The thing is, we should be (and we were) doing better.

That line from 1800 to now is not a straight line. It rises steadily up to about 1980, but then flattens out sharply. Over the last 30 years the average worker actually earns less than they would have over the previous 30 (adjusted for inflation).

The top end basically figured out they could demand a larger slice of the profits at the expense of the middle and lower classes. We've all seen the stats on ceo vs worker pay and the obscene differences (200+ times a workers salary). That money didn't just appear from nowhere.

Gotta love Krugman.. not as an economist but as a world class hypocrite rivaling Molière's Tartuffe. He's getting paid $25,000 a month to do zero work, while calling for the end of income inequality. <scoff> I wonder if he's ready to give up 70% of that to the federal government like he says all "wealthy" ought to do.

The headline might as well read, "Rich economist constantly holds forth on the evils of income inequality, while...." You get the point. Here's the back-of-the-envelope math on his recent windfall:

Not counting the $20,000 in non-transferable travel budget, moving bennies, etc. that they offered him, CUNY is paying Dr. Krugman a nine-month salary of $225,000. I presume he won't be working summer semesters, so let's say that's all his salary from CUNY for the year. Now normal tenured senior professors at CUNY make at most $116,364 a year. Adjuncts at CUNY make about $3,000 or so per course; you can teach at most 9 hours a semester. So let's say you're an adjunct maxed out at a 3/3 load; you make about $18,000 a year for that. So if Dr. Krugman wanted, he could pick out 6 adjuncts at CUNY and *double* their yearly income, just by giving away the amount of money he personally makes *over and above what the best-paid senior faculty make*. If he were willing to do the job (*) for a nominal fee (as you may know, Prof. Krugman has another line of work), he could literally pick some lucky adjunct at CUNY and double their entire year's income -- *every month of the year.

And honestly, @radx, what did the "progressives" expect would happen? This so-called "Democracy" can never be anything other than an "oligarchy," if not a governance by "mob rule" (and sometimes a combination of the two). If "Democracy" is the "least bad" kind of state/government possible as some (like Mark Twain) have claimed, then it's high time "the people" climbed out of the dark ages and lived without rulers, altogether.

The resultant "chaos" that would ensue would not be any worse (and in fact far better) than the kind of unintended chaos that results from the centralized power structures of state governance.

------

*Which, let's be clear, involves no teaching load, and seems to mainly mean that maybe he'll drop by the office every few months to share his brilliance with whoever happens to be there. The point for CUNY is almost certainly to purchase some of the aura from his name on the letterhead

An engineer worth their salary oversaw the installation of that pole.

I assume you mean 'professional' jobs, because staff labor usually has a set income that doesn't change much from day 1, and everyone starts at the set pay.

In professional positions, every employee negotiates their own salary.
Men aggressively job hop to build up a resume and then capitalize on it.
Men are more aggressive about asking for large incomes, being 'ok' with being turned down multiple times in order to land a sweet deal.
The majority of men I know that are in professional positions deliberately behaved like this to build up their income as early as possible.

I don't know a single woman that job hopped. All of them got a job, and sat on their hands. When job hunting, they kept looking for large 'stable' employers, where they can chill for a while.

Truth is, once an employer has you for $X amount, they have no reason to give you more. Other than a pittance raise to track inflation and make you feel happy at the end of the year (so they can keep you). Which is a joke, since changing jobs can bump your income 30% per flip (30% is me amortizing. My first flip was on the order of 100%. But subsequent flips raise the bar less and less, up to the industry maximum. So I just picked a 30% ball park figure.).

Basically, the income argument bugs me, because I (and others like me) go through the [disruptive to one's life] effort of building up a resume to leverage for negotiating a good income, and other people expect the same income to just fall into their lap.

