Support NeoGAF

[DeepBreath87]

Yeah, built by mostly non-college educated people that could work 40 hours a week and support a stay at home wife, family, house purchase, and retirement with pension. None of them ate avocado toast though, like the lazy losers around today. That must be it.

Oh no! You mean modern prosperity comes with expectations? The indignity! Haha.

If you want to go back to the early 1900s standard of living, be my fucking guest.

 

[Punished Miku]

Oh no! You mean modern prosperity comes with expectations? The indignity! Haha.

If you want to go back to the early 1900s standard of living, be my fucking guest.

Yeah, get back to work servants.

Even people at the bottom deserve better wages, access to affordable housing, access to affordable health care, access to affordable education, access to affordable retirement and dignity in old age. These are very, very basic things.

 

[SirKicksalot]

And this is exactly why this thread should be locked. Because the whole point of this hit piece was to tickle the nuts of people with certain views, so they can make broad generalizations about a whole generation of people without any data or reference to objective numbers. And then pointing out any of that data is political, so it's off limits. That is literally the entire point of the thread, and it was obvious from the headline alone. We can't reference objective increases in the cost of rent, school, health care, the decimation of manufacturing and non-college jobs, or the complete divergence of profit increase to wage increase since the 1970s. We just get to listen to endless lectures about how everyone is lazy.

That redditor had a platform to explain all this but he literally, unironically argued in favour of laziness.
Everyone agrees that work should be properly compensated and ideally the work environment should be cunt-free, but that's not what he argued for in the interview.

The fun will continue. Other mods did interviews lmao. Looking forward to what the 21 years old, long-term unemployed anarchist mod has to say! The subreddit was reopened with a banger of a post.

 

[Punished Miku]

That redditor had a platform to explain all this but he literally, unironically argued in favour of laziness.
Everyone agrees that work should be properly compensated and ideally the work environment should be cunt-free, but that's not what he argued for in the interview.

The fun will continue. Other mods did interviews lmao. Looking forward to what the 21 years old, long-term unemployed anarchist mod has to say! The subreddit was reopened with a banger of a post:

That guy is a moron. The point is people with an ideological agenda prop up said moron so they can argue that their ideology is right. That's why its a hit piece. No one is arguing that the guy isn't a moron.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Yeah, get back to work servants.

Even people at the bottom deserve better wages, access to affordable housing, access to affordable health care, access to affordable education, access to affordable retirement and dignity in old age. These are very, very basic things.

They have it. It’s within their reach. Community college is cheap and will provide an entry into numerous fields that pay a decent wage. There are plenty of trade jobs that require six months to a year of training. People don’t “deserve” to have the whole world spoon fed to them at their convenience. A mountain of hard work and struggle created the society that allows this guy to piss his life away walking dogs a couple of times a week. The fact he and his ilk are trying to paint society that has allowed them to get away with that level of irresponsibility as grossly unfair is hilarious.

 

[Coolwhhip]

That wall of text moderator post seems an awful lot like work.

 

[Sybrix]

Aren't these mods and mods in general on subreddits and fourms just to manage them?

Not represent members of the subreddit?

Seem's a bit presumptuous to appear on national TV as some sort of spokesman for this subreddit when in reality they are the subreddits bouncer.

Reeks of attention seeking and someone getting above themselves tbh

 

[StreetsofBeige]

We can't reference objective increases in the cost of rent, school, health care, the decimation of manufacturing and non-college jobs, or the complete divergence of profit increase to wage increase since the 1970s. We just get to listen to endless lectures about how everyone is lazy.

What does any of that have to do with getting a job and paying your own bills when the vast majority of people who want to work have a job (low unemployment rates) and the avg annual wages is over $50k/yr?

The majority of people are doing their part regardless of what you said above. So if they can do it, why cant guys like the dog walker?

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Ok. Before I was willing to respectfully consider the views of some GAFers here, and of that Reddit movement in general. I'm an open minded guy.

But now? Fuck no. The 30-year-old part time dog walker has a username of "AbolishWork" -- this is not the username of someone advocating for less work under previously grueling work conditions. This is the username of someone looking to NOT work -- it's in the fucking username! That person got demodded in favor of...

... a 21-year-old self described "long term unemployed anarchist."

These are the people that this movement is choosing as leaders, to act and speak on their behalf. So the only conclusion I can draw is that these are not people with honorable "let's reduce the gruelling long work hours of our unhappy, overworked American society." These are parasites looking to leech off the system that the rest of us contribute to. And I have zero respect for them.

