FDXLAG

So we have income inequality, anybody think importing 50 million poor people in the last 50 years might have something to do with it? I worked as a roofer and a laborer 35 plus years ago for $6.50 an hour, think my grandkids could get that job now? Si senor because they speak spanish. We have a service economy now, is that because a.) rich white people are mean and hate the middle class, b.) labor, OSHA and environmental regulations make it cheaper to look elsewhere, or c.) we are too busy teaching about oppression or how to slip a condom on a cucumber to worry about math and science?

Gunter

That article, Jungle, talks about disposable income dedicated to necessities as going down. This supposedly equals more wealth. It conveniently gives a little detail but it doesn't offer enough.

What it doesn't mention is how disposable income now has to fund your own personal retirement account, the 401k. Have you read how the inventor of the 401k is disgusted by business' use of it?

Father of modern 401(k) says it fails many Americans | Marketplace.org

FDXLAG

National Review

jungle

The 401k and other similar schemes are just a few crumbs they let fall from the table, we both know that funding a retirement takes money. Where is that going to come from, the gov does not and cannot generate wealth.
Are you going to trust the gov or a corporation to hold onto your life savings with the real expectation of a payout at some point far into the future?
Did we learn nothing in the last few decades?

olly

Perhaps you need to read the article a bit more closely. The jist of the article is contrasting the delta in how corporate resources were distributed in the 20th century & the 21st. In the 20th, century as productivity increased, those that were producing (labor) got a share of the results related to their productivity (their piece of the pie).

The article contrasts that over the last few decades, the largess has been to shareholder value, and less if any to reward productivity of the actual producers, and alludes to the incentive of corporate management to do so. i.e. stock buybacks. How many corporations did $5B stock buybacks in the 50's, 60's, 70's, early 80's? I shouldn't have to tell you why a corporation executes a buyback, and how executive compensation via stock options rewards the manipulation of stock price.

The author notes the collective bargaining aspect, as there is no other counterbalance to the trend (legislation, regulation, ethics, benevolence..)

Regarding, "There are many easy methods to improve the economy, but we never hear The Post or the unions mention them".
I read the Post daily, there are many articles that do just that, I presume you're not a reader, unless someone posts a link.

Not sure what you mean by, "The Post worries about profits without connecting the dots, without free enterprise there is no middle class, no unions and no chance for economic improvement"

The post is just contrasting how resources are allocated between, R&D capital investment , shareholders and wages, now & then. just factual insight on the allocation of available resources. Of course there has to be profits to have allocation, the article is highlighting the delta when companies do have profits.

FoxHunter

Actually, according to Hedrick Smith, author of "Who Stole The American Dream" 401k was not originally intended as a retirement vehicle for the general population. When it was put into the tax code in 1978 only three or four people knew it was there. A Congressman from upstate New York had it inserted because two corporations (Kodak and Xerox)in his district wanted a tax shelter for senior executives. Mutual Fund companies recognized the business opportunity and were able to lobby for changes to include all in later years. Now for most people have to fund their retirement with their very reduced income.

When first introduced the high paid executive would save $7000 in taxes for a $10,000 contribution vs today the middle class worker will save $2500 for the same $10,000.

jungle

Olly, the fundamental flaw in your thinking is that some magical agency of good is going to transform human behavior into economic equality. The Post, unions and gov have failed in that regard and they will continue to fail.

Free economic choice for the individual has proven to be the only correct choice, it may not provide equality, but at least it doesn't spread the misery equally.

olly

I don't believe that a magical agency will transform human behavior. Observing history there have been trends. The Post, in this article highlighted the trend of passing the largess of profits to shareholders, while leaving out the worker.

This is a change from previous decades. Someone made the decision to do so (change from the norm). It is now accepted corporate culture, when previously it had not been. Why?

The author states that with the decimation of private sector collective bargaining, there is no other counterbalance (magical agency) on amending the allocation of available resources (moving in the direction of the previous norm).

ALEC & their resource sponsors spend a lot of money lobbying for anti- collective bargaining laws. Why would they do that?

My economic choice to fly with a stable profitable carrier that has collective bargaining over one that does not is clear.

Ask the jet blue pilots why they switched. It was their economic choice, where they believed they could collectively garner better compensation with than without.

jungle

You think unions provide a good wage, I think a profitable airline provides a good wage, "social justice" hasn't provided any tangible benefit.
ALPA serves many airlines, why do wages differ between them?

Why are wages higher at some non-Union airlines?

Huck

Say what???