44% of Fully Employed Americans earning $18,000 or less

[Gus Money]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics and serves as a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. The BLS is a governmental statistical agen…

en.wikipedia.org
(BLS), the median wage for workers in the United States in the first quarter of 2019 was $905 per week or $47,060 per year for a 40-hour workweek. Wages were 2.7% higher than on the same date for the previous year.



The gig economy greatly distorts the area of the economy they are trying to focus on, by including millions who aren't trying to earn a living.

This isn't really relevant. The thread is about research showing that nearly half of adult workers in the US are stuck in low-quality jobs making only about $18k per year. It's not about the total median numbers, which is ironic because if you focus only on the median without looking deeper then it's easier to be misleading (like you're doing here).

Also, to say that people working low-wage jobs "aren't trying to earn a living" doesn't make any sense. Why the hell else would people work these jobs? For fun?

Almost half of all Americans work in low-wage jobs

America's unemployment rate is at a half-century low, but it also has a job-quality problem that affects nearly half the population, with a study finding 44% of U.S. workers are employed in low-wage jobs that pay median annual wages of $18,000.

Contrary to popular opinion, these workers aren't teenagers or young adults just starting their careers, write Martha Ross and Nicole Bateman of the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, which conducted the analysis.

Most of the 53 million Americans working in low-wage jobs are adults in their prime working years, or between about 25 to 54, they noted. Their median hourly wage is $10.22 per hour — that's above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour but well below what's considered the living wage for many regions.

Even though the economy is adding more jobs, there's increasing evidence that many of those new positions don't offer the kind of wages and benefits required to get ahead. A new measure called the Job Quality Index recently found there is now a growing number of low-paying jobs relative to employment with above-average pay.

Low-wage jobs represent between one-third to two-thirds of all jobs in the country's almost 400 metropolitan areas, Brookings found. Smaller cities in the South and West tend to have the highest share, such as Las Cruces, New Mexico, and Jacksonville, North Carolina, where more than 60% of workers are low-wage.

Low-wage work is more pervasive than you think, and there aren’t enough “good jobs” to go around

As to the second question, a few data points show that for millions of workers, low-wage work is a primary source of financial support—which leaves these families economically vulnerable.

• Measured by poverty status: 30% of low-wage workers (16 million people) live in families earning below 150% of the poverty line. These workers get by on very low incomes: about $30,000 for a family of three and $36,000 for a family of four.
• Measured by the presence or absence of other earners: 26% of low-wage workers (14 million people) are the only earners in their families, getting by on median annual earnings of about $20,000. Another 25% (13 million people) live in families in which all workers earn low wages, with median family earnings of about $42,000. These 27 million low-wage workers rely on their earnings to provide for themselves and their families, as they are either the family’s primary earner or a substantial contributor to total earnings. Their earnings are unlikely to represent “nice to have” supplemental income.

A significant number of American workers are stuck with low-paying jobs as their only source of income. That's the point, not the median income numbers of some alternate reality where gig economy workers aren't "trying to make a living."

Disagreeing with this piece = not caring about poor people? Alright.

Well, you specifically are disagreeing based on a dishonest/misleading argument about the overall median when that's not the topic. You're also the number one cheerleader for the GOP whenever they try to cut Medicaid and social services programs, so yea I'd say you generally don't care about poor people.

 

[PoorAndDangerous]

yeah but the stock market is doing great

 

[DEAD7]

This isn't really relevant. The thread is about research showing that nearly half of adult workers in the US are stuck in low-quality jobs making only about $18k per year. It's not about the total median numbers, which is ironic because if you focus only on the median without looking deeper then it's easier to be misleading (like you're doing here).

"Inside of those unemployment numbers is a stark reality, that 44% of American workers live or get less than $18,000 a year, more or less."
This quote from the transcript is misleading and I believe its sole purpose to illicit an emotional response from libs and shyt on Trumps employment numbers.
I also see no link to said study, but you obviously have it if you know its only counting adults working 32+ hours a week(earning a living).

Well, you specifically are disagreeing based on a dishonest/misleading argument about the overall median when that's not the topic. You're also the number one cheerleader for the GOP whenever they try to cut Medicaid and social services programs, so yea I'd say you generally don't care about poor people.

Disagreeing with how we should address [insert problem or demographic] doesn't = not caring about said problem/demographic.






I'm not disputing low, stagnate wages or anything like that. I just believe the source in the Op is intentionally misleading and simply telling people what they want to hear, instead of what they need to hear.

 

[Gus Money]

"Inside of those unemployment numbers is a stark reality, that 44% of American workers live or get less than $18,000 a year, more or less."
This quote from the transcript is misleading and I believe its sole purpose to illicit an emotional response from libs and shyt on Trumps employment numbers.
I also see no link to said study, but you obviously have it if you know its only counting adults working 32+ hours a week(earning a living).





Disagreeing with how we should address [insert problem or demographic] doesn't = not caring about said problem/demographic.






I'm not disputing low, stagnate wages or anything like that. I just believe the source in the Op is intentionally misleading and simply telling people what they want to hear, instead of what they need to hear.

You keep repeating yourself but it's not misleading. It's misleading when you only focus on overall stats to prop up your boy Trump without actually looking deeper and seeing that many of these jobs being added are shyt. People working gig economy jobs and fast food jobs are doing that because they have no other choice, and this study highlights that. You're a GOP guy so of course you're worried about propping up Trump's numbers. Miss me with that emotional response nonsense.

