MovieChat Forums > Politics > Almost Half Americans in Low-Wage Jobs E...

Almost Half Americans in Low-Wage Jobs Earning $18,000

posted 4 years ago by Keelai (31885)
35 replies | jump to latest

"According to the Brookings analysis, approximately 53 million working Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 can be qualified as “low-wage” earners. They account for 44% of all workers. Their median hourly earning are $10.22. And, their median annual earnings fall at about $18,000.

This group is too large to be explained away by the fact that a percentage of workers are just starting their careers. Recent or current students don’t add up to 44% of the population. These aren’t just people who are working for extra spending money. Low-wage workers are primarily adults who work to support themselves and their families."
https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2020/01/nearly-half-of-us-workers-have-low-paying-jobs

"The low-quality jobs offer an average of 24.6 hours of work per week at $14.65 an hour, which is $360 per week. These roles are also the 13.5 million retail jobs offering 30.3 hours a week at $16.73 an hour, which is $506 in weekly pay. About 83% of all private sector jobs—105 million workers—are in nonsupervisory jobs. More than half of those positions—58 million—pay less than the average weekly U.S. wage of $793. A good deal of these jobs don’t afford proper healthcare or benefits. Unfortunately, for many Americans, these are the best jobs they could get.

As long as the government only reports the quantity of jobs (as opposed to the quality), it sends a false picture to the public about the real state of the overall job market."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/11/25/the-frightening-rise-in-low-quality-low-paying-jobs-is-this-really-a-strong-job-market/#7cd7148a4fd1

[–] elcamino (15540) 4 years ago

Mrs. Trump, receiving two standing ovations from the roaring crowd, paired her Dolce & Gabbana suit with a pair of matching Manolo Blahnik pointed stilettos — appropriate considering she has quite a style devotion to both luxury brands.

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

At this point, taxpayers are paying for her clothes.

"Trump Golf Count: 246*
Cost to Taxpayer: About $127,000,000**"
https://trumpgolfcount.com/

[–] wheelin176 (2026) 4 years ago

It's like this. Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

[–] dteam6 (5073) 4 years ago

Amen. The career sites are loaded--absolutely LOADED--with $9-12 per hour jobs. How come Trumpers never bring this up? You'd have to either be rich, jobless or one of the workers employed (and apparently content with) with one of those jobs to be able to spout off at the mouth about "the booming economy and job market".

[–] Adam60z (3749) 4 years ago

And they have to support 10 kids and 3 wives.

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

You're stereotyping. Millions of jobs lost because of technology in our changing economy with millions more to be lost in the near future. A changing economy from manufacturing to service jobs which are lower-paying. Even attorneys are losing out to technology and I know some who are struggling financially.

[–] B1cKsurN (14776) 4 years ago

Children and marriage are a choice.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 4 years ago

I can attest to this. My career is in the steel industry. That means CAREER wages. CAREER work. Middle-Upper Middle Class work. Jobs for my line of work are full of tumbleweeds right now.

Donald promised to help the steel industry. He's done jack shit to do so. JACK.SHIT.

People in my industry happen to be hugely pro-Trump (irony personified) and let me tell you--they have been rather silent on Trump this whole past year.

I often wonder just what the Trump apologists running around, talking about this "booming economy and job market" do for a living because, to me, they don't sound like actual working people. They sound like clueless people who just regurgitate Trump/FOX news soundbites and little else.

So, unless you're rich or one of those blue collar workers who LIKE working shit deadend jobs in retail, fast food and warehouses, you are NOT benefiting from Trump's "booming economy and job market" right now.

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

"they have been rather silent on Trump this whole past year."

I repeatedly hear that from people who work with Trump supporters. I heard people don't like to admit when they're wrong and maybe that explains their silence. I hope they come to their senses and vote him out.

