Median boomer retirement account $144,000

[SEIOWA CLONE]

First, just because discrimination exists today, it is nothing remotely close in the job market to what it was then. Not remotely close.

Yes, we all agree the jobs aren't there. No one is arguing that. But they were largely there due to an unprecedented simultaneous explosion in demand due to rebuilding the post-WWII world and restriction in supply due to WWII destruction, and that effect of course diminished over time. And the US was pretty much the only industrial nation left standing for a period of time. And those jobs left because other nations developed the infrastructure and trained workforce willing to accept a fraction of pay that the US workers could, and automation developed rapidly.

No one is arguing that the jobs that were here in the 50s and 60s are no longer here. You and Stormin seem to think that unions created that prosperity and those jobs. They didn't. A complete abnormality and demand/supply shock unlike anything ever seen before or after created it. You also seem to be thinking if not for their decline the unions would've saved those jobs. They wouldn't and couldn't stop India and China from building infrastructure and a capable workforce, and they couldn't stop automation from happening.

I'm not into the argument of life was better or worse across eras. But I can't stand hearing idiotic arguments about post WW2 prosperity in the US and claiming some inconsequential domestic policy, business practice or labor unions had any role when there were years of an industrial world in rubble rebuilding feverishly with the US as the lone industrial nation at remotely close to capacity.

If it wasn't unions that who was it? The war by 1965 had been over for 20 years, Europe and Asia had been rebuilt.
Discrimination had nothing to do with high wages, nothing.

When unions started to die, then so did pensions, wages began to stagnate for the working man, but they take off for those at the top. We have been on this path for 40 years, the gap between the CEO's and the lowest paid workers in a company are at all time record highs.

You wonder why people have not saved enough for retirement, because wages are barely keeping pace with inflation, housing and medical insurance costs have sky rocketed and the average family has to have two people working to just get by.
Without unions and their ability to strike and bargain for wages, companies will do nothing to increase wages. Take a look at Wal Mart, one of the largest company in the country, making billions in profits per year, pay their workers substandard wages with few if any benefits.

Its about time we stop messing around with industry in this country and start to take the approach that Germany and others have taken, you want to claim to be an American company, you want bailouts during tough times, then start manufacturing your products here at home, not in SE Asia or China. The price does not have to sky rocket because of it, the investor class will just have to learn to get along with making in little less after 40 years.

 

[AuH2O]

If it wasn't unions that who was it? The war by 1965 had been over for 20 years, Europe and Asia had been rebuilt.
Discrimination had nothing to do with high wages, nothing.

When unions started to die, then so did pensions, wages began to stagnate for the working man, but they take off for those at the top. We have been on this path for 40 years, the gap between the CEO's and the lowest paid workers in a company are at all time record highs.

You wonder why people have not saved enough for retirement, because wages are barely keeping pace with inflation, housing and medical insurance costs have sky rocketed and the average family has to have two people working to just get by.
Without unions and their ability to strike and bargain for wages, companies will do nothing to increase wages. Take a look at Wal Mart, one of the largest company in the country, making billions in profits per year, pay their workers substandard wages with few if any benefits.

Its about time we stop messing around with industry in this country and start to take the approach that Germany and others have taken, you want to claim to be an American company, you want bailouts during tough times, then start manufacturing your products here at home, not in SE Asia or China. The price does not have to sky rocket because of it, the investor class will just have to learn to get along with making in little less after 40 years.

The explosion in jobs and the disappearance of those jobs has been explained clearly many times. And in 1965 discrimination was still a huge factor in a constrained labor market that favored whites. And in 1965 you absolutely have the US benefiting from rocketing up the global economic ladder due to its nearly sole position as an active industrial nation at full capacity for years after the war. These are very simple and obvious things.

I am not and have never said unions did not serve very good purposes and roles. I think they did and still think they can and do. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that they played a role in helping middle class in post war America. However, plenty of people worked middle class non-union jobs and prospered as well. Like I said, success was going to happen. Demand for US goods was incredible and white male labor was in short supply. But yes, eventually the rest of the world was producing again, new competition in Asia emerged, and technology displaced people in the workforce.

As for your point about industry in the US sending jobs overseas and policies, that is a completely different argument, one that I suspect we would have much agreement on. I think we would also agree that there are many perils of having full-time work in the US still land people below the poverty level. Whether people like it or not, by either mandating minimum livable wages or through programs like medicaid and food security programs the federal government is going to play a role in the business of the Wal-Marts of the world and their workers. It is unavoidable, so we should just figure out what the most efficient government involvement is.