I added the link to the study in my response so I'm not sure how you missed it: Low-wage work is more pervasive than you think, and there aren’t enough “good jobs” to go around

Disagreeing is one thing, being happy about people losing their Medicaid/SNAP benefits is another (which is something you've done in the past). If someone is happy about Medicaid cuts then it's reasonable to assume they don't care about the people being impacted

I know what you believe, you're just wrong. People need to look deeper and hear how unfair all of this shyt is instead of looking at the surface numbers that your people love to prop up.

 

[DEAD7]

You keep repeating yourself but it's not misleading.
I added the link to the study in my response so I'm not sure how you missed it: Low-wage work is more pervasive than you think, and there aren’t enough “good jobs” to go around


I know what you believe, you're just wrong. People need to look deeper and hear how unfair all of this shyt is instead of looking at the surface numbers that your people love to prop up.

Just read the report
44% of fully employed workers did not earn less than $18,000... $18,000 is the median income for low wage workers who make up 44% of all workers(age 18-64) in this study...
...and only half of them worked the full year.

I maintain the thread title, and link in the op are misleading, actually their just outright false, that's not what's being said at all.
We can agree to disagree...Disturbing numbers either way.
Thanks for the link.

 

[DEAD7]

To be clear, I don't think it's saying that 44% of workers earn $18,000 or less. It's saying that 44% of workers are low-wage, and the median for those 44% is $18,000.

So $18,000 is the middle for that group, not the cap.

Still incredible.

Just realized this post pointed out how the thread was misleading on page 2
I guess nikkas just HATE hearing it from me.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Just realized this post pointed out how the thread was misleading on page 2
I guess nikkas just HATE hearing it from me.

Breh, you posted that literally just 2 minutes before immediately complaining that no one likes hearing it from you.

No one even responded to you yet and you're complaining about the responses.

 

[Oville]

"Inside of those unemployment numbers is a stark reality, that 44% of American workers live or get less than $18,000 a year, more or less."
This quote from the transcript is misleading and I believe its sole purpose to illicit an emotional response from libs and shyt on Trumps employment numbers.
I also see no link to said study, but you obviously have it if you know its only counting adults working 32+ hours a week(earning a living).





Disagreeing with how we should address [insert problem or demographic] doesn't = not caring about said problem/demographic.






I'm not disputing low, stagnate wages or anything like that. I just believe the source in the Op is intentionally misleading and simply telling people what they want to hear, instead of what they need to hear.

The link is in the article

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Does this include commission or bonuses?
I know a guy that makes a base of 19k but clocks about 110k after commission n bonus.

I dont know, asking

 

[Oville]

Just read the report
44% of fully employed workers did not earn less than $18,000... $18,000 is the median income for low wage workers who make up 44% of all workers(age 18-64) in this study...
...and only half of them worked the full year.

I maintain the thread title, and link in the op are misleading, actually their just outright false, that's not what's being said at all.
We can agree to disagree...Disturbing numbers either way.
Thanks for the link.

The fact that only half of them worked the full year though is a reflection of the instability of the gig economy the article talks about. Also 44% of people earning a median income of $18,000 ain't nothing to sneeze at since its pretty close to the federal poverty line. That stat woulda been alarming had it been 25,000 or 35,000 a year. I know different states have different costs of living but still.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

It's hard out there. America is no exception

Are You in the Top 1 Percent of the World?

• An income of $32,400 per year would allow someone to be among the top 1% of income earners in the world.

• To reach the top 1% worldwide in terms of wealth—not just income but all you own—you’d have to possess $770,000 in net worth.

• The bar to enter the top 1% wouldn't be this low were it not for the extreme poverty that so much of the globe endures.

wow. i know our poverty level is relative, but i wouldn't have thought the world's 1% started at $32k

Right.

So, if I'm making 20K in NYC, what does it matter how much further my dollar would go in small town USA or Mexico? Are you advocating for relocation to areas with lower cost living at the expense of quality of life and earning potential?

the point is, someone making $32k in the US is not living a 1% life. sure, if they moved to a war torn, impoverished country, they might actually live like the 1% they statistically are, but unfortunately they live in america and are struggling.

it's not about telling people to move, it's about not using that stat in some poverty olympics shaming -"you're in the US's bottom 20% but india's bottom 20% is so much worse"...don't matter, neither is living well relative to the [upper] middle class/wealthy in their country

 

[rapbeats]

Sanders is ranting, Warren is telling you exactly how shes going to do it

i would call this statement dumb. but that would be me giving you a pass for lying on old man Bern. stop the lies. he's given you just as many and more specifics on how it will get done vs what warren has done.

dont be fooled by the tag line "i have a plan for that" to mean she has everything spelled out for every single plan. she doesnt. some of her reasoning is we'll get together around a table and talk about it. thats not a well thought out position. thats kicking the can down the road for later. now there are times you need to brainstorm about things. thats obvious. but lets be clear to the fact that aint no type of get it done answer.

lol at someone talking bad on the guy that pushed shady amazon and walmart to pay their workers more money per hour. did liz do that? NO. so stop that lying. Bernie is the epitome of economic street cred among the people. because he's been there and done that.

 

[FAH1223]

I’m making $70k with a health plan with no deductible and basically free parking In DC

Despite the crazy stuff at work stuff like this makes me grateful and humble

 

[TELL ME YA CHEESIN FAM?]

Yo I haven't seen this smiley being used in a minute

 

[Serious]

Yo I haven't seen this smiley being used in a minute

he uses it all the time though