In any case, what Thumper said is true. Women have the ability to capitalize on their looks, because men provide a demand.
Women provide a weak demand for men's looks, so men can't capitalize to the same extent.
If you're a good looking girl, and you wind up broke and hopeless, you can always become a stripper, pay the bills, and turn your life around.
If you're a man, regardless of how you look (or a low-digit woman), and you wind up broke and hopeless, you simply don't have that kind of reliable way out.

-scheherazade

It's been tested and the "best" audiophiles can't hear differences between 14bit and 16bit, nor can they hear differences between 44.khz and ANYTHING higher. In some tests they could use12bit sound with 36khz sampling frequency... The differences they hear are inside their head. Thus the description of improved sound is always "air", "brilliance", "organic" etc.. Don't be fooled by their fancy gear, most of it is for nothing. Cables: i am always willing to bet my months salary on doubleblind tests, 10 000€/m against a coat hanger, no audible differences.. It's all about confirmation bias, you think there's a change and suddenly you hear it.

About MP3s vs PCM:
Here we have audible differences. But. Put on high enough energy, ie turn your amp high enough, suddenly double blind studies can't find which is which. But it can be audible, mp3 is lossy format and even 320kbps can be heard. Not with all material, it's about in the limits of human hearing. Some might hear high end loss, if you're in your twenties. Once you hit 40, everything above 17khz is gone, forever. You will never hear 20k again. And to really notice the difference, you need good gear. Your laptop earphone output most likely won't even output anything past 18khz well and it's dynamic range can be represented with 8bit depth.. It can be just horrible. Fix that with usb box, around 80€: you can take that box anywhere on planet to the most "hifiest" guy out there and he can't hear the difference between his 10000€ A/D converter.. In fact, 5€ A/D converter can produce the same output as 3000€ one... That's not why i said buy a external.. It's more to do with RF and other shielding, protection against the noises a computer makes than A/D conversion quality. Note, i'm talking about audible differences, you can find faults with measuring equipment and 95% of the gear price is about "just to be sure".

If you want a good sound, first, treat your room. Dampen it, shape it.. If you spent 10k on stereo and 0 on acoustics, you will not have a good sound no matter what you do. Spend the same amount on acoustics than what you do on you equipment, room makes a lot more differences than gear. Next comes speakers, they are the worst link in the chain by a large margin. Quality costs, still wouldn't go to extremes here either, the changes are again "just to be sure", not always audible.. Then amps, beefy, low noise, A/B. You don't need to spend a huge lot of money but some. Then cables.. Take the 50€ version instead of 300€ or 3000€. Build quality and connectors, durability. Those are the reason to buy more expensive than 5€. Not because of sound quality.. There will always be group of people that will swear they can hear the differences, that's bullcrap. Human ear CAN NOT detect any chances, even meters are having a REALLY hard time getting any changes. You need to either amp up the signal to saturation point, or use frequencies in the Mhz ranges, thousands of times higher than what media needs to get any changes between cheapest crap and high end scams.

Audiophiles can't be convinced they are wrong, they are suffering from the same thing antivax people do: give them facts, they will be even more convinced they are right.

If I could vote on my own salary, you could bet your genitals that I'd be there to have my say and furthermore you could be sure I wouldn't vote for less money.
And if I received that salary wether I show up for work every day or not, I'd spend much more time at home masturbating to my favourite Teletubbies video.

Maybe that's a problem. Maybe some people shouldn't be able to control the terms of their own employment that much. I certainly can't.

Considering his $12mil salary I hope that money either goes to charity or to the interns that all just got laid off from Jay Leno's staff. Not the paid staff mind you, just the interns.