""booming economy and job market""
Even mainstream and left-wing media repeats that nonsense. Most people are also forgetting that Trump has created a $1 trillion dollar deficit that taxpayers will needed to pay back. That's not a healthy economy.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 4 years ago

This is why I constantly say "These aren't even real Trumpers" around here. I don't think a lot of these furious Trump zealots online are real Trump supporters. They act the polar opposite of the ones I work with on a daily basis. Some are, sure, but most Trumpers are SILENT. Even this entire impeachment yielded NO vocal discussions from them. Hell, I saw a Trumper the other day at my job talking about gun control and even complimenting Bill Clinton, saying he was "better than these last few presidents". I was SHOCKED.

So, I think most of the ""Trumpers"" on this board aren't real. I think most of them are just contrarian trolls. Some of them might be real Trumpers who were silent in public and get all their pent up rage out on an internet forum but I think most are just shills/trolls.

I've said before that I have known a few Trumpers who act like the online ones...a HANDFUL. Most aren't like that. Most keep their mouths shut or speak of the subject softly and usually clam the hell up when someone fact-checks them.

In truth, I think even many of his supporters have long since grown tired of him...they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

"I think even many of his supporters have long since grown tired of him...they just can't bring themselves to admit it."

Those may be moderates. But, there are still many Trumpists who are happy with him which is why Republicans are afraid of his base and the polls are very close.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 4 years ago

Yeah, the crazier he acts, the more they love him. Pathetic.

[–] Adam60z (3749) 4 years ago

Yes, you're right. many industries are losing jobs to outsourcing, etc. And those that remain work more for less. Republicans help the rich, not the middle class or poor.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 4 years ago

Exactly. Wages are either stagnant or even DECREASING. Meanwhile, the cheap deadend jobs continue to grow like weeds.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

Wouldn't these people be described by Trump as "losers" ?

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

Trump failed them because he didn't deliver on those high-paying factory jobs, revitalizing several dying industries, and helping flyover America.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 4 years ago

productions at all time high levels! so where did that growth go? oh right corporate tax is at low levels while their profitability at all time high levels.

someone got that money the average American person deserves. the rich stole it from you by paying their political prostitutes to rig the system for them

[–] chilidoggg (13053) 4 years ago

“Since my election, the net worth of the bottom half of wage earners has increased by 47% -- three times faster than the increase for the top 1%.”

I thought this was total B.S., so I did some digging...

"Median weekly earnings of full-time workers were $936 in the fourth quarter of 2019."

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

$936 for 40 hours is $23.40/hour.

That's based on surveys...

"Data on usual weekly earnings are collected as part of the Current Population Survey, a nationwide
sample survey of households in which respondents are asked, among other things, how much each wage and salary worker usually earns."

Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week. (BLS definition)

From the OP:

About 83% of all private sector jobs—105 million workers—are in nonsupervisory jobs. More than half of those positions—58 million—pay less than the average weekly U.S. wage of $793.

I don't know how all these statistics jive ($793 average is not the same as $793 median, I would think mean would be higher than median, e.g. mean of me and Jeff Bezos is $1 billion)

I still think that Trump's statement is B.S., that that level of data is not collected, and even if it is collected it's probably not available for several quarters, so definitely not February 2020 figures (probably at best December 2018 figures.)

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

Trump lied. Most Americans have seen stagnant wages for decades. The only people earning a greater percentage are the rich.

The BLS doesn't separate lower and higher wage earners. The Brookings Institution report distinguishes the two groups and provides demographic details about them in a 68-page report.

You can download their 68-page report. Unfortunately, you have to provide your email.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/meet-the-low-wage-workforce/

Mid/high-wage workers median annual earnings $54,410
Low-wage workers median annual earnings $17,953

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

First, look at the sample size. 18-64. What kind of range is that? What is the wage rate going to be for an 18 year old? What is the range rate for a 64 year old? With a sample size this wide, already you know the data is going to be skewed to a lower amount, thus ruining the data. However, since the point of the article is to report low earnings, it works to the narrative. In reality, ANY intelligent person should be able to recognized the poor choice in sample size if this is what they were actually testing for. But then again, komrade keelai, ain't too bright.

Komrade even quotes from the article that the group is TOO LARGE TO BE EXPLAINED... Then it states that low wage workers are primarily adults who work to support themselves and their families. Oh? So then why didn't they just shrink the sample size down and take out all the students from their study??? Seriously, how hard would that have been? What a poor statistical study.