Sorry to all that wanted to talk legit boomer retirement. No more thread derailments by me.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I should not laugh at this, but @SEIOWA CLONE trying to argue that discrimination had "nothing" (and his word there, twice actually) with high White middle class wages back in the 1950s and the 1960s is a pretty hysterically stupid point.

Jim Crow was still the law of the land for much of the country until the mid-1960s. Women growing up were told they could be secretaries, teachers, nurses, but only until they married and had children (and mostly to find a husband... lots of young women went off to college in that era not to build a career but for the MRS degree).

Want ads for clerical work openly required (a.) "single young women" and (b.) "must be pretty." It was a hideously sexist and racist time by our modern standards, and it directly contributed to the scarcity (and high wages) of White male labor.

I am not anti-union at all (they certainly have their purposes), but saying they directly created that "golden age" for the White middle class is just bad history. Denying the role discrimination played in that unequal prosperity is wrong.

Yeah, the Mad Men era was pretty nice for White guys.

But not so much for anybody else.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

The explosion in jobs and the disappearance of those jobs has been explained clearly many times. And in 1965 discrimination was still a huge factor in a constrained labor market that favored whites. And in 1965 you absolutely have the US benefiting from rocketing up the global economic ladder due to its nearly sole position as an active industrial nation at full capacity for years after the war. These are very simple and obvious things.

I am not and have never said unions did not serve very good purposes and roles. I think they did and still think they can and do. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that they played a role in helping middle class in post war America. However, plenty of people worked middle class non-union jobs and prospered as well. Like I said, success was going to happen. Demand for US goods was incredible and white male labor was in short supply. But yes, eventually the rest of the world was producing again, new competition in Asia emerged, and technology displaced people in the workforce.

As for your point about industry in the US sending jobs overseas and policies, that is a completely different argument, one that I suspect we would have much agreement on. I think we would also agree that there are many perils of having full-time work in the US still land people below the poverty level. Whether people like it or not, by either mandating minimum livable wages or through programs like medicaid and food security programs the federal government is going to play a role in the business of the Wal-Marts of the world and their workers. It is unavoidable, so we should just figure out what the most efficient government involvement is.

Sorry to all that wanted to talk legit boomer retirement. No more thread derailments by me.

Sure people worked good paying non unions jobs, but their wages would also be influenced by those of union jobs, pushing them higher. We would have the same benefit by raising the minimum wage up to a living wage. It would cause salaries in other occupations to also increase, or people would leave those jobs to go and to fast food jobs that paid more.
No matter what you say, there is no data out there suggesting that higher wages in the 60 and 70's were the result of discrimination No one is saying the minorities were not the last hired and the first fired, but just because they were being discriminated against has little to nothing to do with high wages during the time period talked about.

The push towards a globalized economy came along at the same time under Reagan started the push to rewarding the investor more, and the worker less . By now, we should be asking, was the goal of globalization to keep prices low, its stated purpose or was its goal to keep profits high for the investor class? Cheaper labor means higher profit margins, pushing the price of the stock ever higher.
Some businesses like Costco have proven that you can pay the employee high wages and benefits and still make a profit, and they are hated for it by many other businesses.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I should not laugh at this, but @SEIOWA CLONE trying to argue that discrimination had "nothing" (and his word there, twice actually) with high White middle class wages back in the 1950s and the 1960s is a pretty hysterically stupid point.

Jim Crow was still the law of the land for much of the country until the mid-1960s. Women growing up were told they could be secretaries, teachers, nurses, but only until they married and had children (and mostly to find a husband... lots of young women went off to college in that era not to build a career but for the MRS degree).

Want ads for clerical work openly required (a.) "single young women" and (b.) "must be pretty." It was a hideously sexist and racist time by our modern standards, and it directly contributed to the scarcity (and high wages) of White male labor.

I am not anti-union at all (they certainly have their purposes), but saying they directly created that "golden age" for the White middle class is just bad history. Denying the role discrimination played in that unequal prosperity is wrong.

Yeah, the Mad Men era was pretty nice for White guys.

But not so much for anybody else.

Then find me a link or study showing that discrimination of minorities and woman was the primary reason for high salaries during this time period. Not a link showing the wage gap, but a link that says, the reason salaries were high was directly related to the lack of opportunity for minorities and woman.

