General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFixed incomes. We often hear of retirees being on fixed incomes, and
they are, though they may get occasional, very low COLA increases.
But in these times, when many working people seldom if ever get raises,
I'd say many of them are on fixed incomes too.
Somebody might say, well, the worker could get another job. In theory, yes. But
in reality few people can find a better paying job....much less one with reasonable
raises. There aren't many of those around any more.
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)I get $.10/hour raises every year. For a 20-hour-a-week job, that's a whole $2 a week. And it's a union job, so I don't get merit raises either. No benefits at all unless you work 40 hours. I just can't, at this age. I make minimum wage, and will do so until I get a raise in November, my 1st year anniversary.
Alkene
(752 posts)It's what's for dinner.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)for his second term in the middle 1990's -- Bill declined and Reich quit.
Can't blame it all on BC, but considering that he also passed NAFTA, ended Glass-Steagal
and re-signed the H1-B Visa which allowed huge numbers of immigrants to compete
for American jobs, I wouldn't call him a minor player, either.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)the boss hired on new guys to work with me who wouldn't work for as little as I did. He was too embarrassed to have a brand new hire being paid more than me after I'd been working there for years.
My housemate has, I think, gotten a raise once in the last six years. Ditto her coworkers.
For most of the 99% a 'non-fixed' income is more pipe dream than reality, and merely getting COLA adjustments would be a step up.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)I remember when we used to get COLA and merit raises.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)See unlike the last RepubliCON Great Depression, the government is just waiting and hoping the bountiful largesse they have fed to the richest people in our society will eventually cause the economy to improve. To be fair there was some tinkering around the edges. But since you couldn't have foreclosure freezes forever, and you certainly couldn't in anyway help the middle class and poor with bailouts, like they bailed out the rich stockholders and bankers, and you have to have austerity and more free trade, well then you get jobs leaving and all the remaining decent paying positions are filled by the friends and relatives of the uber rich.
That just leaves only crappy, subservient, minimum wage jobs for the rest of us. Enjoy your new capitalist economy, where your only value is if you can work for less.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)A generation of people raised on "Government *is* the problem" ideology has created a growing crisis of capitalism. Income and wealth disparities not seen since the 1920s and unlike the financial crisis that ended that economic inequality, we've yet to enact meaningful policy that would do so now in this generation.
The result - and I think it's inevitable - is a super financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park. When this current Fed-sponsored 'recovery' ends, we'll realize that unlike last time, 2/3 of bank holdings are owned by a very small financial corporate elite. When they go down, everyone will go down with them and the taxpayer will have a very, very difficult time bailing them out.
mdbl
(4,973 posts)The market will start to belch when they start charging some interest. I for one am tired of my savings being lent out to a bunch of crooks for no returns. The savings interest rates are disgustingly low. The only way to make money in this market right now is to put it in riskier investments. Ok, time to get rid of Social Security since things are so wonderful.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)The first year I went to work the minimum wage was raised and we all got a raise at my job (manufacturing computer boards). Then the MW went stagnant and so did our wages. I remember when I got $5 an hour, it wass a VERY big deal!
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)has been going down for several years.
Mostly so I can have medical insurance that I can't afford to use.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)employees in the school district not represented by a union and the administrators take full advantage. The head of personnel for the district makes $160k a year according to the Transparent California website which publishes public employee salaries. Last year several of us approached her and literally begged for a raise. We had been making $106 per day for the last seven years. She wasn't terribly receptive but finally recommended to the school board that we get a whopping $4.00 a day increase, so now we make $110 with no benefits whatsoever. If I worked a full day every day this school year, I wouldn't crack 20K. Many jobs, however, are for half day at half pay. Stagnant low wages? You bet.
Freddie
(9,267 posts)It's horrible the way they treat subs, here they start at $95/day and can work up to $110 after so many days. The only benefit is they can get credit in the pension system if they work 80+ days.
And the district gives subs preference for any "real" jobs that come along (teaching assistant, office, teachers) which is great but it means in order to get a real job in the district you have to be in a position to work sporadically with very low pay and no benefits indefinitely first; not fair to people who aren't.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)crappy treatment is mystifying. This year, to add insult to injury, we were informed our paychecks will be delayed a full month. Sept. days worked won't be paid until 10/31. And, if we want to work at all, we have to pay for a smart phone app that signals when a job becomes available and then try to grab it before someone else does. Subs without a smart phone are up shit creek.
Worst job in the district by far. The janitors no doubt have a crappy, thankless job, too, but at least they belong to the classified employees union and have decent pay and benefits.
TBF
(32,063 posts)that are signed, with more jobs sent abroad, the lower the standard will be.
Hillary Clinton talks about "leveling the field". In an intellectual way it seems to make sense, but I would be much more enthusiastic if we weren't sinking some boats while rising others. And while we are playing with boats, metaphorically, I notice that everyone is shuffling around the lower level jobs and being told to do more with less. Meanwhile, the large yachts are on the fringes and no one talks about them. Except Bernie. He seems to be the only candidate who sees them and thinks "hey, maybe they could have a large boat but not a yacht, and then everyone in the smaller boats could also stay afloat".
global1
(25,251 posts)Our incomes are fixed by the 1%. And they are fixed very low. They are destroying the middle class they're so low. The only incomes that are not fixed are those of the 1% - as every year they have made more than the last.
Yeah - there is such a thing as 'fixed incomes' and it is a way of keeping us 99% down. (My rant for the day.)
Freddie
(9,267 posts)My first thought is "and I'm not?" Whatever little raises I've gotten over the past many years are immediately taken away by increases in my health insurance contribution.
dickthegrouch
(3,174 posts)They have been going DOWN every year for many years as our savings get routed by the fucking cowards in the stock market.
IT IS NOT "THE MARKET" which is selling off. It is the people who should know better. The prostitutesbspbspbspbspbspbsp
rofessionals (so called) are the ones selling off and killing OUR future.
I despair of having enough to retire on even though I've had some very good years.
I've also taken two pay cuts of more 20% and spent a total of four years out of work before I was 60.
Question EVERYTHING they tell you about finance, money, retirement. And take ALL the answers with a grain of salt.
HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)My aunt retired from a manufacturing company after 45 years (her first and only job out of high school). The company decided a dollar amount that she should have after retirement. The company then paid the difference between her social security income and the figure they determined. So, when social security payments increased, the company DEcreased the amount they paid to her. She never saw a dollar more but the company sure did profit from paying her less and less.
This was many years ago, perhaps the laws have changed and this type of retirement plan may no longer apply. But for her, this is what she lived with until her death in 1990.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I've said it 10 times, and I'll say it a thousand more times if I have to: if people are going to insist on letting property owners treat housing like commodity brokerage, they they need to be regulated and overseen by a body like the SEC. If Wall Street is reasonable enough to appreciate the need for regulation when retirement incomes are at stake, why can't people see the need for regulation when HOUSING is at stake?
When property is treated like a commodity subject to speculation, gamed by hype and rumor, that is just like the stock market! This is not the way to handle a basic human need! Housing should be a controlled, vended item, not subject to the fluctuations of brokerage. The vast amount of people on fixed incomes underscores the need for that.