 

[Punished Miku]

They have it. It’s within their reach. Community college is cheap and will provide an entry into numerous fields that pay a decent wage. There are plenty of trade jobs that require six months to a year of training. People don’t “deserve” to have the whole world spoon fed to them at their convenience. A mountain of hard work and struggle created the society that allows this guy to piss his life away walking dogs a couple of times a week. The fact he and his ilk are trying to paint society that has allowed them to get away with that level of irresponsibility as grossly unfair is hilarious.

That argument works to justify worker stagnation right up to the point that they literally die. It's divorced from any measurement or numerical metric. Wages have stagnated for decades while everything else has skyrocketed. Data is more reliable than you calling everyone lazy. Previous generations really didn't do some insane mountain of work compared to current generations. Most people work longer and more hours now than ever before.

What does any of that have to do with getting a job and paying your own bills when the vast majority of people who want to work have a job (low unemployment rates) and the avg annual wages is over $50k/yr?

The majority of people are doing their part regardless of what you said above. So if they can do it, why cant guys like the dog walker?

The majority of people work. Obviously. Probably more hours than ever before. Probably far more than the "people who built this country," who had union jobs with far more benifts. Many now work multiple jobs. This interview has nothing to do with broader trends. That is kind of my point. But the two things are conflated in the OP, because this clown is supposed to be the proof that everyone is just lazy and all our policies are fine.

 

[Coolwhhip]

Aren't these mods and mods in general on subreddits and fourms just to manage them?

Not represent members of the subreddit?

Seem's a bit presumptuous to appear on national TV as some sort of spokesman for this subreddit when in reality they are the subreddits bouncer.

Reeks of attention seeking and someone getting above themselves tbh

It's like the referee of a football game going on national television to speak on behalf of the football team.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Most people work longer and more hours now than ever before.

(Source: Wikipedia. Wikipedia's source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics).

 

[DeepBreath87]

That argument works to justify worker stagnation right up to the point that they literally die. It's divorced from any measurement or numerical metric. Wages have stagnated for decades while everything else has skyrocketed. Data is more reliable than you calling everyone lazy. Previous generations really didn't do some insane mountain of work compared to current generations. Most people work longer and more hours now than ever before.


The majority of people work. Obviously. Probably more hours than ever before. Probably far more than the "people who built this country," who had union jobs with far more benifts. Many now work multiple jobs. This interview has nothing to do with broader trends. That is kind of my point. But the two things are conflated in the OP, because this clown is supposed to be the proof that everyone is just lazy and all our policies are fine.

People in the past had to make every meal from scratch or work to buy it or starve to death. You said people deserve all these modern privileges. I pointed out those things are all within reach for most people of mild intelligence. You decide to talk nonsense about people working themselves to death as a response. I’ll take that as you conceding the point. You sound ridiculous now. We can talk about wages. But the conversation is about whether modern society is a decent deal for human beings by any historical standard. Not the imaginary bullshit world you imagined in your head.

 

[TransTrender]

That wall of text moderator post seems an awful lot like work.

Unpaid work as well!

 

[EviLore]

Yea, I loled at this part. To teach philosophy, he would need at least 8 years of college to finally get his PhD. Despite what many uninformed people say, college is not easy and requires a lot of work and discipline. There are great expectations from you in academia if you possess a PhD. Many professors teach on top of conducting research and publishing thier work. The amount of writing required for philosophy would make me sick.

Yes, philosophy degrees are fairly challenging. You need to critically analyze tons of dense, arcane text and write your own sophisticated responses, as well as properly defend your positions at all times. While it's not quite particle physics, it does attract very high median IQs -- around 130 for undergrad, among the highest of any field. Grad students need to distinguish themselves from their peers in talent and effort, which would seem unlikely in this case.

 

[Punished Miku]

People in the past had to make every meal from scratch or work to buy it or starve to death. You said people deserve all these modern privileges. I pointed out those things are all within reach for most people of mild intelligence. You decide to talk about nonsense about people working themselves to death as a response. I’ll take that as you conceding the point. You sound ridiculous now. We can talk about wages. But the conversation is about whether modern society is a decent deal for human beings by any historical standard. Not the imaginary bullshit world you imagined in your head.

All people should talk about is wages, or measurable changes that affect the workforce. Just look at the data, and it's obvious that workers aren't complaining about imaginary problems.

It's hilarious that you think that "all these modern priviledges" is what I mentioned. I literally talked about the basic bare minimum things people need to survive: affordable 1) housing, 2) health care, 3) retirement, 4) education. Those are not luxuries. This is about people surviving with the bare minimum needed for a fair shot at upward mobility. That access to upward mobility is what makes things fair. If you work hard, you can have a shot.

On every one of the things I listed, it's gotten significantly more difficult and more out of reach. That's reality. You're the one imagining moral superiority from our ancestors, when it's a fantasy in your head.

