1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reich: Higher Wages Aren't Coming Back, and Here's Why

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Riptide, Jan 15, 2015.

  1. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Re: Australia vis-a-vis the U.S. ...

    They have a very, very different retirement system down under. There, it is not a pay-as-you-go system like Social Security. Rather, it is becoming (the transition has been underway for a while) a full-blown privatized system, in which workers have a substantial portion of their compensation set aside and invested.

    I'm sure if you incorporated an estimate of the present value of expected Social Security benefits, U.S. median net worth would be a helluva lot higher. For example, at a 2% discount rate, 10 years of $1,ooo-a-month SS checks has a present value of a little more than $100,000. Thus, someone at retirement age in the U.S. with a financial net worth of, say, $50,000 has a practical net worth that's much higher.
     
  2. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Yet still not 4-5 times higher at the median like the Australians.
     
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The regulatory environment is a little better in Australia than it is in the U.S. As it is in a lot of places around the world. Taxes may be a bit higher in Australia (even factoring all the local U.S. taxes), but even so I believe Steve Wozniak packed up and moved to Australia and wants to be a citizen.

    But any suggestion that the standard of living in Australia is better than it is in the U.S. is ridiculous. Australia is a rich country when put in the context of the globe -- so like the U.S., people enjoy a standard of living that would be the envy of most the world. But compared to the U.S.? The cost of living is more expensive in Australia -- you name it. Food, property, etc. Per capita income is lower. The only major expenditure that is cheaper in Australia is health care (there is not nearly as much cutting edge treatment in Australia). If it is income disparity that you are worried about, Australia has the same problems the U.S. does. It isn't the land of milk and honey for A LOT of people -- particularly aboriginales.

    The one thing that Australia has going for it in a big way that the U.S. doesn't is that it has a commodities-driven economy, and I think that bodes very well for the next decade plus. I'd actually be bullish on Australia, in general. When we emerge from the mess created over the last several decades, and we don't have a global economy being driven by financial engineering, anyone who actually has tangible, raw materials (not useless services) is going to be in the drivers seat.

    But the bottom line on Australia. ... if you think the typical Australian enjoys a better standard of living than the typical American, you are just not in tune with reality. America is a much wealthier nation. The typical person in America is much wealthier. The typical American worker is much more productive. Suggesting otherwise, is living in a google search to try to make a convuluted argument that defies the reality people actually are living.
     
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Low gas prices are playing a big part in the current economic uptick.

    And, they're leading to the highest levels of consumer confidence in years:

    The surge in U.S. household confidence propelled by a strengthening job market and lower fuel costs improves the odds that gains in spending will soon follow.

    Consumer Sentiment in U.S. Surges to 11-Year High - Bloomberg


    So, what do folks want to do? Raise the gas tax naturally.

    Proposals to raise the federal gas tax:

    Sen. Chris Murphy, in partnership with Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, has renewed a push to raise the federal gasoline tax — a move to shore up a transportation fund that will soon run out of money, threatening road and bridge projects in Connecticut and elsewhere across the nation.

    The federal Highway Trust Fund was propped up last summer through temporary funding set to expire in May. About half of the trust fund's money comes from a federal gas tax, now about 18.4 cents a gallon, that hasn't been increased since 1993. Since then Americans are driving less and cars are more fuel efficient, while the cost of building roads and highways has gone up.

    Murphy's proposed fix is to raise the tax 12 cents a gallon over two years.

    Murphy presses again for gasoline tax hike to shore up highway fund - Hartford Courant


    And:

    Three months ago, gas taxes were untouchable. Now, with oil prices down, they’re having a moment. Public voices ranging from Larry Summers to Charles Krauthammer are calling for hikes. (Summers argues for a carbon tax; Krauthammer says the tax should be raised “a lot.”)


    More important, serious lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have gotten in on the game. The general thrust of the arguments on offer is that with oil prices falling, it’s now possible to raise the gas tax and still leave consumers better off than they were half a year ago.

    http://www.newsweek.com/raise-gas-tax-now-299150


    And at the state level:

    "The states have shown that they are more likely to act on the gas tax than the federal government is," said Carl Davis, a senior policy analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research group in Washington. "The states have to balance their budgets. If they see, their roads are in bad shape or their bridges are literally falling down—in some cases—they need to come up with a way to pay to improve that. And there's a limited number of things you can do at the state level."

    The increased chatter in state capitals about raising fuel taxes comes after eight states (Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming) have done just that over the last two years.

    South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard noted in his State of State speech on Tuesday that when South Dakota last raised its fuel tax 16 years ago, the price of gasoline hovered around $1 per gallon, and about 22% of that went toward state fuel tax. The average price for regular unleaded gas in South Dakota is $1.99 per gallon, and the national average is $2.08.

    States look at hiking gas tax as fuel prices plunge
     
  5. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Meh, maybe ... maybe not. Ragu's right, that sort of click-bait "reporting" can be so much b.s. My post was an attempt to point out that "median net worth" is way the hell more complicated than such stories suggest.
     
  6. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I guess I'm trying to figure out how this is news.

    Our job market has continually evolved since the founding of our nation. Who expects jobs that have "gone away" to come back?
     
  8. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member


    What point are you trying to make? Does the chart you posted show anything other than that we have lower gas taxes than other countries?

    So what?

    Our country is big. It grew, and spread in large part because of the car, and our highway system. We are dependent on cars.

    European cities came of age well before the car. It's a completely different way of life. And, while many romanticize it, I'm not sure how many Americans want to emulate it. Europeans live in small apartments, often without air conditioning. If they have cars, they are small.

    If you like that, fine. But, it's not what most Americans are looking for. We want big kitchens, great rooms, open floor plans, big en suite bathrooms with a bath tub, large back yards, etc.
     
  9. LanceyHoward

    LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

    According to OECD statistics in 2012 for median household income on a PPP basis the US was at $30,930. Australia was at $29,993.

    Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The OECD defined the poverty level as 50% of median income. Using this criteria in 2012 the Australians had a poverty rate of 13.8% and the Americans 17.4%. Part of this is due to the United States having a little higher median income but it does seem that that a smaller percentage of the population in Australia is below the poverty level.

    Income Distribution and Poverty : Poverty rate (50% median income), percentage
     
  10. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Australians have a government-funded "Age Pension" that provides people 65 and older with about $28,000 a year. It is means tested, however, and the age is soon going up to 67. On top of that, employers are required to pay 9.25 percent of employees salary into their version of a 401-K, called The Super. Employees may also contribute.

    Also, minimum wage is around $17 in Australia and let's also look at the UN's Human Development Index:

    Table 1: Human Development Index and its components | Human Development Reports

    Bottom line here is that the Australians want and have a far more egalitarian society than us.
     
  11. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Consumer prices are roughly 25 percent higher in Australia, so their per capita incomes should be 25 percent higher. Instead, they are slightly lower.
     
  12. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Which means diddly squat with respect to differences in median individual/household net worth between the two countries.

    You like/admire Australia? Knock yourself out.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page