U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
It's not always great to be number one.
Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
Schmitt.
Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
other than the paltry pay.
The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:55:08 -0700 (PDT), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
>It's not always great to be number one.
>Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
>toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
>Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
>originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
>economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
>One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
>the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
>the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
>its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
>earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
>The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
>since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
>educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
>some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
>percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
>Schmitt.
>Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
>position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
>growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
>spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
>people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
>jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
>other than the paltry pay.
>The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
>to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
>person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
>roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
> U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> It's not always great to be number one.
> Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
> the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
> its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
> earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
> The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
> since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
> educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
> some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
> percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
> Schmitt.
> Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
> position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
> growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
> spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
> people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
> jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
> other than the paltry pay.
> The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
> to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
> person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
> roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
Interesting statistic; one in four US workers (20%) earn 66% or less
than the median US wage.
Belgium is illustrated as being the best because it has only 4% of its
workers making less than 66% of the median BELGIUM wage.
HOWEVER, when you compare US median to Belgium median[1][2][3], you
find that 50% of Belgium households make 69.2%, or less than the US
median household income.
The most interesting is Italy. The OECD claims that Italy is also a
good country because only 8% of its workers earn less than 66% of the
ITALIAN median wage. HOWEVER, 50% of Italian households make less
than 54% of the US median (for the math challenged, that means that
over 50% of Italian households earn less than what the OECD defines as
low wage US jobs).
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:55:08 PM UTC-5, wy wrote:
> U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> It's not always great to be number one.
> Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> the OECD.
That's not nearly enough, according to Republicans.
> > U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> > It's not always great to be number one.
> > Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> > toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> > Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> > originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> > economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> > One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> > the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
> > the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
> > its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
> > earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
> > The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
> > since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
> > educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
> > some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
> > percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
> > Schmitt.
> > Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
> > position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
> > growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
> > spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
> > people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
> > jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
> > other than the paltry pay.
> > The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
> > to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
> > person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
> > roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
> Interesting statistic; one in four US workers (20%) earn 66% or less
> than the median US wage.
> Belgium is illustrated as being the best because it has only 4% of its
> workers making less than 66% of the median BELGIUM wage.
> HOWEVER, when you compare US median to Belgium median[1][2][3], you
> find that 50% of Belgium households make 69.2%, or less than the US
> median household income.
Irrelevant statistic since there aren't anywhere near as many filthy
rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures. Take anyone making over
a million out of the equation on both sides and then see what they
earn vs US income among the the regular 90% folk. Those would be the
real world figures and my guess would be that Belgians probably make
just as much, if not more, than Americans.
> The most interesting is Italy. The OECD claims that Italy is also a
> good country because only 8% of its workers earn less than 66% of the
> ITALIAN median wage. HOWEVER, 50% of Italian households make less
> than 54% of the US median (for the math challenged, that means that
> over 50% of Italian households earn less than what the OECD defines as
> low wage US jobs).
Again, the rich skew the figures to favor your biased and skewed view
of things. Stick to every day reality of real wage earners.
> On Apr 26, 11:17 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 8:55 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> > > It's not always great to be number one.
> > > Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> > > toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> > > Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> > > originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> > > economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> > > One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> > > the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
> > > the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
> > > its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
> > > earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
> > > The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
> > > since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
> > > educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
> > > some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
> > > percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
> > > Schmitt.
> > > Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
> > > position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
> > > growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
> > > spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
> > > people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
> > > jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
> > > other than the paltry pay.
> > > The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
> > > to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
> > > person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
> > > roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
> > Interesting statistic; one in four US workers (20%) earn 66% or less
> > than the median US wage.
> > Belgium is illustrated as being the best because it has only 4% of its
> > workers making less than 66% of the median BELGIUM wage.
> > HOWEVER, when you compare US median to Belgium median[1][2][3], you
> > find that 50% of Belgium households make 69.2%, or less than the US
> > median household income.
> Irrelevant statistic since there aren't anywhere near as many filthy
> rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures. Take anyone making over
> a million out of the equation on both sides and then see what they
> earn vs US income among the the regular 90% folk. Those would be the
> real world figures and my guess would be that Belgians probably make
> just as much, if not more, than Americans.