 

[AV]

That redditor had a platform to explain all this but he literally, unironically argued in favour of laziness.
Everyone agrees that work should be properly compensated and ideally the work environment should be cunt-free, but that's not what he argued for in the interview.

The fun will continue. Other mods did interviews lmao. Looking forward to what the 21 years old, long-term unemployed anarchist mod has to say! The subreddit was reopened with a banger of a post.

God I hope they release the interviews this kid already did. Some highlights from the 21 year old "long term unemployed" radicalized anarchist "person":

"Yeah, I should take a break. First day moderator and already did, 2-3 hours work."

"Although I hope you reconsider your view on 'talent', it's made-up and can be a toxic concept."

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Yeah, get back to work servants.

Even people at the bottom deserve better wages, access to affordable housing, access to affordable health care, access to affordable education, access to affordable retirement and dignity in old age. These are very, very basic things.

Move to Europe? I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Punished Miku]

Move to Europe? I don't know what else to tell you.

I'm doing fine. I'm not talking about me, but society as a whole.

 

[QSD]

What happened to a lot of these leaches is that their parents/grandparents worked hard and saved money growing the family tree since the Leave it to Beaver days. There is no doubt a lot of Gaffer's parents or grandparents who are old pinched pennies and to this day (like mine) still cheap fucks even though they did well.

Their goal in life was to set the seeds for a successful family tree by stockpiling money and having a house paid off and pass it all to their kids so they dont have to start from scratch. And if the kids already have a house, then just share the proceeds.

Sounds noble. But what happened is a lot of these lazy fucks sit in their parent's basement taking advantage and sitting around doing nothing because their parents are easy and will comp them whatever they want instead of kicking them out of the house at some point. At some point, parents die and that leach will score an inheritance while not needing to do anything, especially if the parents are nice and let them stay at home forever.

The point of boomers and immigrants was saving so their kids could have a good start and succeed beyond them. Not to save so the kids could sit around in front of a PC all day on social media and milk their parents success.

I think the problem with this kind of linear thinking is that "succes/succeeding" is implicitly defined as 'moar money', while in reality a lot of the boomers kids were turned off by the unhappiness, failed marriages and dead-end career paths of their parents. Their whole idea of what it means to succeed became something different than what you understand it to be.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Aren't these mods and mods in general on subreddits and fourms just to manage them?

Not represent members of the subreddit?

Seem's a bit presumptuous to appear on national TV as some sort of spokesman for this subreddit when in reality they are the subreddits bouncer.

Reeks of attention seeking and someone getting above themselves tbh

It's Reddit, you know Fox was up to something the moment they agreed to have this interview. Social media si a toxic pile of thrash, just fucking let it go and be more meaningful with your life.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I'm doing fine. I'm not talking about me, but society as a whole.

Europeans as a society are doing fine, it's the Americans that are still living in social Darwinism utopia.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I think the problem with this kind of linear thinking is that "succes/succeeding" is implicitly defined as 'moar money', while in reality a lot of the boomers kids were turned off by the unhappiness, failed marriages and dead-end career paths of their parents. Their whole idea of what it means to succeed became something different than what you understand it to be.

Disagree.

If modern people have a different definition of success, then what is it if it's not career path, being self sufficient with money to take care of ones self and family?

How can anyone define success as doing nothing all day and leaching off parents as long as possible?

If they dont think money and career is important then move out and get away from silver platter parents.

 

[Punished Miku]

How can anyone define success as doing nothing all day and leaching off parents as long as possible?

You're both right. What he's talking about is the collapse of upward mobility. It's a bad plan to check out of the workforce, but you're seeing it as a response partially from younger people who watched their parents try to live by those rules and wind up with less every year. It's nihilism.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Yeah, get back to work servants.

Even people at the bottom deserve better wages, access to affordable housing, access to affordable health care, access to affordable education, access to affordable retirement and dignity in old age. These are very, very basic things.

Come on man, no one deserves anything other than opportunity. You earn the rest.

 

[SJRB]

Yes, philosophy degrees are fairly challenging. You need to critically analyze tons of dense, arcane text and write your own sophisticated responses, as well as properly defend your positions at all times. While it's not quite particle physics, it does attract very high median IQs -- around 130 for undergrad, among the highest of any field. Grad students need to distinguish themselves from their peers in talent and effort, which would seem unlikely in this case.

Dude probably made three philosoraptor memes on Reddit, accumulated 65 upvotes and thought "yup, I'm a philosopher".

 

[DeepBreath87]

All people should talk about is wages, or measurable changes that affect the workforce. Just look at the data, and it's obvious that workers aren't complaining about imaginary problems.

