|
Mu Zeta posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/business/economy/amazon-workers-sears-bankruptcy-filing.html That does not support the claim made about "the average worker."
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Isn't a Sears retail job an average job? I guess the other dude could have a better source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Companies that are employee or privately owned are generally nicer to work at. I don’t think anyone is disputing that, but Sears was an outlier even by those standards. I used to work at Cox, which is still family owned and it was a great experience. If you look at those annual lists of best companies to work for, the top 10 is full of rich tech companies or privately held and family run businesses. The 10 worst companies are all publicly traded except for Dillards, which is family run, but a hellscape to work for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Isn't a Sears retail job an average job? No. It wasn't even an average retail job. (Aside: How do you even define an "average job" let alone "the average worker"? Average salary? Average hourly wage? Average hours worked? Average length of employment?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Those poor boomers, only able to afford to feed and clothe a family of five on a single 40/hr a week income while getting free retirement benefits from their company. Why won't someone feel for their plight?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Isn't a Sears retail job an average job? I guess the other dude could have a better source. Don’t reply to Phanantic, he isn’t interest in discussing poo poo. Sears retail is certainly an average job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Don’t reply to Phanantic, he isn’t interest in discussing poo poo. He is correct in that Sears used to be a much better company than it is now. To try and suggest that 'sales guy at Sears' was ever more than 'a nice, but averge paying job' is ridiculous and they both know it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Don’t reply to Phanantic, he isn’t interest in discussing poo poo. There were about 82,000,000 people employed in 1975. About 10% of those were retail employees. That's real data from the BLS, you can go look it up yourself. Retail sales was not "the average job" in 1975.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:He is correct in that Sears used to be a much better company than it is now. To try and suggest that 'sales guy at Sears' was ever more than 'a nice, but averge paying job' is ridiculous and they both know it. Yeah I mean imagine arguing at any point a retail job is not average. It may be better than modern retail jobs but that says more about now than then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There were about 82,000,000 people employed in 1975. About 10% of those were retail employees. That's real data from the BLS, you can go look it up yourself. Retail sales was not "the average job" in 1975. ahahahaha 'retail jobs were not 50+% of the available job market, beep boop not average per the statistical definition of average'. You're incredibly bad at this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:ahahahaha 'retail jobs were not 50+% of the available job market, beep boop not average per the statistical definition of average'. "50+% of the population" is not how "average" is defined, statistically or otherwise. Are *you* able to provide support for the claim that an average worker in 1975 would have had a total compensation package worth more than twice what the average worker has today in equivalent dollars?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:"50+% of the population" is not how "average" is defined, statistically or otherwise. What argument were you trying to make when you said 10% of the job market were retail workers, so it didn't count as 'average'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
Who cares what percentage of the population worked retail, that has literally nothing to do with the argument in question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Welcome to what happens when you don't put Phanatic on ignore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:What argument were you trying to make when you said 10% of the job market were retail workers, so it didn't count as 'average'? That it was such a small proportion of the job sector that it isn't 'average' unless you're defining 'average' in some ridiculously vague way which you refuse to qualify, let alone quantify. This is simple: Can you support the claim that was made, that an average worker in 1975 would have had a total compensation package worth more than twice what the average worker has today in equivalent dollars, or are you not able to support it? How are you defining 'average worker'? Average hourly wage? Average yearly income? Duration of employment? Average workplace injury rate? What?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
Queen Combat posted:Welcome to what happens when you don't put Phanatic on ignore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
Queen Combat posted:Welcome to what happens when you don't put Phanatic on ignore. That mistake has been corrected. Sorry everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
I will say even for Phanatic this is an incredibly lazy argument. There are so many concern troll ways to go but intentionally misinterpreting the argument is the laziest route.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I will say even for Phanatic this is an incredibly lazy argument. There are so many concern troll ways to go but intentionally misinterpreting the argument is the laziest route. Again, how the heck is "average worker" even being defined? I asked for a cite because I don't know how to interpret the "average worker," and there's no way I can think of doing so that makes the claim that was made plausible. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 03:43 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
Not sure what sort of evidence you're after - cherrypicking individual data points is "how to lie with statistics" 101. Median real income is pretty flat. Median real income for people without a college degree is in the dumpster. I'm lazy and didn't bother to figure out the numbers for just non-office workers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
I mean it’s not like it matters, income now versus the 70s being massively different is a well proven fact so it’s not like it matters. Hell the original argument didn’t even dispute this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Not sure what sort of evidence you're after Since the claim made was "an average worker in 1975 would have had a total compensation package worth more than twice what the average worker has today in equivalent dollars," that evidence that would support that claim would consist of some definition of "average worker," coupled with data showing that that average worker would have had a compensation package in 1975 that's more than double what it is today, in inflation-adjusted dollars. quote:Median real income is pretty flat. Yes, it absolutely is, wages have been flat for a long time and have only recently started to increase significantly. If someone had said "median real income is pretty flat" then I wouldn't have said anything, because that's well-known. But saying that the average worker back then was compensated by *more than double* what he is today isn't saying "median real income is pretty flat," it's saying "median real income has fallen by more than half over the past 43 years," which is an altogether different and implausible claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