I've seen this quote a lot lately, and it applies very well here:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

-Upton Sinclair

@chingalera
/chuckles
oh i know man.

my comment was with tongue firmly planted in cheek but my basic point remains the same.

some people have to make concessions in order to survive in this fucked up system.
maybe they have children.
maybe they are married with an asston of debt hanging over their heads.

i am an anarchist.
so i have arranged my life in a way where my participation in this zombie system is shaved to a bare minimum but i also have to recognize that some people do not have that luxury.since i am not living their lives i refuse to judge them.

just look at the comments here.
your assertion of an imagined polemic plays out in this thread,quite conveniently making your point.

we have @bobknight33 posting the heritage foundations position almost verbatim (thanks for responding bob,i like when you participate.sincerely),in regards to capitalism.

then we have @Sagemind posting a more "left" leaning comment.

and then we have the always ironic @lantern53 bemoaning the ills of government.yet his salary is provided by taxpayers,and hence the very government he is deriding.he is such a closet socialist.(loooove you lantern../hugs).

yet all these positions have validity.

the governments role should be criticized and examined.
corporations should be exposed for their undue influence.

this is not a simple issue and it is where i think you and i totally agree.
i too get frustrated when people talk about this subject in a binary way.
it is NOT just a black/white,good/evil,right/left matter.

and when people engage in this form of perception they also tend to demonize the "other" side.
so if someone posits an opinion that happens to be contrarian to ones views,they are automatically dismissed as "wrong" and anything they have to say is discarded as being stupid,ill-thought or just plain downright wrong.

this is the fundamental flaw in this binary thinking.
and it is not by accident but rather by design.

divide and conquer.

in the developed western world we have 30 choices for toilet paper but when it comes to things that TRULY matter?
we get two.

so the true elite and powerful of this country pick their prized horse and offer up to us,the american public,a choice of TWO rich fuckers.
would you like democrat?
or republican?

doesnt really matter who you choose because either one is going to serve their masters.
who of course are wall street and corporate america.
not you or i.

we are fed a constant stream of populist bullshit that gives the appearance of solidarity and nationalism but in reality serves only the corporate masters in fleecing the american people of more and more of their own hard earned:money,rights,liberties and ultimately our independence.

the problems with un-fettered capitalism are well known and well understood.
just as the problems with socialism are well known.

it is the SYSTEM that needs to be challenged and questioned,examined and ultimately discarded if we find it lacking.

and i find it lacking.
morally,socially and financially.

it is time we kill the beast.
because it is feeding on itself and putting us ALL at risk.

bah..you fucker.got me ranting.

let me conclude with this:
i find all structures of power and authority to be illegitimate until proven otherwise.
i find the system of plutocracy currently in place to be illegitimate.
it serves only the upper eschelon and commodifies the poor.
the poor have become fodder for the military industrial complex as well as the private prison system.
the working poor have become cogs in a machine that is slowly crushing them under the weight of the hubris of those who feel entitled to their fortunes and that somehow they are more deserving then their fellow man.

the beast is sick with its own arrogance and needs to be put down.
the only recourse us normal folk have is to stop feeding the beast.

if only 5% stopped going to work and took to the streets you will see a very frightened beast begging us all to the negotiating table.

thats my 2 cents anyways.

Let's be clear, $15/hr is gonna make a difference. If current minimum wage is $7.25 it's more than doubling the wage. That means doubling the salary costs for every business employing people for minimum wage. It seems the left is all excited about moving twice as much money from Walmart and McDonalds back to it's employees. The thing is, it doesn't just hurt corporate employers, it hurts ALL employers. In particular the mom and pop shops that open up to provide alternatives to Walmart and McDs. Raising the cost of entry to new business owners seriously hurts and undermines the little guy.

My point is the idea of striking a balance in minimum wage is very important, because shifting it too much in EITHER direction makes the 'wage-slave' problem worse. Either buy worse conditions for the lowest end of the working class, or by making it even more difficult to start out working for yourself.

You can print more money and hand it out to influence purchases also, but it is going to lead to dramatic inflation.

I had my wife watch this video, because she makes around 18 dollars an hour working in a skilled profession for a college. Her first comment was, "If they raise food workers to 15 dollars an hour, I'm going back to work at Dairy Queen because it was much easier than what I do now."

