this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
1168 points (96.5% liked)

US Authoritarianism

702 readers
322 users here now

Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: [email protected]

founded 6 months ago
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 176 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Look up 'Hell's Angels" by Hunter Thompson.

There's a chapter in the book where he talks about the economics of being a biker/drop out/artist circa 1970.

A biker could work six months as a union stevedore and earn enough to stay on the road for two years. A part time waitress could make enough to support herself and her musician boyfriend.

Or, to put it another way, in 1960 minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the cost of the average home was $11,000.00. A burger flipper could get hired on high school graduation day and be a home owner in 20 years without ever getting a raise.

[–] [email protected] 98 points 5 months ago

That's the power of the New Deal coalition that ruled for 30 years.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (19 children)

You can still be a nomad at today's wages. I have a friend who works for a school year as a teacher, and then travels extensively for a couple of years. He lives like a nomad though, no fancy hotels or accommodations. That's what the Hell's Angels did back then too, in addition to plenty of additional illegal activities which provided them extra funding.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

And crime is sort of the only way.

And the only thing that makes sense? If there's a regime of ownership and social order that tells you "you get nothing. Work or die.", what do you even call someone who doesn't fight back?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 5 months ago (6 children)

My idea of becoming rich isn't a fancy mansion.... It's having enough for all of my essentials and having plenty left over...

Ya know, what used to be normal?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago

I hate that we consider that rich. Being able to have a normal home, food on table and a bit left over for rainy days shouldn't be considered rich, it should be the baseline for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

None of this is for you. This order, these laws.

So what kind of fucking idiot would stick to them?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I wish I could both afford to have health insurance and afford to go to the doctor. I can't even afford to get insurance on my car and the health insurance cost 20% of my income but has a $2,000 deductible? What the fuck?!

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

Deductibles should be illegal it's like "I have insurance, but not really"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

Edit: there is a huge caveat in my post which is I missed that these are household numbers, not individual numbers.

That would be amazing if it were true, but it's not. In 2022 the median income in USA was over $74k

Source: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html / https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/p60/279/tableA1.xlsx

Reminder that median means "half of the samples are above this point and half of the samples are below, which means exactly what was stated in the OP "half of America"

I fully support the ideas from OP that corporations need to pay people better and wages need to at least attempt to track economic gains, but we can send that message while telling the truth and citing our sources to prove that the message is legit.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

That's "Household income". Household income is the most useless and skewed statistic I can think of when it comes to equality and actual income per person.

In my mind rich people can afford to live in different homes. Poor people can not afford to do so. That means if 8 poor people who each make eg 10k a year share a household then their household earns 80k. Now if 8 less-poor people who each make eg 40k a year are split over four households then their households also make 80k each.

So now there's 4 households of 2 people each that make as much as 1 household of 8 people. Here statistically 100% of households make exactly 40k. Regardless 50% of those 16 people still make less than 35k a year.

In reality people inside one household have different incomes, which means even among the 4 slightly richer households in the example above some inhabitants would probably make less than 35k.

One question I have is how do household-statistics count people who have multiple houses? If a rich person owns 10 houses, then does it count as 10 households who earn >35k?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

People with multiple homes typically have one home that counts as their residency and those living in that house count as a household.

Other homes are secondary or recreational homes and are not counted to have residents.

Sometimes, rich people will claim to live in one home in a low income tax jurisdiction, while actually spending more time in a high income tax jurisdiction. This is tax fraud and the most recent famous case I can think of is Shakira.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

Fantastic points! I totally missed that household part of it and I agree that judging based off household is a really distorted view of individual financial position.

Do you have data on individual incomes?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (9 children)

Household income doesn't mean you and all your roommates. If you're single and you have 3 roommates, your household is still just you for the purpose of calculating household income. If two families share a house, then each respective family has their own household income.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The median net compensation for American workers in 2019 was $34,248.45, which is less than $35,000. So, the claim in the screenshot is apparently accurate for individuals. Granted, household income is a better indication of socioeconomic standing for people with spouses.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

/* Ignore my other comment if it’s not deleted for you yet *

This is specifically for combined household rate, which is different from individual earnings in that, well, it’s for two people and not a measure of how much the “average” American makes

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago (8 children)

It appears that the claim that half of Americans make under $35,000 is not accurate. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median personal income in the United States for 2022 was $40,480​ (FRED - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N)​. Additionally, data from DQYDJ shows that at the 40th percentile, income was approximately $58,001, suggesting that less than half of the population earns under $35,000​ (DQYDJ – Don't Quit Your Day Job - https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/)​.

Furthermore, the median household income was reported to be $74,580 in 2022, a figure that significantly exceeds the $35,000 threshold​ (Census.gov - https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html)​. This indicates that the median individual and household incomes in the U.S. are both higher than $35,000, disproving the initial claim.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Only 46% of the population are working. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2022/whos-not-working-in-the-us-learn-the-basics So technically, technically the quote is correct. The stat you are quoting is the median salary of someone working full-time is $58,001. So it leaves out all those people un and underemployed or who just gave up on joining the workforce. Idk where you got the 40,480 because your link just goes to a broken link. Millennials are also making less money are less likely to be married and have higher unemployment numbers than gen x so our numbers would be more screwed than the overall median which is what the original tweet was referencing when saying stop asking us about buying houses or having kids.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If the median household income is 75k, assuming dual-income, then that’s probably where the 35k comes from: 75k/2 = 37.5k.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

You're mixing measurements. Household != Individual.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago (6 children)

How the fuck is anyone alive?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

Dual income, no kids, live in a basement.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

Lots of roommates and/or a low cost of living location. Food and utilities are not much. Skip medical care, or just didn't pay for it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

Multi generational housing is back.

Also somehow that's true and a housing shortage is true at the same time.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

Parents filling in a lot of gaps

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago

Surprise! People with no money dont spend money on stuff :O

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm currently making $24K as a grad student. Ain't nobody asking me shit!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The social contract:

"You get nothing. Work or die. Sleep in the barracks/pod. Eat the bugs."

Which sounds... I dunno, why? If that's the deal I'm offered I have a few questions: why do I care about your laws, your social mores, even you saying you own shit, right?

And whenever I ask them, I get the shit beaten out of me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sanpedropeddler 21 points 5 months ago

Stupid poor people. Simply be born wealthy, its not that hard.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

“But if I pay my workers more, then I won’t get to have my third house and second yacht, and I’ll have to get rid of my secret second family. And think of the poor shareholders.”

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

Oh it's gotten way more overt than that. You're talking about plain old greed. Low wages are about power.

"If I pay my workers more they will have savings and that means they can quit if I treat them badly and they might open up a competing business."

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Shower thought: What if the journalists drawing attention to these problems are using twisted headlines to get the message past the same corporate masters? That the very voice of media is under the same yoke, struggling to get the word out?

Edit: So you change "Wage theft at all time high" to "Millennials claim fast food too expensive" to at least get people talking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

The figure referenced in this tweet is likely referring to the 2021 net compensation chart we saw making the rounds a few weeks back. Indeed, it's correct, ~50% of all Americans made less than 35k per year in net total compensation in 2021.

In 2022, that figure rose to ~40k. So the trend is going in the right direction, at least. And IIRC, the chart does include teenagers, college students, people working part time or underemployed, etc.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›