> > The most interesting is Italy. The OECD claims that Italy is also a
> > good country because only 8% of its workers earn less than 66% of the
> > ITALIAN median wage. HOWEVER, 50% of Italian households make less
> > than 54% of the US median (for the math challenged, that means that
> > over 50% of Italian households earn less than what the OECD defines as
> > low wage US jobs).
> Again, the rich skew the figures to favor your biased and skewed view
> of things. Stick to every day reality of real wage earners.
Sorry, but you once again illustrate that you didn't study about the
difference between mean and median. Your comment would have merit if
the figures were mean averages, but the OECD used median.
"The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better
indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically
affected by unusually high or low values." [1] For example, presume
that you are a member of a club of 10 people. Seven (70%) have an
income of $30,000 each and the other three (30%) make $1 million
each. The mean is $321,000, BUT the median is $30,000.
I use data that is backed up the the same OECD that you reference;
you use vague generalizations such as, "anywhere near as many", "then
see what they earn","Those would be the real world figures", "my
guess", "probably, "just as much, if not more".
> > > > U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> > > > It's not always great to be number one.
> > > > Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> > > > toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> > > > Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> > > > originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> > > > economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> > > > One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> > > > the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
> > > > the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
> > > > its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
> > > > earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
> > > > The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
> > > > since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
> > > > educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
> > > > some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
> > > > percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
> > > > Schmitt.
> > > > Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
> > > > position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
> > > > growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
> > > > spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
> > > > people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
> > > > jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
> > > > other than the paltry pay.
> > > > The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
> > > > to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
> > > > person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
> > > > roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
> > > Interesting statistic; one in four US workers (20%) earn 66% or less
> > > than the median US wage.
> > > Belgium is illustrated as being the best because it has only 4% of its
> > > workers making less than 66% of the median BELGIUM wage.
> > > HOWEVER, when you compare US median to Belgium median[1][2][3], you
> > > find that 50% of Belgium households make 69.2%, or less than the US
> > > median household income.
> > Irrelevant statistic since there aren't anywhere near as many filthy
> > rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures. Take anyone making over
> > a million out of the equation on both sides and then see what they
> > earn vs US income among the the regular 90% folk. Those would be the
> > real world figures and my guess would be that Belgians probably make
> > just as much, if not more, than Americans.
> > > The most interesting is Italy. The OECD claims that Italy is also a
> > > good country because only 8% of its workers earn less than 66% of the
> > > ITALIAN median wage. HOWEVER, 50% of Italian households make less
> > > than 54% of the US median (for the math challenged, that means that
> > > over 50% of Italian households earn less than what the OECD defines as
> > > low wage US jobs).
> > Again, the rich skew the figures to favor your biased and skewed view
> > of things. Stick to every day reality of real wage earners.
> Sorry, but you once again illustrate that you didn't study about the
> difference between mean and median. Your comment would have merit if
> the figures were mean averages, but the OECD used median.
> "The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better
> indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically
> affected by unusually high or low values." [1] For example, presume
> that you are a member of a club of 10 people. Seven (70%) have an
> income of $30,000 each and the other three (30%) make $1 million
> each. The mean is $321,000, BUT the median is $30,000.
> I use data that is backed up the the same OECD that you reference;
> you use vague generalizations such as, "anywhere near as many", "then
> see what they earn","Those would be the real world figures", "my
> guess", "probably, "just as much, if not more".
Earnings of the wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance in mean
or median or average or anything you want to call it earnings, since
those earnings represent only 1/10th of the population at most, with
1/10th of that representing the bulk of that 10% wealth, and they
belong to people who really have nothing to worry about in terms of
day-to-day living the way the other 90% do. The real world wealth of
a population lies in the majority of people who actually work for a
living, rather than rely on capital gains for steady income while
cruising the Mediterranean, and have to deal with endless bills with
dread rather than mindlessly pay them off as if they were tips for
waiters and cab drivers. You're obsessed with numbers, so do the
math. Subtract the wealthy from the equation and then see how much
people really make among the 90%. I don't have to do the math to know
the obvious - that the mean/median/average/whatever will be far less
as a result and compare even worse to Belgium when you subtract their
wealthy from the equation as well.
> > > > > U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> > > > > It's not always great to be number one.
> > > > > Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> > > > > toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> > > > > Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> > > > > originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> > > > > economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> > > > > One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> > > > > the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
> > > > > the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
> > > > > its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
> > > > > earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
> > > > > The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
> > > > > since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
> > > > > educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
> > > > > some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
> > > > > percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
> > > > > Schmitt.
> > > > > Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
> > > > > position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
> > > > > growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
> > > > > spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
> > > > > people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
> > > > > jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
> > > > > other than the paltry pay.
> > > > > The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
> > > > > to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
> > > > > person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
> > > > > roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
> > > > Interesting statistic; one in four US workers (20%) earn 66% or less
> > > > than the median US wage.
> > > > Belgium is illustrated as being the best because it has only 4% of its
> > > > workers making less than 66% of the median BELGIUM wage.
> > > > HOWEVER, when you compare US median to Belgium median[1][2][3], you
> > > > find that 50% of Belgium households make 69.2%, or less than the US
> > > > median household income.
> > > Irrelevant statistic since there aren't anywhere near as many filthy
> > > rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures. Take anyone making over
> > > a million out of the equation on both sides and then see what they
> > > earn vs US income among the the regular 90% folk. Those would be the
> > > real world figures and my guess would be that Belgians probably make
> > > just as much, if not more, than Americans.
> > > > The most interesting is Italy. The OECD claims that Italy is also a
> > > > good country because only 8% of its workers earn less than 66% of the
> > > > ITALIAN median wage. HOWEVER, 50% of Italian households make less
> > > > than 54% of the US median (for the math challenged, that means that
> > > > over 50% of Italian households earn less than what the OECD defines as
> > > > low wage US jobs).
> > > Again, the rich skew the figures to favor your biased and skewed view
> > > of things. Stick to every day reality of real wage earners.
> > Sorry, but you once again illustrate that you didn't study about the
> > difference between mean and median. Your comment would have merit if
> > the figures were mean averages, but the OECD used median.
> > "The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better
> > indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically
> > affected by unusually high or low values." [1] For example, presume
> > that you are a member of a club of 10 people. Seven (70%) have an
> > income of $30,000 each and the other three (30%) make $1 million
> > each. The mean is $321,000, BUT the median is $30,000.
> > I use data that is backed up the the same OECD that you reference;
> > you use vague generalizations such as, "anywhere near as many", "then
> > see what they earn","Those would be the real world figures", "my
> > guess", "probably, "just as much, if not more".
> Earnings of the wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance in mean
> or median or average or anything you want to call it earnings, since
> those earnings represent only 1/10th of the population at most, with
> 1/10th of that representing the bulk of that 10% wealth, and they
> belong to people who really have nothing to worry about in terms of
> day-to-day living the way the other 90% do. The real world wealth of
> a population lies in the majority of people who actually work for a
> living, rather than rely on capital gains for steady income while
> cruising the Mediterranean, and have to deal with endless bills with
> dread rather than mindlessly pay them off as if they were tips for
> waiters and cab drivers. You're obsessed with numbers, so do the
> math. Subtract the wealthy from the equation and then see how much
> people really make among the 90%. I don't have to do the math to know
> the obvious - that the mean/median/average/whatever will be far less
> as a result and compare even worse to Belgium when you subtract their
> wealthy from the equation as well.
You continue to make statements about math when you are mathematically
illiterate. You claim "wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance
in mean or median" AFTER I provided a US Census statement the states
that they use the median because the wealthy has a large effect on the
mean, but NOT the median.
Let's take our club of 10 people:
1. In one club, all 10 members make $30,000 each; the median is
$30,000
2. The next club has 90% making $30,000 each and the top 10% make one
gazillion dollars each; the median is still $30,000.
NOW, you asked me to "Subtract the wealthy from the equation". If I
subtracted the top 10% from each club, the median would still be
$30,000.
If we subtract the million dollar households from the US and Belgium,
there would be no difference. You claimed that "anywhere near as many
filthy rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures" BUT the number of
US millionaire households are 4.0%; Belgium is right behind the US
with 3.5%.
> > > > > > U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> > > > > > It's not always great to be number one.
> > > > > > Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> > > > > > toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> > > > > > Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> > > > > > originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> > > > > > economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> > > > > > One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> > > > > > the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
> > > > > > the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
> > > > > > its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
> > > > > > earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
> > > > > > The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
> > > > > > since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
> > > > > > educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
> > > > > > some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
> > > > > > percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
> > > > > > Schmitt.
> > > > > > Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
> > > > > > position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
> > > > > > growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
> > > > > > spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
> > > > > > people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
> > > > > > jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
> > > > > > other than the paltry pay.
> > > > > > The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
> > > > > > to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
> > > > > > person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
> > > > > > roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
> > > > > Interesting statistic; one in four US workers (20%) earn 66% or less
> > > > > than the median US wage.
> > > > > Belgium is illustrated as being the best because it has only 4% of its
> > > > > workers making less than 66% of the median BELGIUM wage.
> > > > > HOWEVER, when you compare US median to Belgium median[1][2][3], you
> > > > > find that 50% of Belgium households make 69.2%, or less than the US
> > > > > median household income.
> > > > Irrelevant statistic since there aren't anywhere near as many filthy
> > > > rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures. Take anyone making over
> > > > a million out of the equation on both sides and then see what they
> > > > earn vs US income among the the regular 90% folk. Those would be the
> > > > real world figures and my guess would be that Belgians probably make
> > > > just as much, if not more, than Americans.
> > > > > The most interesting is Italy. The OECD claims that Italy is also a
> > > > > good country because only 8% of its workers earn less than 66% of the
> > > > > ITALIAN median wage. HOWEVER, 50% of Italian households make less
> > > > > than 54% of the US median (for the math challenged, that means that
> > > > > over 50% of Italian households earn less than what the OECD defines as
> > > > > low wage US jobs).
> > > > Again, the rich skew the figures to favor your biased and skewed view
> > > > of things. Stick to every day reality of real wage earners.
> > > Sorry, but you once again illustrate that you didn't study about the
> > > difference between mean and median. Your comment would have merit if
> > > the figures were mean averages, but the OECD used median.
> > > "The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better
> > > indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically
> > > affected by unusually high or low values." [1] For example, presume
> > > that you are a member of a club of 10 people. Seven (70%) have an
> > > income of $30,000 each and the other three (30%) make $1 million
> > > each. The mean is $321,000, BUT the median is $30,000.
> > > I use data that is backed up the the same OECD that you reference;
> > > you use vague generalizations such as, "anywhere near as many", "then
> > > see what they earn","Those would be the real world figures", "my
> > > guess", "probably, "just as much, if not more".
> > Earnings of the wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance in mean
> > or median or average or anything you want to call it earnings, since
> > those earnings represent only 1/10th of the population at most, with
> > 1/10th of that representing the bulk of that 10% wealth, and they
> > belong to people who really have nothing to worry about in terms of
> > day-to-day living the way the other 90% do. The real world wealth of
> > a population lies in the majority of people who actually work for a
> > living, rather than rely on capital gains for steady income while
> > cruising the Mediterranean, and have to deal with endless bills with
> > dread rather than mindlessly pay them off as if they were tips for
> > waiters and cab drivers. You're obsessed with numbers, so do the
> > math. Subtract the wealthy from the equation and then see how much
> > people really make among the 90%. I don't have to do the math to know
> > the obvious - that the mean/median/average/whatever will be far less
> > as a result and compare even worse to Belgium when you subtract their
> > wealthy from the equation as well.
> You continue to make statements about math when you are mathematically
> illiterate. You claim "wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance
> in mean or median" AFTER I provided a US Census statement the states
> that they use the median because the wealthy has a large effect on the
> mean, but NOT the median.
> Let's take our club of 10 people:
> 1. In one club, all 10 members make $30,000 each; the median is
> $30,000
> 2. The next club has 90% making $30,000 each and the top 10% make one
> gazillion dollars each; the median is still $30,000.
That's too easy for you to do. Let's make it harder. The 10 salaries
break down as such:
Now for the very rich:
$1,000,000
$10,000,000,000,000
That there is more real world-like. And the median is in both cases?
> NOW, you asked me to "Subtract the wealthy from the equation". If I
> subtracted the top 10% from each club, the median would still be
> $30,000.
> If we subtract the million dollar households from the US and Belgium,
> there would be no difference. You claimed that "anywhere near as many
> filthy rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures" BUT the number of
> US millionaire households are 4.0%; Belgium is right behind the US
> with 3.5%.
