Night Shift - egos & nepotism

Every
Brewery
Is
Trying
Different
Approaches


Not.

 

Your opinion, however, is probably false. You can believe things that aren’t true, and you can be gracious in respecting opinions that are, but “not living above your means” means doing with less, year after year, while the country as a whole is wealthier than ever.

The problem there is not that people aren’t ok enough with having ever less.

 

Wage growth has been stagnant for fifty years.

Unemployment numbers are propped up by massive underemployment.

Inflation numbers don’t track affordability (you can’t survive in the middle class on one person’s salary anymore).

Income inequality is the worst it’s been since the Great Depression.

The clear lived experience for most Americans is they have less. The problem is not that they don’t believe pundits and statistics warped to tell them well, actually, it’s all good, and they shouldn’t believe their lying eyes.

 

it’s not?

 

You can't?

According to the Pew Research Center's analysis in 2016 the income for the middle class was about $40,425 - $120,672.

In Boston it's $57,127 to $171,382.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mid...o-2018-2#boston-massachusetts-up-to-171382-23

I did try to figure out if this meant for a household or an individual, but I'm reading it as an individual.

But even if it is for a household, at the upper end I think you could survive on that.

Also, while everything in your post may be true, you did respond to @9percenthurdle 's post about presenting facts saying otherwise, without referencing any of the facts you yourself presented.

 

You guys can argue about the state of the economy all you want, but please remember that this started due to the posting of an article describing "the great affordability crisis" (about housing prices, stagnant wages, inflation, etc) and somehow @7irondave's takeaway from this was "don't live above your means" lol. I don't have my fingers crossed for a nuanced discussion on the economy stemming from that absurd non-sequitur.

 

Anybody interested in understanding how it's possible that people's experience of the economy can be so bad, even while economic numbers look so good, should read The Great Risk Shift, by Jacob Hacker.

It was published in 2008, right before the recession. It argues that at the same time as health care, higher education, and housing have become more costly, the social supports that previously kept the middle class stable - things like robust pensions, health insurance that actually covered the costs of care, social security, and housing assistance - have eroded. The result of all this has been a shift in where risk is allocated. There's always been risk embedded in our economy, but during the 1950s-1980s, that risk fell primarily on actors who could afford to lose something: the wealthy, the government, and large corporations. Since the Reagan era, when those actors successfully lobbied the federal government to enact policies that reduced the amount of risk they held, that risk has shifted onto the shoulders of the middle class - placing even those who earn a decent living just one medical emergency away from being in a very difficult place.

So even when employment numbers look good, and even if wages start to rise more than they have, those numbers mask a great degree of precarity that is now a part of life for many middle class families. It's not a question of "living within your means" when a cancer diagnosis or getting hit by a car can bring on tens of thousands of dollars of medical expenses that insurance doesn't cover, or when the cost of educating your children requires taking out a second mortgage on your home, or when investment bankers you've never met take wild gambles, crash the housing market, and put you underwater on your home.

And, to get back to the topic of this thread, all of this means that "go find another job" isn't very practical advice for a lot of people. Financial life is already full of risk for the middle class; even more so for lower wage workers. You can't just go get a new job when it means you will have to go months without health insurance. Or when you've got that second mortgage. Organizing to bring about fair treatment in the workplace - including by drawing negative attention to employers who treat people badly - is one way among several that people in the working and middle classes can try to rectify the situation that they are now in. And that's why I'm sympathetic to the posters who started this thread.

 

This all may be true, but I'm still not seeing anyone giving any concrete facts (links to some numbers...etc.) that bear anything out that you detailed in your post. For all I know this is purely anecdotal evidence.

In which case, that is not my experience, or the experience of most people that I know (maybe all of them actually). And these are people in various situations and pay grades.

They have good to great health insurance that covers what you've mentioned, they have no problem finding jobs rather quickly in this area (in all types of fields), and they do a great job of proactively managing their finances properly to mitigate these potential future risky situations should they occur.

But again, this is anecdotal evidence. I am absolutely not saying this is the case for everyone or even the majority. But again, I have yet to see anything concrete stating otherwise.

 

What do you want specifically? I mean with all respect if you have working eyes and ears, keep up with the news, and have a dash of empathy it’s all pretty self evident. If I link an NYT article that focuses on living in SF, and contains some numbers (albeit specific to that region) - will that be sufficient or am I going to get “MSM”’d out of the thread?

 

Did you read the original article that spurred this discussion? It has plenty of concrete numbers.

I think people might, reasonably, be hesitant to provide mounds of research for you when (1) it was already provided in aggregate form to a degree, (2) this is such a broad topic requiring tons of background info, and (3) they're probably worried all that time and energy will be dismissed with something as nonsensical as "ok but just switch jobs!!" or "just save money better!!" both of which are clearly poor replies.

 

To be clear - being sympathetic to the OP and believing that the labor market is the strongest it has been in at least a decade are not mutually exclusive thoughts.

And obviously changing jobs can be daunting (this is not a new phenomenon), but again recent data indicates that Americans are voluntarily quitting their jobs at among the highest levels since that data started being recorded in 2000. People don't voluntarily quit their jobs unless they are confident in their employment prospects...

