The Shale Boom

[Gaspar]

Good. We're getting back on track. . .slowly.
Couple of things, I referenced no "Faux News," only Bureau of Labor and Statistics data, the Southern Economic Journal study that carries a respectable reference bib.

For each claim I made, I provided a reference.  It is simply not enough to say:

China is a low cost labor market.  As is the US - and getting lower all the time relative to increases in inflation and productivity.  

I am sure that you have no intension of being misleading, but perhaps If you can provide some comparison that shows the US as a low cost labor market as compared to the rest of the world, that would be helpful and could lead to a more honest discussion.  I even provided you with a link that you could use.

You indeed made no comment about percentages at minimum wage:

I made no comments about percentages at minimum wage - that is your Faux News deflection methodology kicking in...when someone says something you don't wanna hear, change the subject....

How could you?  If people were to consider the scope of the issue, it would only serve to deflate it's priority. Not only did you not consider the scope, but you also failed to recognize the transient nature of low wage workers.  I know that "income mobility" is a dirty term in liberal circles but that does not discount it's existence.  Most minimum and low income workers are only there temporarily, primarily because most are young and just entering the workforce.

You accuse me of changing the subject:

So your deflection about how few people are actually making minimum wage is a typical Faux approach - it may actually be technically true that 5% of the wage earners are making what in reality is a 30% reduction in REAL minimum wage.  Wouldn't surprise me at all.

I believe this thread was originally related to low fuel prices, and the positive affect on the economy, but that was not the discussion you wanted to have so you changed the subject to low wages:

The REAL driver behind it is cheap labor!  That's why "slave wages" are pushed so hard - $7.25 an hour - in this country, and why there is such elation amongst corporate America when contemplating "expansion" into low cost labor markets... see "China" for recent years.

Now that i've offered concrete statistics on the irrationally minuscule percentage of the population in the US that falls into that category you are attempting to simply change that category:

MY definition of low wages is wages that are below the 1968 reference point that is very close to the highest relative point of modern times.  As is well known, has been well covered in national venues as well as here, we are about 30% below that - the minimum wage of 1968 is equivalent to about $10.50 an hour today. . .The National Employment Law Project shows that more than 25% of the people in this country make less than $10.00 an hour.  So in very real terms, we have slid much worse than your Faux nonsense wants to show.

I have no problem jumping from subject to subject with you, in fact, it's fun, but I would ask that you at least provide some evidence, and perhaps some better segue to each subject so that we can follow. It is obvious that you are very passionate about this issue, but passion alone only serves to turn debates into fights.  We used to have a poster on this forum that sunk to that in almost every thread.  I think you are smarter than that though.

Also, and this is really more of a writing tip, attempting to emphasize a point by simply capitalizing it does not make it true, any more than throwing around the word "Faux" helps before or after offering a Huffpo reference.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/private-sector-workers_n_1699103.html
As for a logical discourse with Faux News....well, we all know that can't happen.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Good. We're getting back on track. . .slowly.
Couple of things, I referenced no "Faux News" only Bureau of Labor and Statistics data, the Southern Economic Journal study that carries a respectable reference bib.

For each claim I made, I provided a reference.  It is simply not enough to say:I am sure that you have no intension of being misleading, but perhaps If you can provide some comparison that shows the US as a low cost labor market as compared to the rest of the world, that would be helpful and could lead to a more honest discussion.  I even provided you with a link that you could use.

You indeed made no comment about percentages at minimum wage:How could you?  If people were to consider the scope of the issue, it would only serve to deflate it's priority. Not only did you not consider the scope, but you also failed to recognize the transient nature of low wage workers.  I know that "income mobility" is a dirty term in liberal circles but that does not discount it's existence.  Most minimum and low income workers are only there temporarily, primarily because most are young and just entering the workforce.

You accuse me of changing the subject:I believe this thread was originally related to low fuel prices, and the positive affect on the economy, but that was not the discussion you wanted to have so you changed the subject to low wages:
Now that i've offered concrete statistics on the irrationally minuscule percentage of the population in the US that falls into that category you are attempting to simply change that category:
I have no problem jumping from subject to subject with you, in fact, it's fun, but I would ask that you at least provide some evidence, and perhaps some better segue to each subject so that we can follow. It is obvious that you are very passionate about this issue, but passion alone only serves to turn debates into fights.  We used to have a poster on this forum that sunk to that in almost every thread.  I think you are smarter than that though.