So if somebody gets a McJob, is that job INTENDED to be their career job for life? Does one got school to get a McJob? Per the Forbes article: "A good deal of these jobs don’t afford proper healthcare or benefits. Unfortunately, for many Americans, these are the best jobs they could get."

So whose fault is that? Is it the workers fault or the employers fault, pray tell? Is something preventing the worker from gaining an education? Is something preventing the worker from finding a better job?

So how much should a McJob pay somebody for flipping burgers? How much should a McJob pay for alphabetical filing? How much should a McJob pay somebody for unloading a truck?

Would you rather have employers be forced to raise their wages and thus, laying off workers?

You dems don't look at the big picture. You just hear a tale of woe and glom off of it for sympathy votes. You don't think or even trying to fix the problem at hand, but just bitch and moan about it. Then again, what else is new?🤪🤪🤪

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

All of your questions were answered if you had bothered to read the study.

Here's the link to the study if you care to read it and come back with intelligent questions or remarks:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/meet-the-low-wage-workforce/

In the meantime, I'll remind you that Trump has lied and broken all his campaign promises about helping the working-class. He has NOT created high-paying factory jobs. Coal, auto, steel and manufacturing industries were not restored by him. He failed to give us "great healthcare" and costs continue to go through the roof. Farmers are declaring bankruptcy thanks to Trump's losing trade war which raised product costs for struggling Americans.

Trump did help his billionaire friends (and himself), Wall Street, and large corporations with a trillion dollar tax break they didn't need.

Continue to live up to your name Simpleton Sandy!

[–] chilidoggg (13053) 4 years ago

From the Brookings link

Defining low-wage workers

There is no consensus definition of a low-wage worker, although there are several common approaches. Creating a definition involves two key decisions: 1) determining who counts as a worker and 2) setting the earnings or dollar threshold that differentiates a low-wage worker from other workers. Based on those decisions, the definition can either be expansive and encompass more workers, or restrictive and include fewer.

To identify low-wage workers, we use the Census Bureau’s 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year Public Use Microdata Sample.

..........................

blah blah blah

I'm sure these Brookings people are sincere in trying to present an accurate analysis, but the data they rely on just isn't trustworthy IMO.

"To identify low-wage workers, we use the Census Bureau’s 2012-2016 American Community Survey"

It's asking people questions, people who are largely on the wrong side of the bell curve.
"How much did you make last week? Last month? How many hours did you work?"

Everyone has a Social Security account. I don't know if a Medicare account is maintained for everyone, but it wouldn't be difficult (SS has a limit on taxes; Medicare does not have a limit.) You should be able to analyze payroll tax data and sort Medicare contributions from highest to lowest by account.

Of course there's the underground economy; some people might have worked 60 hours a week to get that pay; whole host of other issues.

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

The report addressed the issues you're raising re: data source. Their source contains much more detailed data than an SS account which allows them to differentiate among groups. They mention the small recent wage increase, but they don't believe it significantly changes the findings.

You are confused about the purpose of the study. It's not to show there are low-waged workers nor be political. It's to identify the different types of low-wage earners in order to better find ways to help them in a changing economy:

"This paper strives to show the diversity among low-wage workers at the national and regional levels, in order to better inform strategies to help them improve their employment prospects. A foundational issue, however, is which low wage workers to assist.Conceptually, it is clear: Public policy has a role in assisting economically vulnerable low-wage workers who rely entirely or substantially on those low wages to support themselves and their families, particularly if they appear to be unlikely to advance to higher-paid jobs."

For instance, 18-24 year old graduate or professional students working in a low-wage job with promising future job prospects vs 18-24 year old nonstudents supporting their families. Only the latter group is in the study in order to find ways to help them gain better paying jobs.

"Places offer different types of job opportunities based on their industrial base and economic vitality, and to explore this, we produce demographic and occupational data on low-wage workers at the regional level. It is local leaders in the public, private, and social sectors who develop and execute strategies to help people find work and advance to better jobs, and we hope that the report provides useful insight as they strive to develop inclusive economies."

