This is no coincidence. Much of the money flooding into the coffers of the top one in one thousand has come from corporate profits, which go higher as workers’ wages go lower. And low wages at the bottom of the heap put downward pressure on wages for people at the 10th and 20th percentiles, say, and on up. Median wages haven’t gone up much either, over the last few decades:
So keep this context in mind if you’re covering this issue. And find an actual worker or two to round out your story.
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
This is the best moment to be in journalism (25)
The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom (19)
Ben Mathis-Lilley’s defense of new media
Take off the nostalgia-tinted lenses
21 questions with David Remnick
What grammar mistake do you find most annoying?
Are you sure that question is grammatical?
After 20 years, the world has finally caught up with Daft Punk, so the helmet-clad retro-futurists are embarking on a new mission: to make music breathe again
What is the single most illuminating interview question to ask someone?
The NYT’s Jodi Kantor answers
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
"The Times reports on one push, which seems not to have much political backing, to raise the federal minimum wage to $9.80 an hour. That will surely not happen, particularly since the economy is not going to boom anytime soon and there’s already an excess supply of labor. "
If the minimum wage was raised by even one dollar, that would help out the 76 million hourly workers in the U.S. There are only about 3.6 million actually earning min wage, but everyone would tend to get a lift. Let's say it averaged 50 cents an hour overall. That would take $76 billion out of the corporate coffers (they are holding back a trillion) and these folks would spend it. Direct, job creating stimulus. It starts to solve the demand problem. Also, a lot of these people would need less government support (food stamps, etc), so government spending would go down.
Oh, but that would reduce the dividends for millionaire political donors. Never mind.
#1 Posted by Minor Heretic, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 09:16 AM
The other thing to keep in mind when reading about how much income the top 1% are capturing is how much that trend has accelerated in this recession/reeeeeccccooooveeerrryyyy (which is taking its time, no?).
Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery...It is likely that this uneven recovery has continued in 2011 as the stock market has continued to recover...This suggests that the Great Recession will only depress top income shares temporarily and will not undo any of the dramatic increase in top income shares that has taken place since the 1970s.
I blame the soshalists.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 12:13 PM
Yet another thing to remember is how "flexible" the American labor market is, and by flexible we mean tilted towards low wages, low benefits, and low job security.
The US leads the OECD in low wage jobs.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/low-wage-lessons
And the benefits accrued by this type of economy have gone to elites who are increasingly protected by their accumulation of power and therefore are increasingly corrupt and incompetent:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/04/11/inequality-accelerates-in-the-post-great-recession-recovery/
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 02:21 PM
All of which means idiots don't move on down (since they can threaten to take the nation down with them) and the lower tiers can't move on up.
When you have social immobility, it's your society that gets stuck.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 02:24 PM
Ryan notes: "The minimum wage peaked at $10.47 in inflation-adjusted terms in 1968, which is still higher than any minimum wage in the country. It’s worth noting that the unemployment rate was much lower back then too.
padikiller responds: Geez, you think? You think maybe when American made things and sold things that labor was worth more?
Let's deal with this millennium. They aren't hiring people to make AMC Matadors and RCA hi-fi's anymore.
Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 11:16 PM
And since we're going down the CJR/OWS "Gimme Other People's Money" road again...
The simple, undeniable FACT of the matter, is that according to the U.S. Census, for every ONE hour worked by an adult in the bottom 20% of American households (by income) an adult in the top 20% of American household works nearly TWELVE hours!
That's right, people.. The "rich" are putting in a dozen times more work hours than the "poor"...
More work, more money! What a concept? Whodathunkit?
The solution to our national malaise is to require people to do more work. Not by force of government, but by simply demanding that they take care of themselves if they are capable of working. Work or go hungry. Their choice.
Banging drums and smoking dope doesn't create wealth. Running the cash till at Duane Reade does create wealth.
The trouble is that Americans aren't working hard enough. PERIOD. We are borrowing money (the labor of others) to dole out Snickers bars to obese food stamp recipients and to dole out money to pay people to remain unemployed.
Individual liberty and gubmint dependence for the necessities of life are mutually incompatible ideals.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 11:37 PM
Very good piece. I have one issue, though. You fall into the trap of using the term "elites" in your criticism of the NY Times. This is lazy language most used in political terms by the pundit class.
#7 Posted by Eclectic Obsvr, CJR on Mon 16 Apr 2012 at 12:47 PM
As I wrote earlier...
Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 16 Apr 2012 at 01:29 PM
Sounds like Padi had his daily sean hannity without the crisco again.
#9 Posted by sergio, CJR on Thu 19 Apr 2012 at 03:04 AM