Advertisements

Tag Archive: Wages


3 Reasons President Obama Is Wrong About Stay-At-Home Mothers

 

 

 

 

 

 

” Charlie Spiering reports on a speech President Obama made in Rhode Island today. You know things are rough for President Obama this election season when he is relegated to a state so small CNN thinks it’s a city.

  Anyway, he was painting a picture of how he’d like to expand the administrative state to include government pre-school. Because public schools are doing such a good job generally. Anyway, he then took an absolutely bizarre swipe against stay-at-home mothers:

“ Sometimes, someone, usually Mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result,” he said. “That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”

  Here are three problems with his argument. “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Overpaid Federal Employees

 

 

 

 

 

” With the election only weeks away, pundits are visualizing how a Republican-controlled Senate would impact future policy decisions.  Today’s Washington Post highlights the supposed plight of federal workers under a Republican Congress.

  The piece discusses House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal:

  Under the Ryan budget, the contribution of most federal employees toward their retirement plan would increase by 5.5 percentage points with no increase in benefits — effectively a pay cut. Ryan emphasizes a “defined-contribution system” that centers on employee payments to their retirement program instead of the current system, which includes pensions from the U.S. government. He estimated his plan would save the government $125 billion over 10 years.

That $125 billion in savings, however, would come from the pockets of federal employees.

  The piece continues in a similar vein discussing Republican-supported legislation that would make it easier for federal employees to be disciplined, fired, and restricted in their conference expenditures–all  reasonable proposals. It cites federal employee union officials on the difficulties these policies would place on federal workers.

  But the piece fails to mention the elephant in the room: federal employees are compensated more generously than their private-sector counterparts.

  Using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average wage for a federal civilian employee in 2013 was $81,076, compared to the average wage of $55,424 for private-sector employees. “

 

Cato reports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hollywood Salaries Revealed, From Movie Stars to Agents (and Even Their Assistants)

 

 

 

” Who rakes in a whopping $75 million? Who are the highest-paid TV stars? And how much can you make working in an agency mailroom? In its Money Issue, THR reveals how much people are earning now, from stars including Robert Downey Jr., Sandra Bullock, Katherine Heigl and the ‘Duck Dynasty’ clan to top agents including Ari Emanuel and Patrick Whitesell

FILM STAR
  How bad is the decline in actor salaries over the past decade? Despite the huge sums still being raked in by such superstars as Robert Downey Jr. (his $75 million comes from his 7 percent, first-dollar slice of Iron Man 3, as well as his $12 million HTC endorsement deal) and Sandra Bullock (a 15 percent, first-dollar deal on Gravity and about $10 million more for her summer hit The Heat), most actors are feeling a definite squeeze, especially those in the middle.

” If you’re [a big star], you’re getting well paid,” says one top agent, “but the middle level has been cut out.” Sometimes with a hacksaw. Leonardo DiCaprio made $25 million (including bonuses) for The Wolf of Wall Street, while co-star Jonah Hill got paid $60,000. Granted, that’s an extreme example — Hill offered to do the part for scale (and got an Oscar nomination for his trouble). “

 

 

 

    The Hollywood Reporter provides us with an in-depth look at who makes what in the entertainment industry from the top “stars” to the extras on the set , and everyone in between . Very much worth your time if you are sick of hearing from the celebrity asshats how we need to combat wage inequality …

    Of course the wages provided for the different types of employment in Hollyweird are a reflection of the free market in action but one wonders why , if the “invisible hand” is good enough for them , why isn’t it good enough for the rest of us .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government Workers Cost 45% More Than Private Sector Workers

 

 

 

 

” The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced on March 12th that the total cost of employing a state or local government worker is 45% more than an equivalent worker in the private sector. 

  For the month of December 2013, employers in private industry spent an average of $29.63 per employee hour worked, but the equivalent cost for a government worker averaged $42.89 per hour. Not only do government employees average 33% higher pay than those in the private sector, their pension and retirement benefit costs are now an incredible 254% higher also. Given that compensation formulas for federal, state, and local government are comparable, it should come as no surprise that this year spending by the U.S. government will exceed revenue by an all-time high of $744.2 billion, and our gross national debt is a stunning $18.5 trillion. ”

 

Read it and weep … or better yet get mad 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They’ll Turn Us All In To Beggars , ‘Cause They’re Easier To Please

 

 

 

” Yet as fewer labor hours go into producing goods, workers work longer to buy the goods. Using the hour as a measure of costs, we can calculate how much more work a wage earner must produce to buy milk today. But it’s harder to measure the reduction of work that goes into production. We know that it’s less by empirical evidence, but we only get a sense of it.

By switching to gold, we can measure both wages and prices on an absolute scale—in ounces—and we can make precise comparisons. To convert the price of anything to gold, just divide the price by the current gold price. For example, in 2011 if a big-screen TV was $785, then divide that by the gold price of that year; the television set cost half an ounce of gold.”

 

 

 

The bottom line is that, in terms of gold, wages have fallen by about 87 percent. To get a stronger sense of what that means, consider that back in 1965, the minimum wage was 71 ounces of gold per year. In 2011, the senior engineer earned the equivalent of 63 ounces in gold. So, measured in gold, we see that senior engineers now earn less than what unskilled laborers earned back in 1965.

That’s right: today’s highly skilled professional is making less in real, comparative terms than yesterday’s unskilled worker.”

 

 

 

” When measured in dollars, wages and prices appear to be rising and, comparing wages to prices, we see only a small loss of purchasing power. However, prices do not tell the whole story, because they reveal nothing about costs. Costs also fell and this explains why the apparent drop in the real wages seems small.

But measured in gold—and this is crucial to understanding why we need a gold standard—we see reality with clarity. Incomes are about one tenth what they were in the 60’s. ” 

 

 

HT/Instapundit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Does Immigration Impact Wages?

 

 

” Many Americans are curious about the impact of immigration on the wages of other Americans.  The best research on this focuses on the period between 1990 and 2006, when almost 17 million people immigrated to the U.S. lawfully and a net 12 million came unlawfully.  The first major study is by Borjas and Katz (B&K) and the second is by Ottaviano and Peri (O&P).  O&P borrowed much of B&K’s methodology.  Here are the long run findings:” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The “war” rages on . I’ve lost count but this must be about skirmish number 6 or 7 . Don’t the have any other arrows in their quiver ?

  “Democrats say their research shows women are paid just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men and that a law is needed to equalize those rates.
   But party lawmakers are not hiding the political motives behind the timing and scope of the bill, which follows a series of other female-focused measures rejected by the Republicans that the Democrats say
demonstrate that the GOP is waging a “war on women.” “