Also, and this is really more of a writing tip, attempting to emphasize a point by simply capitalizing it does not make it true, any more than throwing around the word "Faux" helps before or after offering a Huffpo reference. 

I will post again...the one that counts.  Just because you have been taught to discount and deflect "Huffpo", doesn't mean it is wrong.  In the case of minimum wage decreases over the past 40 years, it has been well documented and reported by many credible sources (never Faux) so Huffpo is just another deflect.  This is the overall, gross macro vision of what is happening - it is a long term trend that proves the old saw about "to Democrats, low wages are the problem, to Republicans, low wages are the solution..."

Guess who has been winning for the last 40 years?  Hint; it ain't the American people!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/private-sector-workers_n_1699103.html

[Gaspar]

I will post again...the one that counts.  Just because you have been taught to discount and deflect "Huffpo", doesn't mean it is wrong.  In the case of minimum wage decreases over the past 40 years, it has been well documented and reported by many credible sources (never Faux) so Huffpo is just another deflect.  This is the overall, gross macro vision of what is happening - it is a long term trend that proves the old saw about "to Democrats, low wages are the problem, to Republicans, low wages are the solution..."

Guess who has been winning for the last 40 years?  Hint; it ain't the American people!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/private-sector-workers_n_1699103.html

The problem with referencing Huffpo is the same that you would get referencing Faux.  

The Huffpo article relies heavily on the NELP studies (National Employment Law Project funded by a consortium of labor unions).  On the surface the initial NELP study, and the previous NELP study it references as reference #3 seem to provide compelling evidence until you read the methodology and attempt to reconcile the data with BLS statistics so that they can arrive at their required conclusions.
1. They are purposefully considering only a very small sample of sectors  in the primary reference (they narrow down to 12 specific industries).  Their total sample then becomes 13.6 million workers who make $10 or less an hour.

2. They make no differentiation between full-time and part-time work, second jobs, seasonal occupations, nor do they consider total household income for the select occupations they have chosen to measure.

3. They then applied this total 13.6 million employees in a non-sequitor fashion to the industries they were determined to make an example of (even though the total numbers include other members of that sector).

The Huffpo article is actually not too bad, it's just the foundation it is built on that is faulty.  NELP research will always show that wages are too low, companies make too much money, and unionization or legislative action (that would lead to unionization) offers the best remedy.

3) Identifying Top 50 Employers in Low‐Wage Industries:
a. Identifying Low‐Wage Sectors: Using BLS/Current Population Survey report on Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011tbls.htm#5), identified three sectors that together employ 69.9% of workers paid at or below the minimum wage – 2.96 million workers at or below the minimum wage out of 3.8 million nationally. Sectors: Leisure and Hospitality, Retail Trade, Education and Health Services. Using crosswalk of Census Industry Classifications to 2007 NAICS codes (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cenind.pdf), pulled NAICS sector codes associated with each sector identified. (Retail Trade (44‐45), Leisure and Hospitality (71‐72), Education and Health Services (61‐62).

b. Identifying Lowest‐Wage Industries within Low‐Wage Sectors: Using industry‐specific employment and wage estimates from the BLS Occupational and Employment Statistics (OES) program (http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_dl.htm), identified industries that fall within the sectors identified in (a). Filtered these industries to identify those for which the median percentile hourly wage is $10.00 per hour or less. This yielded 12 industries encompassing 13.6 million total employees. Using crosswalks of 2007 NAICS to 2002 NAICS to 1987 SIC, translated Low‐wage NAICS industry codes into SIC codes.

c. Identifying Companies within Low‐Wage Industries: Used Capital IQ Screening tool to generate a list of companies meeting the following criteria: Primary SIC Code matches low‐wage list generated in (b); Incorporated in the US; FY 2011 Total Revenue >$0. Yield: 106 companies (102 after de‐duping by parent company and removing firms without reported employees. Then used Capital IQ Screening tool to generate a second list of global companies that do not report U.S. locations, yet have substantial U.S. segment revenue and meet the following criteria: Primary SIC Code matches low‐wage list generated in (b); NOT Incorporated in the US; Geographic Segment Revenue: United States Segment Revenue >10%. Yield: 5 companies. Then removed companies from list whose primary business is operating franchised locations of brands owned by other companies on the list, removed companies from the list that have starting wages above $10.00 per hour (source: Glassdoor.com employee‐generated reports), and added companies that are large franchisors in low‐wage industries, using the Franchise Times 2011 list of Top 200 Franchisors (link).