No one is arguing that its was a bight shining moment looking of a job as a minority or woman, but that has nothing to do with wages and salary for the average working man.
If it did, then we would not be bring in illegals today to work in the construction and meat packing industries. They know that by paying less, those illegals will still take those necessary jobs, and white people will not. The job gets done, and the company makes more money.

Mark it DUMB all you want, but either show me a link proving you are correct or go away to another topic.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Then find me a link or study showing that discrimination of minorities and woman was the primary reason for high salaries during this time period. Not a link showing the wage gap, but a link that says, the reason salaries were high was directly related to the lack of opportunity for minorities and woman.

Scholars of the postwar U.S. are definitely going to be on my side that the rampant discrimination of the era was economic as well as political and social. It is bad analysis attempting to argue they are independent of one another.

You and I should be able to think for ourselves to recognize this. However, if you really want to appeal to authority, then you are going to end up obliterated again.

But if you want one (of the mountain I could provide) then...

"Large bureaucratic corporations grew amid the economic devastation in Europe and parts of Asia after WWII. While parts of the world lay in ruins, the U.S. took over as the world's economic leader. Although businesses worried about profits in the 1950s and 1960s, in the absence of intense foreign competition, they did not look to cut every possible cost. Large corporations built a large, arguably unnecessary, bureaucracy of managers that helped sustain the prosperity of the White middle class. White men benefited most from the postwar boom. Immigration laws enacted in the 1920s, and racial, religious, and gender discrimination all reduced competition for White males. By the 1970s and 1980s, structural changes challenged America's role as the world's economic leader and White male's virtual control of the corporation."

Paraphrased here...

Matthew Johnson, "The Organization Man," Perspectives in American Social History, edited by Rusty Monhollon and Peter C. Mancall, 2010

Original source here...

Paul Leinberger and Bruce Tucker, "The New Individualists: The Generation After the Organization Man," Journal of American History, Volume 80, Issue 1, June 1993, starts on page 353

None of my points (nor those of @AuH2O) are controversial ones in the present literature covering the "golden age" boom of the 1950s and 1960s.

The only sources you are going to find supporting your point -- it was all the unions doing and all we need to do it fix it is bring the unions back -- are going to be political hacks probably working for the unions in one way or another.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Scholars of the postwar U.S. are definitely going to be on my side that the rampant discrimination of the era was economic as well as political and social. It is bad analysis attempting to argue they are independent of one another.

You and I should be able to think for ourselves to recognize this. However, if you really want to appeal to authority, then you are going to end up obliterated again.

But if you want one (of the mountain I could provide) then...

"Large bureaucratic corporations grew amid the economic devastation in Europe and parts of Asia after WWII. While parts of the world lay in ruins, the U.S. took over as the world's economic leader. Although businesses worried about profits in the 1950s and 1960s, in the absence of intense foreign competition, they did not look to cut every possible cost. Large corporations built a large, arguably unnecessary, bureaucracy of managers that helped sustain the prosperity of the White middle class. White men benefited most from the postwar boom. Immigration laws enacted in the 1920s, and racial, religious, and gender discrimination all reduced competition for White males. By the 1970s and 1980s, structural changes challenged America's role as the world's economic leader and White male's virtual control of the corporation."

Paraphrased here...

Matthew Johnson, "The Organization Man," Perspectives in American Social History, edited by Rusty Monhollon and Peter C. Mancall, 2010

Original source here...

Paul Leinberger and Bruce Tucker, "The New Individualists: The Generation After the Organization Man," Journal of American History, Volume 80, Issue 1, June 1993, starts on page 353

None of my points (nor those of @AuH2O) are controversial ones in the present literature covering the "golden age" boom of the 1950s and 1960s.

The only sources you are going to find supporting your point -- it was all the unions doing and all we need to do it fix it is bring the unions back -- are going to be political hacks probably working for the unions in one way or another.

Good try, but that is not a study, just an opinion of what was happening. I said a link to a study, not opinion. You know, one with charts and graphs like you love to present.

