301
$13 in 1990 is 35$ today with inflation. They are working more for 50% less.
Surely they adjusted for that.
I dk depends if there is an agenda or if the person saw data and forgot. I'm always skeptical if they don't say equalivent or with inflation. They just wrote "compared" which seems like no math was done. Pretty sure we are all earning less than our counter parts in 80's.
Shirley.
And don’t call me Shirley.
RIP Leslie Neilsen.
I’m not even sure where they got it from because it’s not in the linked Pew article… from 4 years ago.
It's hard to be empathetic for the Boomer generation because they've done so much damage.
How so? They're flopping between two parties just like the current generation of voters.
Watch the reactions when I type this:
Vote third party.
The only way voting third party works is if we get rid of "first to the pole" and instead used something like "ranked choice" voting.
Yeah but that's not in the interest of the current duopoly. They're not gonna shoot themselves in the foot as long as they keep getting votes doing this
But voting third party doesn't actually accomplish anything. Take it from someone who did it for decades. It doesn't shake up or change the system, it just perpetuates the minority rule set up by Project Redmap.
The right way to do it is to vote your conscience locally, until there is enough support at higher levels. Skipping right to voting for third party presidential candidates is simply naive, I'm afraid.
Edit: Steve Hofstetter lays it out well (I wish I could find this one elsewhere) https://m.facebook.com/stevehofstetter/videos/why-voting-third-party-for-president-makes-no-sense/359024631794244/
load more comments
(2 replies)
What's interesting about this observation is that you have to conclude voting isn't the solution. No matter how you vote, either Democrats or Republicans are going to win in 99% of cases. Every vote you deny to one party to teach them a lesson is an implicit vote for the other party. The counts won't matter so long as one or the other win.
So what's the moral thing to do? In terms of voting on a national scale, you pick the better option. But on a state and local level, vote for a reasonable third party that's investing in growth.
And no, that hasn't been tried before, because none of our current third parties actually want change. They throw away their money at the federal level while rubbing shoulders with oligarchs. We need a party that starts local with a 50 state ground game and then gradually accumulates power through local victories. Creating this party is what we need to figure out what to do.
Be the change you seek or stop blaming boomers cause you're all doing the exact same shit as them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
People blaming the boomers for the current problems have an overly inflated view of the power of ordinary people.
The people are in power are those to blame, not the ordinary people who chose one of the few options presented to them.
They also have collective power as a voting bloc and group that participates actively in local elections
Voting third party works in other countries but in the American system the only real option is to vote for some fringe wing of one of the parties. Bernie lost with the establishment in the end but he was close. Trump actually won and took over the party. That's the only way to do it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I wish people would just quit it with this ageist crap.
"We" are not fucked over by "the Boomer generation", we are fucked over by unchecked capitalists. The struggle is not a generational one but a class struggle. It's people with money stealing the value of your labor, but the Bezoses of this world sure love how you're all blaming it on old people and are laughing all the way to the bank.
Shitting on boomers because they had affordable housing and well paying jobs is crab mentality. Everyone should have that, but it's not the regular folk boomers who took that away from you. They were just lucky to be born at a time when the capitalists hadn't ruined that yet. About the only thing you can blame them for is that some of them don't quite understand how exactly the world has changed for the worse for young people, and that their back-in-the-day conventional wisdom doesn't apply anymore.
load more comments
(1 replies)
A fluff piece telling me how I should feel grateful for working till I die because it will appear that I’ll make more money?
The fun one is where they brag that older workers are making "substantially more" because they're averaging $22/hr versus $13/hr in 1987. Adjusted for inflation, that $13/hr should be around $35/hr.
More people are working longer for less money.
Okay thank you, I was so confused reading that. I was waiting for any mention of adjusting for inflation.
The interesting thing is when you think about how social security is supposed to work.
The younger generations need to work and earn a decent wage to subsidize the older generations retirement.
The longer the older generations stay in the work force, the less openings there are for the younger generations to contribute to social security.
Wait until AI takes jobs -_-
AI will only take jobs that pay well while we humans are all working in factories and McDonald's.
Robots powered by AI will be making burgers and assembling on the factory floor.
We've had the tech to replace these jobs with bots for years and we haven't. But artists were replaced overnight.
I know plenty of employed artists.
Oh? That means that every artist is employed and AI hasn't impacted them at all? Weird.
load more comments
(21 replies)
I think this article is making an incorrect assumption that these older workers are sticking around in the same caliber jobs they had when they were younger. Those people simply enjoy their jobs, and can still do them, so are not ready to just stop doing it. But there are many more classes of older workers:
-
the ones with the financial security to retire early, but do not want to just sit around the house all day. They may want to stay employed part-time somewhere as a social outlet.