d. Determining Companies' U.S. Workforces: Using available public information, estimated each company's total U.S. workforce. When possible, pulled the U.S. workforce from public companies' SEC filings. When SEC filings were unclear or unavailable, calculated estimated U.S. workforce numbers based on a range of sources, including press reports, ratio of U.S. locations to overseas locations, and public estimates of average workers per location. For franchisor companies, attributed all estimated U.S. employment by franchisees to the franchisor itself. This attribution is justified given the widely‐

Endnotes
recognized significant degree of influence that franchisors exercise over the business operations of franchisees.
1 NELP analysis using Consumer Price Index, available at http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/entry/amount‐; with‐inflation/
2 David Reilly, "U.S. Tax Haul Trails Profit Surge," Wall Street Journal, Jan. 4, 2012, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204368104577138891310893150.html
3 NELP analysis of Current Population Survey (2009‐2011).
4 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Occupational Employment Projections to 2020," published in the Monthly Labor Review, Jan. 2012, available at http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
5 Executive compensation data unavailable for Doctor's Associates, Inc. and Seven & I Holdings.
6 Dividend payment and share buyback data unavailable for Doctor's Associates, Inc. and Seven & I Holdings.

[Conan71]

Heir, we may be in recovery mode, but the average family income is still about $4500 lower than it was prior to the last recession.

And here I thought Obamanomics would lift the middle class.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Heir, we may be in recovery mode, but the average family income is still about $4500 lower than it was prior to the last recession.

And here I thought Obamanomics would lift the middle class.

It is the ongoing trend of lowered average income that we - well, someone - has actively pursued for the last 40 years.  There are groups in this country who celebrate that.

Here's a chart...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:US_Real_Household_Median_Income_thru_2012.png


And yet, the upper 1% continues to have dramatically higher income year after year for the most part.  What do YOU suppose the reason is for that?  Increased CEO value added?  Increased CEO productivity?  Increased economic performance of the companies they run? 

I'm betting none of the above....I'm betting continued collusion between boards.  One thing the RWRE says that is actually true - their lie is in who it applies to - is that when a group of people has the ability to vote themselves a benefit, it will grow unchecked and out of control.

While regular people's income is still down 10% or so in last few years, CEO's lost 5% through 2012.  And pretty much all that loss was because of Tim Cook with Apple.  His income in 2012 went from $376 million  (three hundred seventy six...yes, that's right) down to $4 million.  Poor guy.

I bet they are making it up last year and this....

[Gaspar]

It is the ongoing trend of lowered average income that we - well, someone - has actively pursued for the last 40 years.  There are groups in this country who celebrate that.

Here's a chart...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:US_Real_Household_Median_Income_thru_2012.png

That's good data.  Your chart illustrates perfectly the relationship of median income with recession, and seems to indicate that in the year 2000 we took a turn for the worse into the uncharted territory of diminishing median household income.  



But if you use the exact same data, but just zoom out a bit, you actually see something quite different.

You get an amazing picture of the relationship between median income and recessionary period.  I would love to see this with some overlay of recovery time and the various government interventions employed at those times.  Historically the worst trend would have to be between 1971 and 1982.  There are some interesting patterns here that we can apply to today's trend. It would seem that poorly managed recessions lead to profound decreases in median income that can last for decades.

[RecycleMichael]

You are using graphs from 2010 and 2012. It is 2015.

I bet the graphs are going back up.

[Conan71]

You are using graphs from 2010 and 2012. It is 2015.

I bet the graphs are going back up.

As of August 2014, most news stories were pointing to stagnant wages.  Those were based on 2013 numbers.  I don't think we will have a very good view until a little later this year.  However, most data points to the majority of new jobs being created as part time so I hold little hope of a significant increase.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The macro economic point is that while 99% has things move on them, somehow the 1% (or 0.5% or whatever) is always up.

The ratios are hundreds to 1.


And while the absolute $ numbers are up for the 99% - they are actually declining in the thing that counts - the adjusted number compared to 1968 - the thing that affects standard of living.