Leinberger and Tucker present an extensive analysis based upon seven years of interview research with some of the original "organization men" described in William Whyte Jr.'s classic The Organization Man ( LJ 11/1/56) and their adult children. They describe the shift in commitment from a generation whose careers meant devotion to one company to a generation that rejects such blind loyalty and seeks to find their own place. The authors contrast the men of the 1950s who rode upward economic trends in their corporations and defined new cultural values and living patterns with their adult children of the 1980s who grew up in relative affluence but felt little connection to the temporary communities in which they lived

 

[Sigmapolis]

Good try, but that is not a study, just an opinion of what was happening. I said a link to a study, not opinion. You know, one with charts and graphs like you love to present.

All writings of historical scholarship (and indeed all scholarship) are just the authors' opinion on some level. But it is not just an "opinion" in the sophomoric and pejorative fashion you are using the term. It is their informed opinion and honed to the point we call it scholarship or knowledge, based on their primary and secondary research in the field and the review of peer scholars on the veracity of their points in publications.

Dismissing that as, "That's just like your opinion, man," is a retreat into immature sophism on your part. I do not know what grade you teach, but assuming it is anywhere past middle school, you should expect better of your adolescent students.

How about we do another paper more direct to your interests...?

"Changes in the Labor Market Discrimination Over Time," Orley Ashenfelter, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Autumn 1970), pp. 403-430

(Notice this article is from 1970. The reality of this discrimination is long understood, and indeed it was a primary motivating factor in the civil rights movement.)

"Labor market discrimination against nonwhite Americans, and particularly Black Americans, has long been a feature of the relative earnings structure in the United States. Although employers no longer advertise dual wage scales, such as 'White Workers $24; Colored Workers $20' as they once did."

Why do you need a chart or graph to elaborate on that point? I use quantitative evidence where it is appropriate and enhances the immediate point at hand. When something like this is as blindingly obvious as the sun fusing in the sky, then I do not know what kind of chart or graph you need to be a moral and thinking human being. Sounds like an attempt to obfuscate the bigoted nature of your positions.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

All writings of historical scholarship (and indeed all scholarship) are just the authors' opinion on some level. But it is not just an "opinion" in the sophomoric and pejorative fashion you are using the term. It is their informed opinion and honed to the point we call it scholarship or knowledge, based on their primary and secondary research in the field and the review of peer scholars on the veracity of their points in publications.

Dismissing that as, "That's just like your opinion, man," is a retreat into immature sophism on your part. I do not know what grade you teach, but assuming it is anywhere past middle school, you should expect better of your adolescent students.

How about we do another paper more direct to your interests...?

"Changes in the Labor Market Discrimination Over Time," Orley Ashenfelter, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Autumn 1970), pp. 403-430

(Notice this article is from 1970. The reality of this discrimination is long understood, and indeed it was a primary motivating factor in the civil rights movement.)

"Labor market discrimination against nonwhite Americans, and particularly Black Americans, has long been a feature of the relative earnings structure in the United States. Although employers no longer advertise dual wage scales, such as 'White Workers $24; Colored Workers $20' as they once did."

Why do you need a chart or graph to elaborate on that point? I use quantitative evidence where it is appropriate and enhances the immediate point at hand. When something like this is as blindingly obvious as the sun fusing in the sky, then I do not know what kind of chart or graph you need to be a moral and thinking human being. Sounds like an attempt to obfuscate the bigoted nature of your positions.

Again, no one is saying that there was not a wage difference between blacks and whites, there was.
You said that the reason for high wages during the 60s and 70s was because of discrimination. You have yet to show any facts or studies that prove that.

The wages were high, not because they were allowed to discriminate, but because of unions.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Again, no one is saying that there was not a wage difference between blacks and whites, there was.
You said that the reason for high wages during the 60s and 70s was because of discrimination. You have yet to show any facts or studies that prove that.

The wages were high, not because they were allowed to discriminate, but because of unions.

Unions made up mostly only of White men.

But I am sure you insist (without reason) that fact is irrelevant.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Unions made up mostly only of White men.

But I am sure you insist (without reason) that fact is irrelevant.

You mean like this union?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ities-ever-and-democrats-have-noticed/311470/

 

[Sigmapolis]

You mean like this union?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ities-ever-and-democrats-have-noticed/311470/

Not in 1965.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Not in 1965.

You mean the time the average worker had the highest wages in the history of the country. And according to you, were only that high because of discrimination. That was all occurring after the civil rights and voting acts were past, and would continue for another 15 years.

Until Reagan came into office, and his war on unions started. But it discrimination that was the key to it all, at least that is what you keep telling us.

