[Puffer Fish]

As some of you know, it is has become very difficult to be able to afford living in most major areas of the U.S. on a lower wage job. Some might say nearly impossible.

That got me thinking. Are wages for typical lower level jobs lower than they were 50 years ago, a time when the U.S. represented a "middle class country of opportunity"?

It turns out, the answer seems to be no.

I found an article here that shows that wage levels for typical lower level jobs in 1977 seem to be very comparable to today, when adjusted for official inflation numbers.

Kiplinger's Personal Finance - Google Books, page 19

average per hour
bookkeeping clerk $2.59
child-care worker $2.15
lifeguard $2.46
restaurant worker $2.19
gardener $2.42

This is from 1977. $2.50 in 1977 would be equivalent to $12.94 in 2024


It should be kept in mind this does not take into account the availability of higher paying union jobs, which used to be the mainstay of the male working class. That could be another discussion.

But nevertheless, this seems to suggest wage levels may not be the actual main problem.

The cost of housing, medical care, and college education seem to have increased by much more than the official inflation rate.


Some may be wondering if these wages were higher (adjusted for inflation) before 1977. That does not seem to be the case. A segment in the article dispels that:

"Campus wages and inflation

Since 1966, when Changing Times last surveyed campus jobs and what they pay, the average cost of a year at private college has risen about 75%, marching virtually in step with the country's general rate of inflation. Costs at public colleges have gone up 88%. Does this mean that part-time work will pay a smaller part of the bill in 1977 than it did in 1966?
Not necessarily. In fact, comparing median compensation for some popular campus jobs in the 1966 survey with median compensation for those same jobs today suggests just the opposite. Median pay for a clerk typist in 1966 was $1.15 per hour. This year they are being paid a median wage of $2.30 per hour, or 100% more. Comparisons for other popular jobs show the same pattern. Wages for food service workers went from $1 an hour to $2.30, a hefty 100% increase, and median pay for library assistants climbed from $1.10 to $2.30 an hour (a 109% increase); pay for mail clerks, faculty assistants and science lab assistants went from $1.25 to $2.30, representing an 84% increase."
​
But here is where the article seems to depart from the current reality:

"When you find a job, plan to give it ten to 15 hours per week, including some weekends. And, as Colorado State University comments, "Don't expect too much pay for so little work." It's not an easy way to go through college, but it can be done."
​
These days, working 15 hours a week at a low level job would barely pay for college expenses.

So the real questions (or issues) that we should be focusing on is why is housing and college education so much more expensive today?

[Puffer Fish]

What I've come to realize is that wages are not lower across the board than they were decades ago, like is commonly claimed or believed.
Rather, there seem to be fewer of the higher paying type jobs.
As well as wages being lower in certain specific kinds of jobs (many formerly union jobs, including meatpacking, as one example).
And furthermore the nature of work -- who it is who does the work -- has also changed and shifted. Two examples might be family farmers versus agricultural laborers, or a small family retail business versus a gigantic corporate retail store.

[Hakeer]

What I've come to realize is that wages are not lower across the board than they were decades ago, like is commonly claimed or believed.
Rather, there seem to be fewer of the higher paying type jobs.
As well as wages being lower in certain specific kinds of jobs (many formerly union jobs, including meatpacking, as one example).
And furthermore the nature of work -- who it is who does the work -- has also changed and shifted. Two examples might be family farmers versus agricultural laborers, or a small family retail business versus a gigantic corporate retail store.

The best “big picture” statistic is median family income in real dollars. Anybody who says that hasn’t increased doesn’t know the data.

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

The best “big picture” statistic is median family income in real dollars.

And it's the "best" because it pretends that the incomes of modern two- (and three- and four-) worker families are comparable to those of the one-worker families of 60 years ago...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

Anybody who says that hasn’t increased doesn’t know the data.

Anybody who says it means working people's wages haven't been kept far below the increases in their productivity for the unearned -- and largely untaxed -- profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites doesn't know how to provide an honest analysis of statistics.

[Truth To Power]

As some of you know, it is has become very difficult to be able to afford living in most major areas of the U.S. on a lower wage job. Some might say nearly impossible.
...
So the real questions (or issues) that we should be focusing on is why is housing and college education so much more expensive today?