The article I posted didn't talk about households, it talked about
workers' salaries. I keep telling you to get the control freak out of
yourself and stop turning the discussion into what you want it to be
and stick to what it's really about.
> > > > > > > U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> > > > > > > It's not always great to be number one.
> > > > > > > Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> > > > > > > toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> > > > > > > Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> > > > > > > originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> > > > > > > economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> > > > > > > One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> > > > > > > the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
> > > > > > > the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
> > > > > > > its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
> > > > > > > earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
> > > > > > > The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
> > > > > > > since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
> > > > > > > educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
> > > > > > > some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
> > > > > > > percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
> > > > > > > Schmitt.
> > > > > > > Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
> > > > > > > position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
> > > > > > > growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
> > > > > > > spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
> > > > > > > people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
> > > > > > > jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
> > > > > > > other than the paltry pay.
> > > > > > > The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
> > > > > > > to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
> > > > > > > person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
> > > > > > > roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
> > > > > > Interesting statistic; one in four US workers (20%) earn 66% or less
> > > > > > than the median US wage.
> > > > > > Belgium is illustrated as being the best because it has only 4% of its
> > > > > > workers making less than 66% of the median BELGIUM wage.
> > > > > > HOWEVER, when you compare US median to Belgium median[1][2][3], you
> > > > > > find that 50% of Belgium households make 69.2%, or less than the US
> > > > > > median household income.
> > > > > Irrelevant statistic since there aren't anywhere near as many filthy
> > > > > rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures. Take anyone making over
> > > > > a million out of the equation on both sides and then see what they
> > > > > earn vs US income among the the regular 90% folk. Those would be the
> > > > > real world figures and my guess would be that Belgians probably make
> > > > > just as much, if not more, than Americans.
> > > > > > The most interesting is Italy. The OECD claims that Italy is also a
> > > > > > good country because only 8% of its workers earn less than 66% of the
> > > > > > ITALIAN median wage. HOWEVER, 50% of Italian households make less
> > > > > > than 54% of the US median (for the math challenged, that means that
> > > > > > over 50% of Italian households earn less than what the OECD defines as
> > > > > > low wage US jobs).
> > > > > Again, the rich skew the figures to favor your biased and skewed view
> > > > > of things. Stick to every day reality of real wage earners.
> > > > Sorry, but you once again illustrate that you didn't study about the
> > > > difference between mean and median. Your comment would have merit if
> > > > the figures were mean averages, but the OECD used median.
> > > > "The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better
> > > > indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically
> > > > affected by unusually high or low values." [1] For example, presume
> > > > that you are a member of a club of 10 people. Seven (70%) have an
> > > > income of $30,000 each and the other three (30%) make $1 million
> > > > each. The mean is $321,000, BUT the median is $30,000.
> > > > I use data that is backed up the the same OECD that you reference;
> > > > you use vague generalizations such as, "anywhere near as many", "then
> > > > see what they earn","Those would be the real world figures", "my
> > > > guess", "probably, "just as much, if not more".
> > > Earnings of the wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance in mean
> > > or median or average or anything you want to call it earnings, since
> > > those earnings represent only 1/10th of the population at most, with
> > > 1/10th of that representing the bulk of that 10% wealth, and they
> > > belong to people who really have nothing to worry about in terms of
> > > day-to-day living the way the other 90% do. The real world wealth of
> > > a population lies in the majority of people who actually work for a
> > > living, rather than rely on capital gains for steady income while
> > > cruising the Mediterranean, and have to deal with endless bills with
> > > dread rather than mindlessly pay them off as if they were tips for
> > > waiters and cab drivers. You're obsessed with numbers, so do the
> > > math. Subtract the wealthy from the equation and then see how much
> > > people really make among the 90%. I don't have to do the math to know
> > > the obvious - that the mean/median/average/whatever will be far less
> > > as a result and compare even worse to Belgium when you subtract their
> > > wealthy from the equation as well.
> > You continue to make statements about math when you are mathematically
> > illiterate. You claim "wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance
> > in mean or median" AFTER I provided a US Census statement the states
> > that they use the median because the wealthy has a large effect on the
> > mean, but NOT the median.
> > Let's take our club of 10 people:
> > 1. In one club, all 10 members make $30,000 each; the median is
> > $30,000
> > 2. The next club has 90% making $30,000 each and the top 10% make one
> > gazillion dollars each; the median is still $30,000.