 

[Sigmapolis]

You mean the time the average worker had the highest wages in the history of the country.

Well, that is a ridiculous statement, for starters. Our standards of living are much higher now than they were when Rubber Soul was on the charts.

And according to you, were only that high because of discrimination.

Yes, discrimination against women and non-Whites was an important contributing factor to the high wages paid to middle class White men. Those stats look pretty good when you fail to adjust their inflated wages because so many women were kept out of the workforce entirely and non-Whites were either forced out of the workforce or forced into an informal economy at below-minimum wage incomes under the table.

I never said it was the only thing. The lack of international competition is another huge contributing factor. Firms did not have to be very cautious about costs (or product quality) and could always pass their costs along to customers, so they could afford to pay White male union members above-market wages and not have to worry about that. It changed when the Japanese and the Germans showed up with better products.

I never said unions were ineffective at raising the incomes of their members. They certainly were. I just questioned how useful a policy tool that is going to be in 2020 because (1.) the unions were effective at boosting White men's income because they discriminated, which I do not think any of us would want to accept (or at least I hope so) and (2.) there was not much for international competition in the 1950s and 1960s.

Now the global economy is well-developed and cutthroat.

Unless you can recreate #1 and #2 as well somehow, and I think neither would be desirable, then unions are not very relevant. Do you want to send women back to the kitchen and carpet bomb Western Europe and Japan or something? Because without that, the unions would not have been able to do what they did for White male workers.

Unless you bring back those conditions, then they will not be able to again.

Until Reagan came into office, and his war on unions started. But it discrimination that was the key to it all, at least that is what you keep telling us.

The 1980s was also a time of much more intense international competition and a time when tens of millions of women joined the workforce.

Was Reagan union-friendly? Nah, of course not, and I remember the PATCO strike story well enough. Union membership as a percentage of the labor force peaked in the 1950s, however. Unionization rates were going down before, during, and after early 1981 through early 1989. Reagan did not cripple the U.S. automotive and steel sectors. The Japanese did that with their better cars and their cheaper steel.

You might want to direct your ire at Tokyo and Osaka. The problem? Americans really like their affordable, reliable, high-quality, and efficient cars.

There is a reason the union model only really persisted in two situations: (1.) those without international competition, such as construction trades and railroads, and (2.) the public sector. Unions are a good model for management-labor relations in #1. And in #2, you are right that unions have become much more diverse and female-heavy because government workers tend to be disproportionately non-White and female.

Unions are just not going to have the leverage in other sectors.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Well, that is a ridiculous statement, for starters. Our standards of living are much higher now than they were when Rubber Soul was on the charts.



Yes, discrimination against women and non-Whites was an important contributing factor to the high wages paid to middle class White men. Those stats look pretty good when you fail to adjust their inflated wages because so many women were kept out of the workforce entirely and non-Whites were either forced out of the workforce or forced into an informal economy at below-minimum wage incomes under the table.

I never said it was the only thing. The lack of international competition is another huge contributing factor. Firms did not have to be very cautious about costs (or product quality) and could always pass their costs along to customers, so they could afford to pay White male union members above-market wages and not have to worry about that. It changed when the Japanese and the Germans showed up with better products.

I never said unions were ineffective at raising the incomes of their members. They certainly were. I just questioned how useful a policy tool that is going to be in 2020 because (1.) the unions were effective at boosting White men's income because they discriminated, which I do not think any of us would want to accept (or at least I hope so) and (2.) there was not much for international competition in the 1950s and 1960s.

Now the global economy is well-developed and cutthroat.

Unless you can recreate #1 and #2 as well somehow, and I think neither would be desirable, then unions are not very relevant. Do you want to send women back to the kitchen and carpet bomb Western Europe and Japan or something? Because without that, the unions would not have been able to do what they did for White male workers.

Unless you bring back those conditions, then they will not be able to again.



The 1980s was also a time of much more intense international competition and a time when tens of millions of women joined the workforce.

Was Reagan union-friendly? Nah, of course not, and I remember the PATCO strike story well enough. Union membership as a percentage of the labor force peaked in the 1950s, however. Unionization rates were going down before, during, and after early 1981 through early 1989. Reagan did not cripple the U.S. automotive and steel sectors. The Japanese did that with their better cars and their cheaper steel.

You might want to direct your ire at Tokyo and Osaka. The problem? Americans really like their affordable, reliable, high-quality, and efficient cars.