[–] chilidoggg (13053) 4 years ago

Quoting myself:

"Everyone has a Social Security account. I don't know if a Medicare account is maintained for everyone, but it wouldn't be difficult (SS has a limit on taxes; Medicare does not have a limit.) You should be able to analyze payroll tax data and sort Medicare contributions from highest to lowest by account."

I'm guessing if we sorted all the Social Security accounts from highest to lowest, when we're done with the higher half, everything below that is a low-wage job, no matter how you define it.

And that's not going to get better in our lifetime, unless we have another Black Plague.

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

Three problems with your obsession with SS records:

1.
I already wrote that the SS stats are extremely limited and would be useless for their report or provide data to help anyone gain higher paying jobs. For instance, it doesn't identify educational level or if the person is a student, race and ethnicity, foreign born, language spoken at home and English fluency, caring for children, receives safety net assistance, etc.

2.
You're only concentrating on wages and nothing else which is useless for their goals.

3.
Social security data is likely private anyway. Do you think I would be able to see your personal social security information?

[–] chilidoggg (13053) 4 years ago

"help anyone gain higher paying jobs."

No one's getting higher paying jobs. The world's changed a lot since 1945.

I don't see why someone like the Federal Reserve can't publish Social Security statistics. The Internal Revenue Service publishes a lot of statistics:

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-returns-publication-1304-complete-report#_pt1

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

What nonsense you wrote! There are programs formulated to help people find work and better paying jobs in my state. You must live in a red state where politicians like to keep you poor and dumb in order to exploit you easier.

All of your complaining about wanting recent data and your link's only provide 2017! And once again, there is no information re: demographics. You're no statistician!

[–] chilidoggg (13053) 4 years ago

Exactly - data like this is always old. But there is SOME accurate useful data. Like Social Security taxes. I trust that more than some idiot saying he made $400 last week because that's what his paycheck was, net of various myriad deductions, and different withholdings than the same guy who might have a wife, kids, etc.

In one of my prior lives I was a glorified bookkeeper and I prepared a lot of tax returns for people largely on the right side of the bell curve and it was shocking how financially incompetent they were/are. If you listen to Dave Ramsey's radio program it's full of these idiots.

"programs formulated to help people find work and better paying jobs"

For a long time I've had the idea that we should use some of the taxes we pay to allow free transportation to everyone, so if you find yourself jobless and broke in Detroit, and there are jobs somewhere else, you just get on the Greyhound and go.

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

You just conceded your SS data is old so it's pointless to suggest using it.

"f you find yourself jobless and broke"

It's not about being jobless. These people have low-wage jobs because there's a systemic shortage of higher paying ones due to the changing economy.

Part of the study is to identify opportunities in different regions.

"Geography also carries considerable weight. Places offer different types of job opportunities based on their industrial base and economic vitality, and to explore this, we produce demographic and occupational data on low-wage workers at the regional level."

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

You definitely live up to your name on a daily basis, komrade. You also didn't refute anything, but then again, what else is new, yes?

When did Trump promise high-paying factory jobs? The key word is high-paying and what is considered a high-paying factory job, pray tell?

How exactly did Trump say he was going to "restore" these industries?

He failed to give us "great healthcare"? Well, if the dems block the repeal of Obama care, how can he, pray tell?

Farmers are declaring bankruptcy because he's losing the trade war? Seriously? Ignorant much?

A trillion dollar tax break? You mean you didn't benefit from the tax break? If you didn't, it means you DON'T WORK. Did you or didn't you?

You're not too smart, are you komrade? What else is new? 🤪🤪🤪

[–] Keelai (31885) 4 years ago

Once again you're living up to your name, Simpleton Sandy.

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

You notice how you don't respond to ANYTHING? Not too smart, are you komrade? Then again, what else is new, yes? 😁😁😁

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

Hi Dick Dick.

Why don't you cite the study and show me where they address my answers directly. I know this would take some time out of your normal reacharound schedule, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to show everybody how dumb/smart you are.🤪🤪🤪