The cost of college alone is enough to place the 70s way way ahead of modern times. Slam out a degree that you pay off (sometimes in full) with a part time job. Get a great job, move wherever you want to go, and enjoy a cheap, spacious, and conveniently located home. Now you're forced to go where the job is and if its located somewhere like San Francisco, Seattle, New York, etc you better enjoy renting at exorbitant prices since you'll never get a home loan with those student debts. There's so many vectors and markets that were better back then that its loving absurd to argue otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:The cost of college alone is enough to place the 70s way way ahead of modern times. Slam out a degree that you pay off (sometimes in full) with a part time job. Get a great job, move wherever you want to go, and enjoy a cheap, spacious, and conveniently located home. Now you're forced to go where the job is and if its located somewhere like San Francisco, Seattle, New York, etc you better enjoy renting at exorbitant prices since you'll never get a home loan with those student debts. There's so many vectors and markets that were better back then that its loving absurd to argue otherwise. Yeah the tech boom actually destroyed a lot of costal cities and that didn’t become a thing until the 90s
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:There's so many vectors and markets that were better back then that its loving absurd to argue otherwise. You're 100% right about tuition, but even putting aside the number of markets that simply didn't exist in 1975, that statement you made right there is one that could only have been uttered by someone who never tried to find employment as a woman in 1975. Back then it was pretty much "Hope you like secretarial work" or wearing an apron.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You're 100% right about tuition, but even putting aside the number of markets that simply didn't exist in 1975, that statement you made right there is one that could only have been uttered by someone who never tried to find employment as a woman in 1975. Back then it was pretty much "Hope you like secretarial work" or wearing an apron. You're a concern troll who argues in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
The other problem is that we tend to hear from the loudest, smuggest, and most insufferable Boomers. There were plenty that scraped by and genuinely had to be frugal, but don't make a big deal about it. A lot of baby Boomers also paid for their kids' college education as well ; my mom paid for part of mine and my step-dad covered both his kids through grad school.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Companies that are employee or privately owned are generally nicer to work at. I don’t think anyone is disputing that, but Sears was an outlier even by those standards. Not sure if this is a troll but how do you get from "I had a great time working for cox" to "cox is one of the best companies to work for" to, somehow, "people today don't have it way worse than baby boomers" ESPECIALLY because Cox and all major cable companies rival fast food and banks for worst places to work for in terms of employee satisfaction, and in direct contrast to your claims, has been publicly traded since 1985 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-18-worst-companies-in-america-2010-11#12-cox-communications-7
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
I mean anyone that says privately owned companies are objectively better to work at has some......iffy opinions to be charitable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:My retirement plan is a shotgun. I'm gonna be homeless within the next month, what's a retirement plan?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:My retirement plan is a shotgun. My retirement plan is to die in the megastorms that will drown all the arable land in the country below the rising sea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
Drunk Nerds posted:Not sure if this is a troll but how do you get from "I had a great time working for cox" to "cox is one of the best companies to work for" to, somehow, "people today don't have it way worse than baby boomers" ESPECIALLY because Cox and all major cable companies rival fast food and banks for worst places to work for in terms of employee satisfaction, and in direct contrast to your claims, has been publicly traded since 1985 That list is hated companies, not companies that are bad to work for. All cable companies are hated. There was a definite difference in their corporate culture because they were privately owned and didn’t have to meet shareholder targets every quarter. I’m not sure where you get the idea that Cox is publicly traded. It’s a private company. CharlestheHammer posted:I mean anyone that says privately owned companies are objectively better to work at has some......iffy opinions to be charitable. In general they’re better. Employee owned operations seem to be better still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 11:56
|
|
|
I'm not going to argue with Phanatic, but the median real household income has remained rock-steady for the last 50 years while laborers per household, labor hours per week, and weekes worked per year have all risen. Combined with the record low number of Americans drawing benefits from their employers, the falling value of those benefits packages, and the fact that over half the country is on income-based assistance despite the requirements for that assistance not keeping up with inflation on average, the idea that the worst-off Boomer was anywhere near the average Millenial is pretty loving lol. Like, the more I look into it the more I'm convinced the margin works out to much, much greater than 2:1. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
I'd be willing to concede that they didn't have it "easy" but the things that were easy vs. difficult back then are not necessarily the same as they are now. For example, it was never necessarily easy to score high on your SATs and get into a 4-year college and graduate, but if you did, you had a huge advantage getting a job. This is no longer necessarily true, and the debt you incur may very well outweigh how much it helps you. But they still assume that's the golden ticket and reject any evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
Colleges took full advantage of this and jacked up tuition sky high since it's all being paid for with non-dischargeable loans to basically anyone who graduates high school, and now student loan debt is literally almost half of the US government's assets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Factory jobs were never meant to pay THAT much money or support 5 people on their own Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Plastik posted:the median real household income has remained rock-steady for the last 50 years while laborers per household, labor hours per week, and weeks worked per year have all risen. Combined with the record low number of Americans drawing benefits from their employers, the falling value of those benefits packages, and the fact that over half the country is on income-based assistance despite the requirements for that assistance not keeping up with inflation on average Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:That list is hated companies, not companies that are bad to work for. All cable companies are hated. You are right. It's glassdoor reviews are decent, and the company was taken private in 1985. I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
worst marketing move: not being a boomer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/18/right-coast-pizza-thanksgiving-smallpox-ad/
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:12
|
|