> That's too easy for you to do. Let's make it harder. The 10 salaries
> break down as such:
> Now for the very rich:
> $1,000,000
> $10,000,000,000,000
> That there is more real world-like. And the median is in both cases?
> > NOW, you asked me to "Subtract the wealthy from the equation". If I
> > subtracted the top 10% from each club, the median would still be
> > $30,000.
> > If we subtract the million dollar households from the US and Belgium,
> > there would be no difference. You claimed that "anywhere near as many
> > filthy rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures" BUT the number of
> > US millionaire households are 4.0%; Belgium is right behind the US
> > with 3.5%.
> The article I posted didn't talk about households, it talked about
Part of the problem is finding data of like-kind. I didn't use wage
earners over $1 million because I don't have access to that. I have
income per household for the US, but I only have household wealth of
Belgium.
As I pointed out, the number of million Dollar households in the US
and Belgium is close. Subtracting the millionaires from each would
have similar results.
As for your "real world numbers":
You have 20% with incomes of over $1 million in your group of 10
people. If you want "real world", get the IRS data[1]: Only 0.3% of
the IRS returns have income of over $1,000,000.
If you remove the top $1 million income returns, you will only shift
the median by 235,413 returns out of 81,890,189; you will make
significant change in the mean, but not the median.
Now, go away and carry on discussions that don't include math; you
have become tiresome already.
> workers' salaries. I keep telling you to get the control freak out of
> yourself and stop turning the discussion into what you want it to be
> and stick to what it's really about.
> > > > > > > > U.S. Has Highest Share Working In Low-Wage Jobs, OECD Says
> > > > > > > > It's not always great to be number one.
> > > > > > > > Out of all OECD countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees
> > > > > > > > toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data cited by
> > > > > > > > Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon. The graph was
> > > > > > > > originally published in a January paper by John Schmitt, senior
> > > > > > > > economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
> > > > > > > > One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers in 2009, according to
> > > > > > > > the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country,
> > > > > > > > the United Kingdom. At 4 percent, Belgium has the smallest share of
> > > > > > > > its in employees working in low-wage jobs. Low-wage work is defined as
> > > > > > > > earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.
> > > > > > > > The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising
> > > > > > > > since 1979, according to Schmitt. And low-wage workers are better
> > > > > > > > educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least
> > > > > > > > some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2
> > > > > > > > percent of all low-wage workers, according to a recent analysis by
> > > > > > > > Schmitt.
> > > > > > > > Schmitt drew the following conclusions from the U.S.' number-one
> > > > > > > > position in low-pay work: The U.S. minimum wage is too low, economic
> > > > > > > > growth doesn't necessarily lift poor people's wages, less social
> > > > > > > > spending by the government is correlated with worse wages for poor
> > > > > > > > people, low-wage work usually is not a stepping-stone to well-paying
> > > > > > > > jobs, and working a low-wage job can often create additional problems
> > > > > > > > other than the paltry pay.
> > > > > > > > The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, according
> > > > > > > > to the Labor Department. That amounts to just $15,080 per year for a
> > > > > > > > person that works 40 hours per week during every week of the year:
> > > > > > > > roughly equivalent to the poverty line for a two-person household.
> > > > > > > Interesting statistic; one in four US workers (20%) earn 66% or less
> > > > > > > than the median US wage.
> > > > > > > Belgium is illustrated as being the best because it has only 4% of its
> > > > > > > workers making less than 66% of the median BELGIUM wage.
> > > > > > > HOWEVER, when you compare US median to Belgium median[1][2][3], you
> > > > > > > find that 50% of Belgium households make 69.2%, or less than the US
> > > > > > > median household income.
> > > > > > Irrelevant statistic since there aren't anywhere near as many filthy
> > > > > > rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures. Take anyone making over
> > > > > > a million out of the equation on both sides and then see what they
> > > > > > earn vs US income among the the regular 90% folk. Those would be the
> > > > > > real world figures and my guess would be that Belgians probably make
> > > > > > just as much, if not more, than Americans.