It's hilarious that you think that "all these modern priviledges" is what I mentioned. I literally talked about the basic bare minimum things people need to survive: affordable 1) housing, 2) health care, 3) retirement, 4) education. Those are not luxuries. This is about people surviving with the bare minimum needed for a fair shot at upward mobility. That access to upward mobility is what makes things fair. If you work hard, you can have a shot.

On every one of the things I listed, it's gotten significantly more difficult and more out of reach. That's reality. You're the one imagining moral superiority from our ancestors, when it's a fantasy in your head.

Most of those things have also become significantly more complicated and increased in quality. Healthcare, for instance, has advanced to such a degree that it almost can’t be overstated. The technology, the staff, the facilities. All of it has increased in quality to a ridiculous degree. As have the expectations. You want healthcare to cost what it did in 1950? I hope you’re ready for 1950s standards of care.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You're both right. What he's talking about is the collapse of upward mobility. It's a bad plan to check out of the workforce, but you're seeing it as a response partially from younger people who watched their parents try to live by those rules and wind up with less every year. It's nihilism.

You claim a lot of stuff but I see zero stats or proof.

And besides, I'd take a guess and assume many people's failures have nothing to do with opportunities in life, but their own bad choices (ie. modern day spending habits and being depressed weirdos on social media). Old generations of parents were never like this.

The opportunities are there in modern day with potentially ridiculously high salaries (ie. tech jobs). You just to put in the effort to have the skills and get the job. Our parents whose prime career years were 40 years ago didnt have these wild opportunities. And they had mortgages at 10%+ rates to boot to go along with their shitty station wagon.

You dont even have to be a tech whiz. As I said in old posts, finance jobs pay well too and all you got to be is good with numbers and use database programs or excel. Junior analysts at my company make $70k and are green. Work for 5+ years and move up to a md range analyst and there you go. You now make around $100k and all you do all day is analyze numbers because most other people dont want to do that in life.

Not a hard career field. You dont even need an accounting designation. I dont have one.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Europeans as a society are doing fine, it's the Americans that are still living in social Darwinism utopia.

Yup, "Darwinist utopia" working out pretty well, thank you very much. GDP per Capita higher than all major/equivalent Western European countries.

GDP per Capita is fairly objective and is directly tied to standard of living, which is why I chose that as a metric. As opposed to a much softer, much more subjective, much more ambiguous metric such as "Happiness Index" (whatever the hell THAT means )

 

[Punished Miku]

You claim a lot of stuff but I see zero stats or proof.

And besides, I'd take a guess and assume many people's failures have nothing to do with opportunities in life, but their own bad choices (ie. modern day spending habits and being depressed weirdos on social media). Old generations of parents were never like this.

The opportunities are there in modern day with potentially ridiculously high salaries (ie. tech jobs). You just to put in the effort to have the skills and get the job. Our parents whose prime career years were 40 years ago didnt have these wild opportunities. And they had mortgages at 10%+ rates to boot to go along with their shitty station wagon.

You dont even have to be a tech whiz. As I said in old posts, finance jobs pay well too and all you got to be is good with numbers and use database programs or excel. Junior analysts at my company make $70k and are green. Work for 5+ years and move up to a md range analyst and there you go. You now make around $100k and all you do all day is analyze numbers because most other people dont want to do that in life.

Not a hard career field. You dont even need an accounting designation. I dont have one.

I've never claimed upward mobility is impossible. I've claimed it's more difficult.

We're also going to have to face the fact that we don't want everyone to move upward. Our whole society depends on having people that aren't suited to upward mobility working low skill, but essential jobs. Those people need to be able to work those jobs and have access to important basics. We can't act like everyone is supposed to go to college and not work in the service sector. That mistaken mindset is how we've ballooned the college debt crisis, among other things. If all we talk about is working smarter to not wind up in the service sector, then we will have no service sector employees. We have to actually address the quality of life of the lower class. We shouldn't have giant parts of our society priced out of things like marriage, or housing, or health care.

You're right that I haven't posted any data, because I've been trying to back away from this clearly political thread. But I got angry about it and clearly have tread way over what the rules allow. Addressing and proving any of the trends I'm talking about is basically all politics. That was kind of my point initially about why I thought this wasn't a fair thread.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

You claim a lot of stuff but I see zero stats or proof.

100% agree. See my previous post where I posted a statistical graph that debunked his "Americans are working longer and harder than ever before."

That's the problem with soft and wishful narratives: quite often the statistics and numbers don't match the claims being made.

 

[AJUMP23]

I've never claimed upward mobility is impossible. I've claimed it's more difficult.

