Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts

Thursday, October 27, 2022

How To Solve (Mostly) All Our Problems

 TAX THE RICH!!!


And, by "rich", I mean millionaires. Which, for the U.S., is about 9% of the entire population. This isn't a call for increased taxation on low-income, working families, or the middle-class. It's a call to tax those that have clawed, cheated, and stolen the wealth and productivity gains of the past few decades. No, not all millionaires have clawed, cheated, and stolen. But those who have clawed, cheated and stolen, and who have bought politicians to get legislation and tax laws in their favor, need to be taxed more.

Income has been steadily redistributed upward since the 1980s. Millionaires are reaping more and more of the gains of workers. This is not sustainable. It's time to reverse this. Tax the rich! 

Saturday, August 4, 2018

Unemployment

The U-6 rate is the unemployment rate that includes discouraged workers who have quit looking for a job and part-time workers who are seeking full-time employment.


For Further Reading:
Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Labor: Human Activity That Provides The Goods Or Services In An Economy

"If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates Labor, he is a liar." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Yet, this seems to be exactly the message of Wall Street, conservatives and capital investment, in general.

According to investors, workers don't really deserve the fruit of their labor.

What's wrong with giving out pay raises? Plenty, according to some Wall Street analysts
“This is frustrating. Labor is being paid first … again. Shareholders get leftovers,” wrote Citi analyst Kevin Crissey in a note to clients. 
Jamie Baker of Morgan Stanley downgraded American shares to “neutral” from “overweight,” saying the pay decision “establishes a worrying precedent, in our view, both for American and the industry.”
John Cotton condensed the Wall Street view:
"There’s always this tension between what companies would want for the long term and what Wall Street wants for the short term," said John Cotton, professor of management and director of the Executive MBA Program in the College of Business Administration at Marquette University. "As far as Wall Street is concerned, if you could pay minimum wage to everybody on every job, that would be great because that would leave more money for stockholder. 
...
"Wall Street, they don’t care so much long term," Cotton said. "They would rather have the company buy back stock than, say, invest in making their business more effective over the long term, because that’s not going to pay off in the next 90 days. 
"It is short-sighted, but then Wall Street almost by definition is short-sighted," he added. "If you could do something to jack up your stock price 5%, the fact that it’s going to hurt your company over the next 10 years is irrelevant."
 American Airlines CEO defended worker raises:
"As a service organization, investments in our team are investments in our product," Parker said during a conference call with analysts. "We think it's precisely this kind of investment in our people that is going to make the difference in our service. And while this won't happen overnight, we also think it's the kind of investment that will continue to drive revenue (growth) for American. And as that happens, all of you will be the beneficiaries of those returns."
For Wall Street, raises should be reserved for the CEOs that decide to fire workers and/or suppress wages.

If we want to address the increasing income inequality in our society, we need to break from this capital-worship paradigm.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Decline of Unions Has Hurt All Workers

Decline of unions has hurt all workers
The steep decline in union membership in recent decades has had an outsize effect on the American workforce, tamping down wage increases for nonunion workers, a new study says. 
Average weekly earnings for nonunion private-sector male workers would have been 5%, or $52, higher in 2013 if the share of union workers had remained at 1979 levels, according to the study out Tuesday from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute ahead of Labor Day. That’s tantamount to a loss of $2,704 annually for the average nonunion worker. 
The paper was authored by Washington University sociologists Jake Rosenfeld and Patrick Denice, and Jennifer Laird, a research scientist at Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy. 
The earnings loss is smaller for women because they were not as unionized as men in 1979. Weekly wages would be about 2% to 3% higher for women if union membership had stayed at 1979 levels, the report says. 
About 10% of male private-sector workers were union members in 2013, down from 34% in 1979. In that period, the share of women who belong to unions fell to 6% from 16%. 
The report argues the dwindling influence of unions is a significant but often ignored reason for wage stagnation, along with globalization, technological change and the slowdown in educational achievement gains. 
The prevalence of unions affects the pay of nonunion workers in various ways, the study says. Nonunion employers often raise their workers’ pay to foster loyalty and head off an organizing drive. Kodak deployed that strategy in highly organized New York State, the study says. 
The fatter paychecks of union workers also creates a more competitive labor market that forces nonunion companies to lift wages to prevent employees from jumping ship. And unions often establish labor-friendly policies that generally promote fairness in pay, benefits and worker treatment, according to the report. 
The gains of yesteryear were not limited to nonunion workers at risk of joining unions, the study says. When those workers received raises, their higher-level supervisors who couldn't join unions also saw sharper pay increases to maintain salary hierarchies, the paper says. 
But the losses engendered by shrinking union participation are most pronounced for nonunion private-sector male workers who lack a Bachelor's degree. Wages for that group would be 8% higher in 2013 if union membership had stayed at 1979 levels, translating into an annual wage loss of $3,016.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Labor's Fair Share

On Labor Day, What About Labor’s Fair Share?
  • According to the Economic Policy Institute, productivity went up about 25 percent from 2000 to 2012. How much did compensation increase? Only about 7 percent. 
  • From 1979 to 2010 the top 1 percent of households saw their after-tax income grow by about 202 percent.