Not trying to start a wider debate about the real economy or whether economic statistics accurately portray said real economy, but someone countered a point by dismissively saying "the facts don't support that" but provides no such facts...I pushed back accordingly.

 

In my previous post I told you where you can find rock-solid evidence to this effect and summarized the conclusions that the author - one of the very top social scientists - drew from it. I'm not surprised that you have yet to see this evidence, as you say - it would be impressive if you had gotten and read the book that fast. The evidence will be waiting for you in Hacker's book if you choose to look at it.

I'm sincerely glad that most of the people you know are prosperous and secure, but there is mounting evidence that fewer and fewer people have this experience.

 

Don't you interact with a hundred people every day who must not be having that experience? How many people on the other side of a cash register when you buy beer are earning enough to build a rainy day fund?

It's not an issue of anecdotal evidence, it's an issue of selection bias.

 

I have found that most Massachusetts based employers tend to provide better health insurance options than ones not based in MA. This is due both from long held expectations of the workforce as well as MA being one of the better areas for white collar jobs that tend to have better benefits. Its becoming more and more rare to find work supplied healthcare that covers everything, even in MA. Most have around a $2500-5000 deductible. Individual deductibles are a bit lower but for most families they are probably paying nearly that full family deductible every single year. Max out of pocket usually is around $10K (in network). The kicker is that most of these health insurances only cover in network at those levels. You get admitted to an in network hospital where the labs they use or the radiology they use is actually out of network and you have no control over that until 3 months later when all of the bills finally roll in and you are paying probably $10K or more out of pocket. Not to mention that the cost of paying for health insurance has risen considerably over the past at least 20-25 years, far outstripping inflation.

So I find it unusual that anyone can say that everyone they know has great health care and no problem paying for it. We haven't even gotten to the fact that the cost of prescription drugs has also greatly risen.

Now I do agree that from a finding jobs perspective things are pretty good, especially in this area. History shows us that the job market is cyclical and pay for the average worker increases when the job market is doing well. Generally the problem is that pay increases lag behind growth in the economy and job market but they are the first to take a hit when the economy shrinks. General employees take the hit for the economy, no matter their performance, whereas management and executives will have their pay increase no matter what the economy is doing. Bonuses/raises start to become tied to saving money during down economies as opposed to growing the company. It creates an odd dynamic that I don't believe is sustainable long term. The old adage about the rich getting richer is true.

Now what does this mean with regards to the original OP? Not sure, bad management has nothing to do with the economy. Sometimes people are just bad managers, doesn't make them mean or bad people, just horrible to work for. This isn't really one of those David and Goliath stories where the employee is under the boot of management and has horrible work conditions with little to no pay. She presumably is decently paid for her role, with decent benefits, and a decent physical environment. The mental environment might be bad but this isn't the "Man" giving it to the employee. There are lots of people working at jobs they don't like. I feel bad for her but I'm not boycotting Night Shift because they might be crappy managers. If she comes back and says they didn't pay her what they promised or forced her to work in horrible conditions then I might change my thought process but from what's been said so far that isn't the story.

 

This is an interesting chart showing the % change in the cost of various goods over the last 20 years. Some things have gotten quite expensive, while other things have actually gotten cheaper (or stayed the same as wages have increased). So day to day living may be actually cheaper, but there are certain big ticket expenses (health care and college have both been mentioned) that have exploded in cost.

 

Wow, quite the outpouring of replies!

Seriously, thanks for the thoughtful responses. They were all interesting to read. Specifically @William_Navidson because I do think I remember the article you’re referencing. I’ll go back and see if I can find it (it’s been a 5 page thread over a few weeks now).

Oh and also @matthewp (I didn’t quote this post, there was a lot there), that was a good reply.

Enjoying an Exhibit A DDH West Coast IPA at the moment.

Cheers guys (and girls, including the OP)

Depends on the day. If I go food shopping (so yesterday) then yes. Today I didn’t, so I interacted with mostly people that make an excellent salary.

Not sure where I’ll go tomorrow, so it could be a mix.

My selection bias fluctuates throughout the week. [/QUOTE]

 

The article you’re looking for is on the first comment of this page FYI!

 

Even this isn’t accurate.

Cars are more expensive, for example. They hold their value better, but it still costs more to purchase a car, which is a burden.

We reflect this with “inflation adjustment” but if a car costs, say, $8000 more than it did 20 years ago to actually afford that car you need to make $8000 more. But that’s not how inflation adjustment works, which assigns value to the increased reliability and features of that car. The new, more expensive car, may in fact provide a similar relative value, but its real cost has gone up and salaries haven’t risen to match.

Or look at TVs. You could buy a new tv for a few hundred bucks 50 years ago. So how is it that trend line is plummeting? Because you can now get a much, much bigger and larger tv for that same price. But the actual cost of owning a middle of the road TV? Not that different.

 

Isn't your disposable income something of a running joke on these forums? I would never, ever look to you for anecdotes based in most people's economic realities.

 

Here it is