We're also going to have to face the fact that we don't want everyone to move upward. Our whole society depends on having people that aren't suited to upward mobility working low skill, but essential jobs. Those people need to be able to work those jobs and have access to important basics. We can't act like everyone is supposed to go to college and not work in the service sector. That mistaken mindset is how we've ballooned the college debt crisis, among other things. If all we talk about is working smarter to not wind up in the service sector, then we will have no service sector employees. We have to actually address the quality of life of the lower class. We shouldn't have giant parts of our society priced out of things like marriage, or housing, or health care.

You're right that I haven't posted any data, because I've been trying to back away from this clearly political thread. But I got angry about it and clearly have tread way over what the rules allow. Addressing and proving any of the trends I'm talking about is basically all politics. That was kind of my point initially about why I thought this wasn't a fair thread.

I don't think Doreen is suited for upward mobility.

 

[Punished Miku]

That's the problem with soft and wishful narratives: quite often the statistics and numbers don't match the claims being made.

Couldn't agree more. Too bad we're still in the mindset of a trickle down economics fantasy.

 

[NickFire]

I was not in the loop on this group. This is hysterical. Their page calls to mind an image of 1000 George Costanza's without goatees, all yelling at 1 George Costanza with a goatee for giving all the George Costanza's a bad look.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Couldn't agree more. Too bad we're still in the mindset of a trickle down economics fantasy.

I've posted numbers that directly and unambiguously proved your claim wrong. Where are your numbers?

 

[DeepBreath87]

I've never claimed upward mobility is impossible. I've claimed it's more difficult.

We're also going to have to face the fact that we don't want everyone to move upward. Our whole society depends on having people that aren't suited to upward mobility working low skill, but essential jobs. Those people need to be able to work those jobs and have access to important basics. We can't act like everyone is supposed to go to college and not work in the service sector. That mistaken mindset is how we've ballooned the college debt crisis, among other things. If all we talk about is working smarter to not wind up in the service sector, then we will have no service sector employees. We have to actually address the quality of life of the lower class. We shouldn't have giant parts of our society priced out of things like marriage, or housing, or health care.

You're right that I haven't posted any data, because I've been trying to back away from this clearly political thread. But I got angry about it and clearly have tread way over what the rules allow. Addressing and proving any of the trends I'm talking about is basically all politics. That was kind of my point initially about why I thought this wasn't a fair thread.

See but others have refuted your claim about the amount of hours worked by Americans now vs the past using statistics. Using the “rules” as some sort of cop out for why you can’t prove your points is nonsense. We’re discussing historical context right now. You don’t have any because the basics of life are both of higher quality and more available than at any other time in history. Things you consider “basics” would’ve been considered science fiction luxuries 75 years ago. That you are so spoiled that you can’t see this is your issue.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I've never claimed upward mobility is impossible. I've claimed it's more difficult.

We're also going to have to face the fact that we don't want everyone to move upward. Our whole society depends on having people that aren't suited to upward mobility working low skill, but essential jobs. Those people need to be able to work those jobs and have access to important basics. We can't act like everyone is supposed to go to college and not work in the service sector. That mistaken mindset is how we've ballooned the college debt crisis, among other things. If all we talk about is working harder to wind up in the service sector, then we will have no service sector employees. We have to actually address the quality of life of the lower class. We shouldn't have giant parts of our society priced out of things like marriage, or housing, or health care.

You're right that I haven't posted any data, because I've been trying to back away from this clearly political thread. But I got angry about it and clearly have tread way over what the rules allow. Addressing and proving any of the trends I'm talking about is basically all politics. That was kind of my point initially about why I thought this wasn't a fair thread.

I'm not saying everyone can move upward with my examples. Some people just dont have the skills beyond fry cook. But for the dog walker, you never know. He looks and sounds like a moron, but he actually might have talent and smarts to do better in life if he really wanted to. But he's decided to be anti-work.

There's surely many people who can do better and move upwards, but if they dont have the skills or effort, then they sink to the bottom.

Now for people who truly dont have enough talent to do better in life and are stuck at a bad paying job for eternity, well society can have them rot in their job, or society can boost them so they reach the next rung on the ladder with maybe some free money. Most places have them rot.

Although I personally dont think the robot age will be pushing people out of jobs anytime soon (only thing I've seen the past 10 years is some stores with a handful of self check out kiosks), what does society do with low skilled people pushed out of cashier jobs? Or losing jobs to automated Big Mac makers in the future? I dont know. But societies around the world typically let them sink to the bottom rung.

But that's not to say the world and standard of living hasnt gone up. You just got more gainers than losers, as opposed to all gainers who gain a bit.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Wow. I never knew such a sub reddit existed but I can't say I'm suprised.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

I'm not saying everyone can move upward with my examples. Some people just dont have the skills beyond fry cook. But for the dog walker, you never know. He looks and sounds like a moron, but he actually might have talent and smarts to do better in life if he really wanted to. But he's decided to be anti-work.

