in large supply so people _may actually be
fired_ for asking for a raise; they can just fire the guy and hire a new
younger worker(probably working for less too).

Many of these tech companies out here in the Bay probably pull hundreds of
millions of dollars in "free" labor using an army of temporary interns(because
it's cheap).

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>The new mantra is "you're lucky to even have job" with this economy.

The limit is shown in the recent fast food strikes: when the existing jobs are
so damn bad that people can't get by from working, people start fighting back
again.

~~~
Domenic_S
> existing jobs

"There are three million good jobs that no one seems to want."

[http://profoundlydisconnected.com/](http://profoundlydisconnected.com/)

~~~
Iftheshoefits
Sounds just exactly like the "can't find enough skilled engineers" whining in
the tech sector. The other half of that thought, "at the price I'm willing to
pay" is almost never mentioned.

This country has a deeply embedded, cultural and in my opinion entirely
unhealthy bent toward deference to the wealthy and connected that borders on
obsquious.

~~~
Domenic_S
I doubt it. Like I said in another comment, the only people I personally know
with paid-off houses in California are tradespeople and startup lottery
winners.

> _The other half of that thought, "at the price I'm willing to pay" is almost
> never mentioned._

Think on that for a second. Let's say CompanyX _is_ willing to pay huge gobs
of money for engineers. Now CompanyX employs all the good engineers and
everyone else whines that they can't find any. So CompanyY comes along and
offers a bit more. Some engineers bail and move over, but most are happy where
they are/don't want the life change/etc. And on it goes. It's like the search
for a mate: the older you get, the more likely it is you've found a situation
you want to keep. In the engineering case, "skilled engineers" are for the
most part older, may have other responsibilities (mortgage, kids, spouse),
have had the opportunity to "sow their wild oats" by trying a few different
companies/startups/whatever, and have found a situation they want to keep.

------
jlmorton
Any commentary on stagnant wages in the United States that does not mention
health care is essentially not worth reading.

~~~
tsotha
Agreed. The amount employers are paying to employ people has gone up, in
constant dollars. But the increase is getting eaten by the increased cost of
providing health care.

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
Except for all the employees that don't receive health insurance through their
employers...

~~~
tsotha
The bottom end has been held down by illegal immigration. You don't add eleven
million people with sixth grade educations to the job market and expect wages
for unskilled labor to go up.

------
cm2012
This is the first ever analysis I've seen of this that really digs into the
different corollary factors - awesome! A perfect example of what I hoped 538
could do more of.

------
buckbova
The trade deficit and globalization have more to do with this than
demographics.

"The United States has been running consistent trade deficits since 1980 due
to high imports of oil and consumer products. In recent years, the biggest
trade deficits were recorded with China, Japan, Germany, Mexico and Saudi
Arabia. United States records trade surpluses with Hong Kong, Australia,
Netherlands and Belgium."

[http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-
tra...](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade)

[http://economyincrisis.org/content/failed-trade-policies-
hav...](http://economyincrisis.org/content/failed-trade-policies-have-erroded-
middle-class)

------
twoodfin
_In 1970, 55 percent of U.S. income was earned by households in the middle 60
percent of the income distribution. More than half of households were in what
Pew Research Center has labeled the “middle tier” of households (those earning
between two-thirds and twice the median income). In 2013, both numbers had
fallen to about 45 percent._

It's not clear that this is an apples-to-apples comparison, but this AEI chart
suggests this statistic might not be as disheartening as it sounds:

[http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/yes-the-middle-class-has-
be...](http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/yes-the-middle-class-has-been-
disappearing-but-they-havent-fallen-into-the-lower-class-theyve-risen-into-
the-upper-class/)

 _In other words, America’s “middle class” did start largely disappearing in
the 1970s, but it was because they were moving up to a higher-income category,
not down into a lower-income category. And that movement was so significant
that between 1967 and 2009, the share of American families earning incomes
above $75,000 more than doubled, from 16.3% to 39.1%._

~~~
api
"In other words, America’s “middle class” did start largely disappearing in
the 1970s, but it was because they were moving up to a higher-income category,
not down into a lower-income category."

Is this for real? Are you actually serious?

Go talk to some ordinary people, or maybe tour some of the country outside
whatever rich coastal enclave you inhabit.

Edit: to clarify: I don't trust the source. Doesn't it make you suspicious
that AEI and their orbit are the _only_ ones saying this while everyone else
says otherwise? All I'm saying above is that my anecdotal experience clearly
supports what "everyone else" is saying, not what AEI is saying. When I read
stuff like that I'm like "uhh... what parallel universe is this from?" Pravda
always had graphs that made the Communist Party look good too. (Side note:
during the Bush years it really struck me how oddly "Soviet" the American
right is in its thinking and character. I guess, like Nietzsche said, when you
fight against something you become what you fight against.)

~~~
twoodfin
Does "everyone else" include progressive wonks like Matt Yglesias?

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/18/median_family...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/18/median_family_income_since_1989_is_the_stagnation_real.html)

He's arguing that life has gotten better for the median family, not about how
"fat" the distribution is around that family, but based on your other
comments, I assume you think "everyone" agrees that things are getting worse.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Does "everyone else" include progressive wonks like Matt Yglesias?

Its kind of odd that the only people I ever see positively citing
"progressive" Yglesias are doing so in the context of using Yglesias's support
for an economic position to bolster the idea that its not a particularly
conservative viewpoint.

------
serve_yay
I fear the truth is worse, that some of us have gotten fairly large raises (or
you might even say exited the middle class) and the rest are taking a pay cut
relative to decades past.

------
forgotpasswd3x
This post seems to have been flagged down pretty fast.

------
squozzer
Said Screwtape: If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops
knocked off, it was surely they.