As Henry George demonstrated over 140 years ago in Progress and Poverty, all else being equal, the Law of Rent implies that any increase in the workforce, whether through births exceeding deaths, immigration, women entering the workforce, or any other cause, will tend to increase land rents and reduce wages. In the last 50 years, births have greatly exceeded deaths, there has been immense immigration both legal and illegal, and women have entered the workforce in enormous numbers. That is why working people now toil their lives away and end up with nothing, while landowners have been made astronomically wealthier without lifting a productive finger.

The Henry George Theorem shows that if government tries to counter this effect of the Law of Rent by taxing working people's wages to provide desirable public services and infrastructure for "free," it will just further increase the land rents that those working people have to pay for permission to access the exact same desirable public services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for.

Therefore, until we address the fact that the system of private landowner privilege legally entitles landowners to steal working people's wages, it is economically impossible to make the economy fairer to working people.

[Hakeer]

And it's the "best" because it pretends that the incomes of modern two- (and three- and four-) worker families are comparable to those of the one-worker families of 60 years ago...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

Anybody who says it means working people's wages haven't been kept far below the increases in their productivity for the unearned -- and largely untaxed -- profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites doesn't know how to provide an honest analysis of statistics.

Two earners can combine to buy a home or finance college for a kid, where neither of them could do it individually. Don’t preach to me about this. I lived through it. My dad had a good-paying IUOE Union job in construction in the 1960’s. He was able on his income to eventually buy a (modest) home and I could attend our local university. Thanks to union-busting by Reagan and Republicans, unions have been nearly destroyed in this country. A guy with his job today couldn’t do what he did. He had more income as a construction worker than I had as a university professor. That’s the truth.

[Truth To Power]

Two earners can combine to buy a home or finance college for a kid, where neither of them could do it individually.

A single individual full-time worker could do it 60 years ago because landowners' unearned land rent incomes were two orders of magnitude lower.

Don’t preach to me about this.

I will continue to refute your attempts to rationalize and justify the greed, privilege and parasitism of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

My dad had a good-paying IUOE Union job in construction in the 1960’s. He was able on his income to eventually buy a (modest) home and I could attend our local university.

Because he didn't have to shovel as much of his wages into the pockets of rich, greedy, privileged parasites, especially landowners, in return for nothing as working people do today.

Thanks to union-busting by Reagan and Republicans, unions have been nearly destroyed in this country. A guy with his job today couldn’t do what he did.

You have misapprehended the cause. Canada has not suffered the same union-busting that the USA has, but the plight of working people is exactly the same because like the USA, Canada has also had births exceeding deaths, massive immigration, and huge numbers of women entering the workforce. So just as the Law of Rent demands, wages are lower and land rents astronomically higher.

He had more income as a construction worker than I had as a university professor. That’s the truth.

It's the same truth in Canada because landowners' unearned land rent incomes were two orders of magnitude lower then. Nothing to do with unions, just the laws of economics.

[Hakeer]

A single individual full-time worker could do it 60 years ago because landowners' unearned land rent incomes were two orders of magnitude lower.

I will continue to refute your attempts to rationalize and justify the greed, privilege and parasitism of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

Because he didn't have to shovel as much of his wages into the pockets of rich, greedy, privileged parasites, especially landowners, in return for nothing as working people do today.

You have misapprehended the cause. Canada has not suffered the same union-busting that the USA has, but the plight of working people is exactly the same because like the USA, Canada has also had births exceeding deaths, massive immigration, and huge numbers of women entering the workforce. So just as the Law of Rent demands, wages are lower and land rents astronomically higher.

It's the same truth in Canada because landowners' unearned land rent incomes were two orders of magnitude lower then. Nothing to do with unions, just the laws of economics.

I am talking about what happened in the United States, not Canada. If you look at the data, worker compensation and worker productivity were very closely correlated from 1950 to around 1980. That’s when Reagan arrived and Union-busting drove down membership. I can remember my dad walking on a picket line for his wages. From 1980 right up to today, worker productivity has steadily increased, while hourly compensation in real dollars has nearly stagnated.

[Truth To Power]

I am talking about what happened in the United States, not Canada. If you look at the data, worker compensation and worker productivity were very closely correlated from 1950 to around 1980. That’s when Reagan arrived and Union-busting drove down membership. I can remember my dad walking on a picket line for his wages. From 1980 right up to today, worker productivity has steadily increased, while hourly compensation in real dollars has nearly stagnated.

There is a clear break in US statistics, as you say. Canada had no such break, just gradual deterioration, yet the end result is effectively the same. Your analysis cannot explain that. Mine does.