There's surely many people who can do better and move upwards, but if they dont have the skills or effort, then they sink to the bottom.

Now for people who truly dont have enough talent to do better in life and are stuck at a bad paying job for eternity, well society can have them rot in their job, or society can boost them so they reach the next rung on the ladder with maybe some free money. Most places have them rot.

Although I personally dont think the robot age will be pushing people out of jobs anytime soon (only thing I've seen the past 10 years is some stores with a handful of self check out kiosks), what does society do with low skilled people pushed out of cashier jobs? Or losing jobs to automated Big Mac makers in the future? I dont know. But societies around the world typically let them sink to the bottom rung.

But that's not to say the world and standard of living hasnt gone up. You just got more gainers than losers, as opposed to all gainers who gain a bit.

I 100% agree with you.

You've been on fire this whole thread

 

[Punished Miku]

I've posted numbers that directly and unambiguously proved your claim wrong. Where are your numbers?

Vast majority of wage earners are working harder, and for not much more: Trends in U.S. work hours and wages over 1979–2007

The U.S. economy over the past decade has worked primarily to the advantage of a small sliver of winners. Meanwhile, the vast majority of workers have not fared well—a trend that stretches back to the late 1970s.

www.epi.org

It's more complicated than just taking an average of all workers. The start of your chart doesn't have any women working for the most part. The workforce has basically doubled, with most of the women working part time to start. Also the 1950s was the creation of the middle class, and a broader group of salaried workers than ever existed previously. They don't typically work crazy hours, because they make a lot more. That also brings the average down.

The average low wage, non-college educated worker is working more than they used to because everything costs more while their wages have stagnated. Some people are doing well, and some are doing a lot worse. This is common sense if you just think about it for 10 seconds. But you can build statistics to represent whatever you want.

• "The average worker worked 1,868 hours in 2007, an increase of 181 hours from the 1979 work year of 1,687 hours. This represents an increase of 10.7 percent—the equivalent of every worker working 4.5 additional weeks per year.
• Annual work hours grew more among women (20.3 percent) than among men (4.4 percent) from 1979 to 2007, primarily because women increased their weeks per year in the paid workforce.
• At 22.0 percent, the increase in annual hours between 1979 and 2007 was greater among workers in the lowest fifth of the wage distribution than among workers in the middle fifth (10.9 percent). It was also greater among middle-wage workers than among the top 5 percent of earners (7.6 percent).
• Real annual wages grew from 1979 to 2007, but for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners, this stemmed roughly as much from increased work hours as increased real hourly wages.
• Over 1979–2007, real hourly wages for middle-wage workers (those in the middle fifth of earners) grew 15.8 percent. Most of this wage growth occurred in the late 1990s boom (1995–2000). From 1979 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2007, the total real wage growth among this group was just 5.3 percent, equivalent to annual growth of about 0.25 percent.
• Over 1979–2007, real hourly wages for low-wage workers (those in the bottom fifth of earners) grew 7.7 percent, with most of this wage growth occurring in 1995–2000. From 1979 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2007, real wages among this group actually fell 3.2 percent.
• Over 1979–2007, the real hourly wages of the top 5 percent of earners grew by 30.2 percent—and by 14.8 percent if one excludes the 1995–2000 period."

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Clearly there's a failure here. Probably multiple failures.

The individuals failed. (I very, very, very strongly subscribe to the concept of taking individual responsibility for one's actions in life.) But, are there other failures?

Did the parents fail? Did society fail?

Clearly you have to have multiple grave errors that lead to the existence of a group like that.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Vast majority of wage earners are working harder, and for not much more: Trends in U.S. work hours and wages over 1979–2007

The U.S. economy over the past decade has worked primarily to the advantage of a small sliver of winners. Meanwhile, the vast majority of workers have not fared well—a trend that stretches back to the late 1970s.

www.epi.org

It's more complicated than just taking an average of all workers. The start of your chart doesn't have any women working for the most part. The workforce has basically doubled, with most of the women working part time to start. Also the 1950s was the creation of the middle class, and a broader group of salaried workers than ever existed previously. They don't typically work crazy hours, because they make a lot more. That also brings the average down.

The average low wage, non-college educated worker is working more than they used to because everything costs more while their wages have stagnated. Some people are doing well, and some are doing a lot worse. This is common sense if you just think about it for 10 seconds. But you can build statistics to represent whatever you want.

