European Tribune

American Workers Falling Behind

by Richard Lyon
Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 11:09:53 AM EST

There is a very interesting article in Todays NY Times. There are increasing indications that the fruits of US GDP growth are not being shared with the vast majority of the American workforce. American workers have been working harder and going deeper into debt in an effort to maintain their comsumer lifestyles, but they are still falling behind.

NYT


Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity

With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.

The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity -- the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation's living standards -- has risen steadily over the same period.

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960's. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as "the golden era of profitability."

Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer, however, the value of workers' benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government data.

Economists offer various reasons for the stagnation of wages. Although the economy continues to add jobs, global trade, immigration, layoffs and technology -- as well as the insecurity caused by them -- appear to have eroded workers' bargaining power.

In Europe and Japan, the profit share of economic output is also at or near record levels, noted Larry Hatheway, chief economist for UBS Investment Bank, who said that this highlighted the pressures of globalization on wages. Many Americans, be they apparel workers or software programmers, are facing more comptition from China and India.

In another recent report on the boom in profits, economists at Goldman Sachs wrote, "The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor's share of national income." Low interest rates and the moderate cost of capital goods, like computers, have also played a role, though economists note that an economic slowdown could hurt profits in coming months.

For most of the last century, wages and productivity -- the key measure of the economy's efficiency -- have risen together, increasing rapidly through the 1950's and 60's and far more slowly in the 1970's and 80's.

But in recent years, the productivity gains have continued while the pay increases have not kept up. Worker productivity rose 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, while total compensation for the median worker rose 7.2 percent, according to Labor Department statistics analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. Benefits accounted for most of the increase.

"If I had to sum it up," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the institute, "it comes down to bargaining power and the lack of ability of many in the work force to claim their fair share of growth."

Nominal wages have accelerated in the last year, but the spike in oil costs has eaten up the gains. Now the job market appears to be weakening, after a protracted series of interest-rate increases by the Federal Reserve.

There are two economies out there," Mr. Cook, the political analyst, said. "One has been just white hot, going great guns. Those are the people who have benefited from globalization, technology, greater productivity and higher corporate earnings.

"And then there's the working stiffs,'' he added, "who just don't feel like they're getting ahead despite the fact that they're working very hard. And there are a lot more people in that group than the other group.

This strikes me as having considerable relevance to the other discussions on ET about the value of GDP growth as a measure of economic health.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Bonndad on dKos has some more relevant info and the fight over what's causing it all continues on Brad DeLong's blog:

I would say there are five things going on: (a) income and wealth at the top end, driven by changes in finance; (b) the effects of unemployment on the wage share; (c) skill-biased technological change; (d) declining union power; and (e) shifts in policy that erode equality-supporting measures like the minimum wage. I can't untangle them.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 11:49:16 AM EST
Agree with all that and add that the cost of healthcare cannot be underestimated.  Not only the bills, but the monthly premiums as well as the pressure to take any job you can get in order to have healthcare, making people work jobs they would otherwise never work.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 12:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But it contributes to GDP. What more could you want?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 12:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The American health care system places American business at a disadvantage in relation to business in those countries where health care expense is distributed over the general tax base. It is an expense that companies there do not have to meet out of corporate revenues. The American health care system is screwing both employees and employers and most Americans are still convinced that it is the greatest thing in the world.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 01:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Two different points on Americans' perception of our health care system: (1) They see it as the best in the world if you have strong converage, and, with that condition in mind, they may well be right; but (2) I think you'll find that a supermajority of Americans -- over 70% if I remember correctly -- support universal coverage and have since the early- to mid-20th Century.

As with any comparison, there are good and bad things about the private and public health care systems.  I happen to think the good outweighs the bad in the public ones, although, if I had a sufficiently high income, I'd prefer the American system -- not likely, and, with a middle-class income, I'd deal with the socialized medicine and pocket the savings (since the socialized systems are cheaper).

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 01:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I won the loto I'd go find myself the best red carpet health care that money could buy. In the mean time I use Kaiser which is about the most rational arrangement available here. If you can afford it, who doesn't want Cadillac health care? Ordinary Americans got used to the idea that they would get that without most of the money coming directly out of their pockets. I think that most of us are being led down the garden path.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 01:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This has nothing to do with wanting cadillac heathcare.  This is about paying hundreds of dollars just to see a doctor who may very well tell you to take 2 asprin and lie down for a bit and call them if you don't feel better.  It's about wieghing whether you can afford to go to the emergency room in an emergency.  Cadillac healthcare?  What does that even mean?