There is a reason the union model only really persisted in two situations: (1.) those without international competition, such as construction trades and railroads, and (2.) the public sector. Unions are a good model for management-labor relations in #1. And in #2, you are right that unions have become much more diverse and female-heavy because government workers tend to be disproportionately non-White and female.

Unions are just not going to have the leverage in other sectors.

I said WAGES, not standard of living, life expectancy or any other rant you care to engages us in. Just wages.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

So keep believing and preaching the idea that high wages were the result of discrimination and sexism as an excuse for the greatest time of wages in US history.

I mean you really think that businesses, whose major reason to exist is to make money, turns its back on profits, by paying higher salaries just so they can discriminate. If that was the case, then slavery would have never taken hold in the US. I mean there is no one more racists than the CSA, their whole purpose was about slavery. So why would they have not freed all of them, and just paid white people higher wages?
Because slavery was a hell of a lot more profitable.

 

[Stormin]

Reagan’s confrontation with air traffic controllers was what broke the unions. 1981. Well known fact.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I said WAGES, not standard of living, life expectancy or any other rant you care to engages us in. Just wages.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

So keep believing and preaching the idea that high wages were the result of discrimination and sexism as an excuse for the greatest time of wages in US history.

I mean you really think that businesses, whose major reason to exist is to make money, turns its back on profits, by paying higher salaries just so they can discriminate. If that was the case, then slavery would have never taken hold in the US. I mean there is no one more racists than the CSA, their whole purpose was about slavery. So why would they have not freed all of them, and just paid white people higher wages?
Because slavery was a hell of a lot more profitable.

What is the point of talking about wages if they are not anchored to the standard of living that they can actually deliver for the ones earning them?

If you really think we just need to go back to how things were in 1972, then I am pretty sure you have some screws loose up there somewhere.

The reason that unions "worked" for their member back then was they had leverage. They had leverage because labor was scarce due to discrimination and the companies could afford it because they did not have to worry about foreign competition.

Neither of those things are desirable or possible in 2020.

The problem with your chart is what it does not show -- it does not show the $0 per hour given to women and the immigrants who were barred from the labor market entirely. Your definition of "workers" is too narrow to be useful. It includes only the people able to land a job or enter the U.S. in that discriminatory environment.

Reagan’s confrontation with air traffic controllers was what broke the unions. 1981. Well known fact.

Not really. Union membership as a share of the labor force peaked in the late 1950s, and the downward trend of the 1970s keep going throughout the 1980s.

Reagan presided over a preexisting and continuing trend.

You guys are right that Reagan was not very union friendly. I just do not think that you can ascribe the breaking of the unions to a single political figure.

There was a lot more going on with that long-term (50+ years) decline.

I doubt unions make up any different share of the labor force now if Carter got a second term or if Fritz Mondale somehow had won the race in 1984.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Reagan’s confrontation with air traffic controllers was what broke the unions. 1981. Well known fact.

Oh, come on, Reagan was the good guy in all this, just helping them out. It was discrimination starting to ease that was the reason for wages decreasing. At least that is what Sig wants you to believe.

 

[RoseClone]

God ****, theres some novels being written in here.

We need a "Sorry, too long to read" or "Reader's Digest version, please" rating

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

What is the point of talking about wages if they are not anchored to the standard of living that they can actually deliver for the ones earning them?

If you really think we just need to go back to how things were in 1972, then I am pretty sure you have some screws loose up there somewhere.

The reason that unions "worked" for their member back then was they had leverage. They had leverage because labor was scarce due to discrimination and the companies could afford it because they did not have to worry about foreign competition.

Neither of those things are desirable or possible in 2020.

The problem with your chart is what it does not show -- it does not show the $0 per hour given to women and the immigrants who were barred from the labor market.



Not really. Union membership as a share of the labor force peaked in the late 1950s, and the downward trend of the 1970s keep going throughout the 1980s.

Reagan presided over a preexisting and continuing trend.

You guys are right that Reagan was not very union friendly. I just do not think that you can ascribe the breaking of the unions to a single political figure.

There was a lot more going on with that long-term (50+ years) decline.

For standard of living based on wages, ya, we were better off then.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...-current-cost-living-compare-20-years-ago.asp

The peak of union member ship was 1979,
https://assets.publishing.service.g...-membership-statistical-bulletin-2016-rev.pdf

Keep trying, maybe more stories about Grandma, will help.