• "The average worker worked 1,868 hours in 2007, an increase of 181 hours from the 1979 work year of 1,687 hours. This represents an increase of 10.7 percent—the equivalent of every worker working 4.5 additional weeks per year.
• Annual work hours grew more among women (20.3 percent) than among men (4.4 percent) from 1979 to 2007, primarily because women increased their weeks per year in the paid workforce.
• At 22.0 percent, the increase in annual hours between 1979 and 2007 was greater among workers in the lowest fifth of the wage distribution than among workers in the middle fifth (10.9 percent). It was also greater among middle-wage workers than among the top 5 percent of earners (7.6 percent).
• Real annual wages grew from 1979 to 2007, but for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners, this stemmed roughly as much from increased work hours as increased real hourly wages.
• Over 1979–2007, real hourly wages for middle-wage workers (those in the middle fifth of earners) grew 15.8 percent. Most of this wage growth occurred in the late 1990s boom (1995–2000). From 1979 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2007, the total real wage growth among this group was just 5.3 percent, equivalent to annual growth of about 0.25 percent.
• Over 1979–2007, real hourly wages for low-wage workers (those in the bottom fifth of earners) grew 7.7 percent, with most of this wage growth occurring in 1995–2000. From 1979 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2007, real wages among this group actually fell 3.2 percent.
• Over 1979–2007, the real hourly wages of the top 5 percent of earners grew by 30.2 percent—and by 14.8 percent if one excludes the 1995–2000 period."

I wouldn’t go to the Economic Policy Institute for this kind of thing, if I were you.

 

[BigBooper]

There's no denying that certain aspects of upward financial mobility have gotten harder at the lower levels of labor.

Relative costs of buying a home and getting a professional college degree are way more expensive than they were when the boomers were getting established. Barely any of that matters though. The political situation worldwide was entirely different. The technology available at the time was nothing compared to now. Healthcare was barely a thought in people's minds back then and forget about retiring to a nice retirement nest egg.

What will change and has changed is technology and availability of labor saving for everyone, rich and poor. Poor people have a way better situation than they had 80 years ago.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Vast majority of wage earners are working harder, and for not much more: Trends in U.S. work hours and wages over 1979–2007

The U.S. economy over the past decade has worked primarily to the advantage of a small sliver of winners. Meanwhile, the vast majority of workers have not fared well—a trend that stretches back to the late 1970s.

www.epi.org

It's more complicated than just taking an average of all workers. The start of your chart doesn't have any women working for the most part. The workforce has basically doubled, with most of the women working part time to start. Also the 1950s was the creation of the middle class, and a broader group of salaried workers than ever existed previously. They don't typically work crazy hours, because they make a lot more. That also brings the average down.

The average low wage, non-college educated worker is working more than they used to because everything costs more while their wages have stagnated. Some people are doing well, and some are doing a lot worse. This is common sense if you just think about it for 10 seconds. But you can build statistics to represent whatever you want.

• "The average worker worked 1,868 hours in 2007, an increase of 181 hours from the 1979 work year of 1,687 hours. This represents an increase of 10.7 percent—the equivalent of every worker working 4.5 additional weeks per year.
• Annual work hours grew more among women (20.3 percent) than among men (4.4 percent) from 1979 to 2007, primarily because women increased their weeks per year in the paid workforce.
• At 22.0 percent, the increase in annual hours between 1979 and 2007 was greater among workers in the lowest fifth of the wage distribution than among workers in the middle fifth (10.9 percent). It was also greater among middle-wage workers than among the top 5 percent of earners (7.6 percent).
• Real annual wages grew from 1979 to 2007, but for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners, this stemmed roughly as much from increased work hours as increased real hourly wages.
• Over 1979–2007, real hourly wages for middle-wage workers (those in the middle fifth of earners) grew 15.8 percent. Most of this wage growth occurred in the late 1990s boom (1995–2000). From 1979 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2007, the total real wage growth among this group was just 5.3 percent, equivalent to annual growth of about 0.25 percent.
• Over 1979–2007, real hourly wages for low-wage workers (those in the bottom fifth of earners) grew 7.7 percent, with most of this wage growth occurring in 1995–2000. From 1979 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2007, real wages among this group actually fell 3.2 percent.
• Over 1979–2007, the real hourly wages of the top 5 percent of earners grew by 30.2 percent—and by 14.8 percent if one excludes the 1995–2000 period."

When I get home later I'll analyze your numbers. My numbers were from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a neutral, unattached, official United States organization. Your numbers were from... *Checks notes*

"The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit American, left-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C..."

But still, thank you for putting the effort (I mean that honestly, not being sarcastic), and I'll respond accordingly later today.

 

[Punished Miku]

When I get home later I'll analyze your numbers. My numbers were from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a neutral, unattached, official United States organization. Your numbers were from... *Checks notes*

"The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit American, left-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C..."