> > > > > > > The most interesting is Italy. The OECD claims that Italy is also a
> > > > > > > good country because only 8% of its workers earn less than 66% of the
> > > > > > > ITALIAN median wage. HOWEVER, 50% of Italian households make less
> > > > > > > than 54% of the US median (for the math challenged, that means that
> > > > > > > over 50% of Italian households earn less than what the OECD defines as
> > > > > > > low wage US jobs).
> > > > > > Again, the rich skew the figures to favor your biased and skewed view
> > > > > > of things. Stick to every day reality of real wage earners.
> > > > > Sorry, but you once again illustrate that you didn't study about the
> > > > > difference between mean and median. Your comment would have merit if
> > > > > the figures were mean averages, but the OECD used median.
> > > > > "The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better
> > > > > indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically
> > > > > affected by unusually high or low values." [1] For example, presume
> > > > > that you are a member of a club of 10 people. Seven (70%) have an
> > > > > income of $30,000 each and the other three (30%) make $1 million
> > > > > each. The mean is $321,000, BUT the median is $30,000.
> > > > > I use data that is backed up the the same OECD that you reference;
> > > > > you use vague generalizations such as, "anywhere near as many", "then
> > > > > see what they earn","Those would be the real world figures", "my
> > > > > guess", "probably, "just as much, if not more".
> > > > Earnings of the wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance in mean
> > > > or median or average or anything you want to call it earnings, since
> > > > those earnings represent only 1/10th of the population at most, with
> > > > 1/10th of that representing the bulk of that 10% wealth, and they
> > > > belong to people who really have nothing to worry about in terms of
> > > > day-to-day living the way the other 90% do. The real world wealth of
> > > > a population lies in the majority of people who actually work for a
> > > > living, rather than rely on capital gains for steady income while
> > > > cruising the Mediterranean, and have to deal with endless bills with
> > > > dread rather than mindlessly pay them off as if they were tips for
> > > > waiters and cab drivers. You're obsessed with numbers, so do the
> > > > math. Subtract the wealthy from the equation and then see how much
> > > > people really make among the 90%. I don't have to do the math to know
> > > > the obvious - that the mean/median/average/whatever will be far less
> > > > as a result and compare even worse to Belgium when you subtract their
> > > > wealthy from the equation as well.
> > > You continue to make statements about math when you are mathematically
> > > illiterate. You claim "wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance
> > > in mean or median" AFTER I provided a US Census statement the states
> > > that they use the median because the wealthy has a large effect on the
> > > mean, but NOT the median.
> > > Let's take our club of 10 people:
> > > 1. In one club, all 10 members make $30,000 each; the median is
> > > $30,000
> > > 2. The next club has 90% making $30,000 each and the top 10% make one
> > > gazillion dollars each; the median is still $30,000.
> > That's too easy for you to do. Let's make it harder. The 10 salaries
> > break down as such:
> > Now for the very rich:
> > $1,000,000
> > $10,000,000,000,000
> > That there is more real world-like. And the median is in both cases?
> > > NOW, you asked me to "Subtract the wealthy from the equation". If I
> > > subtracted the top 10% from each club, the median would still be
> > > $30,000.
> > > If we subtract the million dollar households from the US and Belgium,
> > > there would be no difference. You claimed that "anywhere near as many
> > > filthy rich stinkers in Belgium to skew the figures" BUT the number of
> > > US millionaire households are 4.0%; Belgium is right behind the US
> > > with 3.5%.
> > The article I posted didn't talk about households, it talked about
> Part of the problem is finding data of like-kind. I didn't use wage
> earners over $1 million because I don't have access to that. I have
> income per household for the US, but I only have household wealth of
> Belgium.
> As I pointed out, the number of million Dollar households in the US
> and Belgium is close. Subtracting the millionaires from each would
> have similar results.
> As for your "real world numbers":
> You have 20% with incomes of over $1 million in your group of 10
> people. If you want "real world", get the IRS data[1]: Only 0.3% of
> the IRS returns have income of over $1,000,000.
Oh, just do the math already. It should be easy enough for you to
do. Rather than wasting your time with meaningless diversionary
tactics you could've done it by now. Unless you don't have a solid
grasp of what "median" is.
> If you remove the top $1 million income returns, you will only shift
> the median by 235,413 returns out of 81,890,189; you will make
> significant change in the mean, but not the median.
> Now, go away and carry on discussions that don't include math; you
> have become tiresome already.