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 02:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I was talking about was the general perception of Americans that they are getting care that is superior to what people in European type systems are getting and that someone else is going to pay for it.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 02:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unemployment will typically drive down earnings share, but, as you know, unemployment rates can be misleading if we don't break them down by job category.  It's not really one giant labor pool.  It's many, many smaller ones.  The unemployment rate among those with (say) a graduate degree is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2%, give or take a few tenths.  I suspect it's higher for those who have PhDs in English Literature and lower for PhDs in Biophysics.

That's not to say that the unemployment rate is useless, obviously.  It's a decent indicator in the aggregate of where the economy is moving if you take it with measures like the yield curve and the wage index and so on.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 01:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Since the recession of 2001 the US has managed to keep the gross unemployment numbers looking fairly respectable. The information in this article reveals some of the things those numbers have been covering up, stagnant or declining wages and the loss of benefits.

When I see the stories about the improvement of job creation in the Eurozone I keep wondering if those are real jobs or McJobs.

by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 01:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The unemployment rate is useless since it's far too easy to manipulate (inactive wanting a job rather than unemployed, huh?) and it has been manipulated to incredible levels (see previous diaries here).

Employment rate is much better (when using sex and age range as usual).

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 04:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The interesting thing is that Galbraith charges in with all this data. He claims the real issue to be "income inequality" and places the blame for it starting with the dot.com bubble. But the bubble was only partly a tech bubble, it was mostly a "investment speculation" bubble, which continues to this day and was apparently fired by various governmental changes in the regulation of both the investing scene and the banking system from Reagan onwards. Which looks like a win for the influence of "ideology" to me.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 03:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I partly agree, but much of the '90s bubble was, in my opinion, simply feverish investment resulting from the "End of Recession" mentality -- that is, less to do with deregulation and more to do with stupidity on the part of private actors.  I don't think we could've stopped the bubble without raising interest rates to obscene levels, and, after all, inflation was quite low as I recall so there may well have been no perceived need to fight the boom at the Fed.

By that I don't mean that deregulation didn't fuel the boom, but that it simply wasn't the only -- and probably not the primary -- cause.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 10:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a documentary airing on PBS this week: Waging a Living.


FILM SYNOPSIS

If you work hard, you get ahead. That's the American Dream in a nutshell -- no matter what your race, color, creed or economic starting point, hard work will improve your life and increase your children's opportunities. Yet, this widely held dream is out of reach for an increasing number of working Americans.

Roger Weisberg's alarming and heart-wrenching new documentary, "Waging a Living," puts a human face on the growing economic squeeze that is forcing millions of workers into the ranks of the poor. Shot in the Northeast and California, the film profiles four very different Americans who work full-time but still can't make ends meet. Despite their hard work and determination, these four find themselves, as one of them observes, "hustling backwards."

One in four American workers -- more than 30 million people -- are stuck in jobs that pay less than the federal poverty level for a family of four. (i) Housing costs, to name just one of several essential living expenses, have tripled since 1979, (ii) while real wages for male low-wage workers are actually less than they were 30 years ago. (iii) But the new face of the working poor is overwhelmingly that of a woman struggling to support her children. Only 37 percent of single mothers receive child support, and that support averages just $1,331 per year. (iv) Nearly a quarter of the country's children now live below the poverty line. (v)

I don't know if there is any way for you in Europe to see this, but maybe I will diary it.


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 01:20:49 PM EST
An unemployed single parent living alone with one child in Ireland gets US$25000 a year plus medical care and some help with housing. As best as I can work out.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 01:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mind you, any family with one child under six years of age gets US$3,580.17 a year.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 01:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Monopolies and lack of small business growth factors into this as well. Our corporations went through a period of buyouts in the last decade. This means corporations become monoliths, and you have fewer workers who are able to demand wage increases. Coupled with the demise of the dot.coms and other technology work (a lot of educated Americans reaped a big bonanza is the 90s), this means that the catalysts for wage increase are no longer there. The redistribution of wealth happens not only through tax policy but also through friendlier climates for small businesses. Health care figures into this for sure. Right now, small businesses are being squeezed. As well, political graft (in the form of campaign finance) put a damper on small business as the game is rigged for the big boys.

All this was not true in the 90s.

by Upstate NY on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 06:56:53 PM EST
I think we may be seeing something new in American history. While recessions have always hit ordinary workers harder than they did the factory owners, everybody had to tighten their belt. When business picked up again, there was some gravy for everybody. That does not seem to be happening here. The gravey is all going to the top.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 07:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, the new "growth industries," primarily biotech, do not employ the number or type of people that make for a large middle class. That's part of the broader trend where advances in machines and computing have eliminated the need for much of the traditional manual labor and in the past few decades a lot of white collar "labor" as well. It's not just a matter of jobs going overseas, many of them are simply gone because they are no longer needed. That impacts every country on the planet including China.

That's the cost of productivity gains. In the past, obsoleted workers have been able to retrain to work in new jobs and/or industries, but the technological advances mentioned above are slowing that cycle for two reasons. One, retraining generally implies training for a higher level job. The problem is that people are only so intelligent, thus over time the number of people who will be unable to retrain for work in new industries or the next generation of jobs will increase. Two, gains in mechanical automation mean that less replication of what is ultimately the same work across the economy is needed (I would argue that goes for the assembly line as well as the office).

If you have a few drinks you can imagine this running to its logical conclusion (granted limits on energy consumption render the ultimate conclusion nearly impossible). If it only takes, say, 100,000 people to run the entire world economy, keeping everyone else around isn't necessary, and in fact, they may be viewed as a resource drain, and the elites may decide to get rid of them. The other possibility, a nice pipe dream if there ever was one, is your basic Marxist revolution in which we toss out capitalism and decide to live off the fruits of our technological wonder without having to work. Heck that's even better, as controlling the means of production implies pressing the "on" button at the local factory, so rather than everyone becoming a dual manager / worker we all go back to the beach.

This trend (the bad one, not the good one) is already underway in third world slums. Kicked off their land where they were previously subsistence farmers, many of them serve no real purpose to the world economy and live off the waste energy of productive workers (of course there's a continuum from "useless" to "integral" in terms of economic usefulness of slum populations). In their place on their old lands is more productive farm machinery. In an energy crisis many of them will die primarily because there will be less waste energy available, not because they don't have gas to get to work or fertilizer for their crops, because as I noted that isn't their means of survival.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 08:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be technologically possible to eliminate a lot more jobs right now. The total number of manufacturing jobs has indeed declined as you point out. They are also being shifted to Asia where cost are lower. At present it is probably cheaper to move a conventional factory to Asia than to build a high tech one. As Asian labor cost rise that equation will likely change.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 08:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you have a few drinks you can imagine this running to its logical conclusion...

Leave out the drinks (it's easy enough to imagine this one when sober) and give up the hope that energy limits will save us, and I pretty much agree.

(Hmmm... how often are future resource limits used as an excuse to avoid thinking about problems posed by emerging technologies -- many of them not even resource-intensive? Quite a often, I think.)

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 02:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would take a lot more than 100,000, because some projects, particularly mining, large-scale transport and energy, still have core needs that remain labour intensive.

With only 100,000 you'd need a significant security force too, which would create all kinds of interesting political pressures.

As an aside, I'm not sure how many employed people contribute anything useful to the economy. I spend a significant amount of my professional time talking to marketing and PR types, and they vary from very helpful to completely clueless and counterproductive.

So it's not clear to what extent corporations are staffed by timeservers and paper (email) pushers who contribute very little and may even be bad for a business. There are certainly plenty of historical examples of kamikaze management. But uselessness is unlikely to be a specifically managerial quality.

Also, the flip side of monolith culture, and partly related to it, is the fact that the ambitious are now highly mobile. So there's no concept of loyalty to companies. Employees are more likely to be loyal to themselves, which can easily translate to making the most ruthless decision possible, because that will always look better on a CV than a humane alternative.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 06:39:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The "100,000 people" was a reference to a potential future in which automation takes care of most jobs. The mine would probably be run by a few people who tweak some high level algorithms for the machines.

As an aside, I'm not sure how many employed people contribute anything useful to the economy. I spend a significant amount of my professional time talking to marketing and PR types, and they vary from very helpful to completely clueless and counterproductive.

As a technical employee I know what you are saying. Internally and to some degree externally, marketing and MBA types essentially engage in the manipulation and control of other people. It's a cost created by the fact that humans are emotional rather than logical and rational.

Their efficiency in that practice is another matter. The advertising portion of marketing is an arms race - the efficiency declines over time as you commit a larger percentage of resources to it, but if you don't "out-market" your competitors then all things being equal they will make more money than you.

Corporate mono-culture is another problem. All companies behave in an almost identical fashion, partly dictated by law, but mostly due to a fear of risk taking. That means more efficient models are less likely to be developed.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 02:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding mobility and ruthless decisions, it seems clear that the freedom to move on and the prevalence of short-term relationships provides a better environment for psychopathy to flourish than did the village life that shaped our ancestral genes and culture. I think that civilisation is riding on a kind of moral capital that would have weakened long ago, had cities been in demographic surplus rather than being sustained by an ongoing influx of villagers.

Regarding guards, the trick is to automate guarding, too.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 02:10:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]