But still, thank you for putting the effort (I mean that honestly, not being sarcastic), and I'll respond accordingly later today.

Your numbers are accurate too. It just depends on how you understand what is being measured. Just women alone joining the workforce would drop the average of all workers down quite a bit; like 50% or more. You have to get more specific.

I wouldn’t go to the Economic Policy Institute for this kind of thing, if I were you.

Maybe true. I just grabbed something off google. I'm not an economist. You guys may correct me on some stuff, and I'll admit it. But I do think low wage workers are typically working longer hours. I guess I didn't specify that last time, so you guys had that right.

 

[jason10mm]

Vast majority of wage earners are working harder, and for not much more: Trends in U.S. work hours and wages over 1979–2007

The U.S. economy over the past decade has worked primarily to the advantage of a small sliver of winners. Meanwhile, the vast majority of workers have not fared well—a trend that stretches back to the late 1970s.

www.epi.org

It's more complicated than just taking an average of all workers. The start of your chart doesn't have any women working for the most part. The workforce has basically doubled, with most of the women working part time to start. Also the 1950s was the creation of the middle class, and a broader group of salaried workers than ever existed previously. They don't typically work crazy hours, because they make a lot more. That also brings the average down.

The average low wage, non-college educated worker is working more than they used to because everything costs more while their wages have stagnated. Some people are doing well, and some are doing a lot worse. This is common sense if you just think about it for 10 seconds. But you can build statistics to represent whatever you want.

• "The average worker worked 1,868 hours in 2007, an increase of 181 hours from the 1979 work year of 1,687 hours. This represents an increase of 10.7 percent—the equivalent of every worker working 4.5 additional weeks per year.
• Annual work hours grew more among women (20.3 percent) than among men (4.4 percent) from 1979 to 2007, primarily because women increased their weeks per year in the paid workforce.
• At 22.0 percent, the increase in annual hours between 1979 and 2007 was greater among workers in the lowest fifth of the wage distribution than among workers in the middle fifth (10.9 percent). It was also greater among middle-wage workers than among the top 5 percent of earners (7.6 percent).
• Real annual wages grew from 1979 to 2007, but for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners, this stemmed roughly as much from increased work hours as increased real hourly wages.
• Over 1979–2007, real hourly wages for middle-wage workers (those in the middle fifth of earners) grew 15.8 percent. Most of this wage growth occurred in the late 1990s boom (1995–2000). From 1979 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2007, the total real wage growth among this group was just 5.3 percent, equivalent to annual growth of about 0.25 percent.
• Over 1979–2007, real hourly wages for low-wage workers (those in the bottom fifth of earners) grew 7.7 percent, with most of this wage growth occurring in 1995–2000. From 1979 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2007, real wages among this group actually fell 3.2 percent.
• Over 1979–2007, the real hourly wages of the top 5 percent of earners grew by 30.2 percent—and by 14.8 percent if one excludes the 1995–2000 period."

So what you are saying is that because women flooded the labor market they drove wages down? Got it.

/jk

 

[Punished Miku]

So what you are saying is that because women flooded the labor market they drove wages down? Got it.

/jk

It's certainly a possibility. Similar sentiment when people go to immigration to fix the issue.

I'm going to bow out of this thread before I get banned now lol.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Whether or not there's a big divide in wages between bottom tier jobs and high level really means nothing because the key reason why that exists is because:

- Supply and demand of low skilled workers taking whatever pay they can get
- The gov having really low minimum wages (I think the US is anywhere from $8/hr to $15/hr)
- Companies preferring to skew high pay to higher end jobs

Unless any of the above changes, there's nothing you can really do for people with low skills stuck in low end jobs unless companies or gov mandate big pay boosts like a Big Mac maker gets a minimum $40,000 salary or cap high paid office workers salaries and give that to front line store workers. Or anyone in bad paying jobs, the gov gives them a free $20,000 income tax refund to help boost their earnings to get them to the average country wage.

Since none of things are happening, you get what you get.

 

[DeaDPo0L84]

I like the attempt to throw shade at Jesse by calling him a notorious tool as if to balance the cringe in this interview. People have become lazy government dependent leeches, plain and simple.

A self admitted satisfied 30yo dog walker who apparently leads an army of equally lazy slothes soaking up money that actual hard working Americans pour onto the pile is nothing short of despicable and he should be embarrassed.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Yup, "Darwinist utopia" working out pretty well, thank you very much. GDP per Capita higher than all major/equivalent Western European countries.

I was waiting for someone to post shitty metric like this. Let’s use a better one - Gini coefficient, measuring income inequality: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country

Come back to me when you stop being an embarrassed millionaire: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/temporarily_embarrassed_millionaire