But that is where the slippery slope comes in, because the corporation is going to make that money back somewhere and it isn't going to be just 15 cents more per item. Why, you ask? Because the minimum wage rise means that skilled workers, like my wife, are going to expect a commensurate raise in their salary or they will look for easier jobs. You don't just raise the minimum wage without ALL wages eventually rising. But that's a good thing, you say, just like printing money and handing it out for free would be good.

It might take a year or two, but consumer costs will rise from inflation to make the new minimum wage just as low in buying power as it is now. Then we can repeat the entire process all over again in a couple of years. Corporations are designed to make the absolute maximum profit they can, so forcing them to pay more to employees is going to make them charge more for goods and services. As I said earlier, it will eat up the exact purpose of the raise, customer purchasing power.

Now, let's say that I am wrong completely. The one thing I DO know, having went through this before in 1996 when the minimum wage went up, is that companies will begin outsourcing even more. If you force them to pay wages above what they want to pay or what the market will bear, they will open factories and call centers overseas. I worked for Dell at the time and in 3 years, half of their support was outsourced to India. It wasn't just them, multiple companies did it, and the evidence points to rising costs due to government interference in the free market system.

I feel for the people who make minimum wage; I made it as well from the time I was 16 until I was 22. It sucked and I had a lot of debt, but after that time I no longer worked minimum wage. If you continue to work a minimum wage job into your 30's and up, there is something wrong with you.

A person who makes a subsistence living, is a ghost. They make rent, food, and ~nothing else. They are useless to the economy.

A person who has excess funds is a consumer. They create demand, and drive the economy.
They are the customers that pay your salary.

It's important to have a populace with disposable income and disposable time.

-scheherazade

*ban salaried chummers

Pharmac (go look it up) here in NZ has a big part to play in our overall lower health costs for medicines.

It's a crown owned entity that works out what drug is the best for a particular purpose and then says, "hey big pharma wanna have all the NZ'ers get cured of shitty disease x with your magic pill number 4? Well then gives us the generic brand and here's what we will pay." And then drives a sweet deal for all us kiwis.

It's that big of a thing that it's upset all the corporate fuckers that are driving the whole Trans Pacific fuck the little guy Partnership.

Then there is the ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) - It's not perfect by any means. But say for example you are playing football on the weekend and your blow your hamstring, well you rock on up to the local A&E, afterhours or medical centre etc, pay a fee of around $30-50nz, get checked over, if you need xrays/scans these maybe fully subsidised or again you may have to pay up to $50-80, get cheapo drugs from the pharmacy (thanks Pharmac) and go home and put your feet up. You're in the system now buddy!

Now have to put your foot up at home for the next 4 weeks, - what about work? I gotta get paid dog!! Don't worry homie ACC has got your back.

If your claim is approved (they pay first and ask questions later, after all you need to get better) you'll be paid 80% of your income while your at home working on your TV tan! ACC was created for workplace injuries, but falling of the ladder home still gets covered.

ACC works by all employers paying into the scheme via levies based on your wage/salary, also the higher risk of injury the workplace is the higher the levy the employer has to pay.

The pay off for ACC is that no-one is allowed to be sued. The govt will drop the hammer on the company, you get looked after by ACC. This has caused the odd issue here and there but overall. Sweet!

Disclaimer - This may all be a complete bunch of ass, but it's pretty close to the way it is.

Individually health care cost in the UK average around £2000 per person per year. Average earnings for salaried employees is £26,500
So we pay health care tax of approximately 7.5% of an average income.

In the US the average health care spend per person, per year is around $8000 (£5000). Average per captia income was $28,000 in 2011 (which I was surprised by).
This makes health care costs 28% of income. And that can't right. I mean really can't be right - I must have sum wrong somewhere...
Even if we use the average household income instead: $53,000 it's still 15%. Double that of the UK.

With that level of spending I would expect the US to have by far the highest level of health care to be found anywhere on the planet.