Neo-Feudal America – Median Wages for Male Employees Down 5% Since 1973

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 11.41.31 AM

Another day, another data point proving what anyone with two functioning braincells already knows. That for most citizens, the U.S. economy is a neo-feudal Banana Republic oligarch hellhole. The facts are indisputable at this point, and the trend goes back decades when it comes to the American male. All the way back to 1973, in fact, just two years after the U.S. defaulted on gold and the economy started its grotesque transformation into a Wall Street controlled, financialized gulag.

Just yesterday, I highlighted some very depressing data from the Census in the post:

Census Data Proves It – There Was No Economic Recovery Unless You Were Already Rich

Now we learn the following, from the Wall Street Journal:

The typical man with a full-time job–the one at the statistical middle of the middle–earned  $50,383 last year, the Census Bureau reported this week.

The typical man with a full-time job in 1973 earned $53,294, measured in 2014 dollars to adjust for inflation.

You read that right: The median male worker who was employed year-round and full time earned less in 2014 than a similarly situated worker earned four decades ago. And those are the ones who had jobs.

This one fact, tucked in Table A-4 of the Census Bureau’s annual report on income, is both a symptom of an economy that isn’t delivering for many ordinary Americans and at least one reason for the dissatisfaction, anger, and distrust that voters are displaying in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Now here’s a chart of the middle class death spiral:

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 3.28.18 PM

On a related note, billionaire and CEO of “Too Big to Fail and Jail” JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, decided to weigh in on income inequality earlier today. Here’s some of what he had to say courtesy of Yahoo.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says it’s OK that chief executives get paid way more than their average employees — and that cutting down on executive compensation wouldn’t help eliminate income inequality.

“It is true that income inequality has kind of gotten worse,” Dimon said, but “you can take the compensation of every CEO in America and make it zero and it wouldn’t put a dent into it. What really matters is growth.”

How enlightened. Considering the U.S. has seen massive GDP growth since 1973, yet median wages for males haven’t budged, I wonder how growth is supposed to suddenly reverse the trend. Does he even think before speaking?

But he wasn’t done. Apparently, Mr. Dimon felt a need to double down on his remarkable disconnectedness with the following:

As for the middle class, Dimon reportedly said Thursday: “It’s not right to say we’re worse off … If you go back 20 years ago, cars were worse, the air was worse. People didn’t have iPhones.”

That’s what you get when you ask a billionaire executive from a taxpayer bailed out, unaccountable industry for his thoughts on income inequality.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • diogenes

    In 1970 the minimum wage was $2, gas cost 20¢ a gallon and a pleasant sizeable one bedroom apartment in San Jose rented for $70. One hour of work at minimum wage would buy 10 gallons of gas and 35 hours would pay a month’s rent. Today, one hour at minimum wage will buy less than three gallons of gas and 200 hours will be required to pay the rent on that apartment, in the unlikely event that you can get it for $1500. In short, the statistics cites in the article are a PATHETIC & DISGUSTING HOAX.

    • Keith

      Did you read the article? You are basically agreeing with the article. That the middle class is much worse off now than in 1973.

      • diogenes

        The article describes the difference as 5%. As the numbers I cite above show, it is enormously greater than 5%, by any account that is in touch with reality rather than aimed at creating a smokescreen. The difference in the cost of rents is 500% of the rise in wages, so is the rise in the cost of gas, and so on.

        • gamesjon

          While I understand what you are saying and I do agree that it would be useful to include such a statistic in an article such as this it isn’t exactly true to say that this article was misleading or false. You are talking about the purchasing power of the money while the author of this was merely talking about the -5.46% in wages.

          Also as a related question is are all your cost comparisons related solely to the Califronia area? I’m reasonably sure that California has been an area that has increased more than most other ones in that time frame. I mean regardless of it is limited there you are right in that the -5.46% in wages does not explain the all of it because the cost of things everywhere has increased at a faster rate meaning the resulting purchasing power is even lower, but there are few places in the country that would have as significant a change as California.