-
the ones with the financial security to retire early, except for health care. These workers might take jobs with less responsibility and pay, but make liberal use of their health insurance until they qualify for Medicare.
-
the ones who don't have that financial security, so they still need to be an active part of the workforce until their Social Security payments kick in.(which still may not be enough)
So, it's not always the case that an older worker remaining in the workforce prevents another mid-life worker from advancing. However, every older worker remaining in the workforce fills someone else's position, and eventually it all trickles down to the entry level jobs. So it does end up screwing today's new grads in the end, just like their student loan debt and the sky-high housing prices do.
My manager is a prime example of your first category. He has a nice federal retirement and a chunk of a 401k, but he stays here...riding his desk. He can't begin to fill the shoes of the Gen-X manager he replaced. Thus the quality of my department suffers because he's a weak manager and susceptible to the schmooze by younger employees.
He took over the position just after he: 1. Moved 2 hours away, and 2. Had a massive heart attack. This guy's circumstances are screaming at him to retire, but he just. Won't. Move. On.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why doesnt anyone want to work?
Says the tech illiterate boomer who is vastly underqualified and incompetent compared to the far more qualified and educated millennials who cannot find a job that he makes fun of on facebook all day at work.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Last week they were all quitting and retiring early.
Sure. The lucky ones amongst those who can't afford to retire.
Then there's the unlucky ones.
The headline makes it sound like boomers are out-earning other generations or making good money.
- The average private sector wage is $34/hr. This indicates wildly skewed upper bounds so we can’t draw any conclusions about their earning.
- The median in 2020 was $23/hr, implying boomers are earning less than other generations
- $22/hr is about $45k/yr. Generously that’s about $40k after taxes. Assuming a health plan of $600/mo (premiums are higher at higher ages) and giving a generous 50% employer payment, we’re down to about 37k. tbh I feel like healthcare costs should be doubled or tripled based on costs I’ve seen from family and friends. Rounding nicely, that’s about 2k a month. If we use the incredibly outdated figure of rent/mortgage being 30%, we have 1400 to spend or save. Let’s pretend we’re able to get all bills under 400 so we have 1000 left over to use.
- Hip replacement is conservatively 3k with insurance. That’s three months of work. You’re probably taking FMLA which means you probably need another three months to cover expenses while recovering. Use hip replacement as a stand in for other surgeries.
- Let’s pretend crowns are as cheap as 1k/tooth. You’re probably looking at one a year ish over time.
- Let’s pretend hearing aids are 2.5k and you’re lucky enough to have insurance that covers them every few years. You’re still out of pocket at least 1k, burning another month.
- Some conservative estimates for cancer are about 6k for lung, breast, and rectal after insurance (prostrate is cheaper!). That’s six months assuming no FMLA; you’re probably taking some time so that’s probably more months.
Boomers are fucked earning that. Millenials are even more fucked. Who knows how fucked GenZ is.
Let’s pretend hearing aids are 2.5k and you’re lucky enough to have insurance that covers them every few years. You’re still out of pocket at least 1k, burning another month.
My hearing aids were $3,600 and they were the lower end of the scale. And my insurance didn't cover a single penny of it.
Boomers are fucked earning that. Millenials are even more fucked. Who knows how fucked GenZ is.
And GenX is ignored again!
Sorry. As a GenX-er, I felt compelled to point that out. Don't be surprised if future articles talk about how GenX isn't retiring, but is continuing to work, though. Personally, I'm doing fine for now, but my retirement savings are way too low. I could either save more for retirement and end up financially underwater right now, or keep my head above water and then struggle when it comes time to retire.
So I'll likely be working until I'm 80 in the hopes of stretching my meager retirement savings through the rest of my life. And that's assuming that Social Security isn't gone by then.
load more comments
(2 replies)
And continuing their destruction of opportunity for future generations.
If I couldn't afford to stop working, I would be forced to stay on the payroll forever, regardless of what I might prefer to be doing.
"You should have saved more."
"You lived too extravegently"
"You should have done more politically to prevent the current economic situation from fomenting"
2 of those 3 are often used to dismiss other generations as they struggle.
3rd is just aimed at the generation that made today's reality happen.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’ve been seeing this headline for at least 10 years now
compared with what older workers earned in the 1980s. Now, the typical older worker earns $22 per hour, compared with $13 per hour then
$13 in 01/1980 is $51 in 11/2023 based on buying power. $13 in 01/1989 is just shy of $33 now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Reap what you sow.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
301 points (100.0% liked)
News
25105 readers
3246 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS