Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 4:58:39 GMT
How can times that are "less efficient" also be "more prosperous"? Heh, fair point. It’s been a while since I was an Econ undergrad. The shame I feel. Let’s sub our prosperous for a softer sense of largesse that came with a certain sort of prosperity. The kind that made the postwar economy feel worlds better than the immediate post housing crisis economy despite being objectively less prosperous. After I spent how many pages defending you?!?!?!?! |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Feb 13, 2020 13:36:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Liberal White Women on Feb 13, 2020 17:18:59 GMT
Bummer for my region, where McClatchy has several daily newspapers. I will give the McClatchy heir quoted in the article credit for not entirely blaming this on those greedy bastard retirees, who dared to enroll in a pension plan. As noted in the link, "Between 2006 and 2018, McClatchy’s advertising revenue fell by 80 percent and daily print circulation fell by 58.6 percent." And IMHO, McClatchy was one of the better chains to read — and work for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 17:37:38 GMT
I've seen this come up on Facebook through some people who still have pensions with McClatchy papers, and the statements there are that rank-and-file pensions are safe but executive pensions are fucked. I don't know whether that's because of any arcane difference in the funding procedures or if it's just the limit of the PBGC guarantee.
I worked at a paper that McClatchy rejected/spun off when it bought Knight-Ridder. We were all upset about that. LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Da Man on Feb 13, 2020 17:45:24 GMT
Bummer for my region, where McClatchy has several daily newspapers. I will give the McClatchy heir quoted in the article credit for not entirely blaming this on those greedy bastard retirees, who dared to enroll in a pension plan. As noted in the link, "Between 2006 and 2018, McClatchy’s advertising revenue fell by 80 percent and daily print circulation fell by 58.6 percent." And IMHO, McClatchy was one of the better chains to read — and work for. I was working for a Knight Ridder paper when McClatchy bought KR -- the move the eventually killed McClatchy. |
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Feb 13, 2020 19:46:48 GMT
You lay off thousands and offer buyouts to thousands more . . . sooner or later you're gonna have 10 pensioners for every employee.
As a McClatchy employee since 2011, all I can say is just shut the damn doors (which could happen for print after the election and Black Friday).
Nothing will ever beat my salad days at Tribune (where I will have a pension coming soon!), but McClatchy wasn't all that awful to work for. Until Jan. 6. Been dead to me since that day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 21:24:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 21:29:40 GMT
Long thread on it by study author. It's a really good read.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 24, 2020 21:47:40 GMT
Long thread on it by study author. It's a really good read. That bit by Cass is getting seriously carved the fuck up by economists. |
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Feb 24, 2020 22:27:56 GMT
It's two things: college and health insurance. Everything else is holding the line reasonably well.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 24, 2020 22:50:13 GMT
Do you really think the median male earner in 1985 could cover these basics with only 30 weeks worth of work?
I mean, shit ... in 1985 I made somewhere close to $15K. Per this chart I should have been able to afford to rent a 4BR house, pay for a family health insurance premium AND send a kid to college IN ADDITION to the car-related expenses I was incurring.
Spoiler alert: No. Fucking. Way.
|
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Feb 24, 2020 23:27:03 GMT
Do you really think the median male earner in 1985 could cover these basics with only 30 weeks worth of work? I mean, shit ... in 1985 I made somewhere close to $15K. Per this chart I should have been able to afford to rent a 4BR house, pay for a family health insurance premium AND send a kid to college IN ADDITION to the car-related expenses I was incurring. Spoiler alert: No. Fucking. Way. I'm skeptical, but then I wasn't a "median male earner" in 1985 and I suspect neither were you (if we're close to the same age). In 1985 I was two years out of school making almost $17,000. It seems the "median male earner" was a few years older and making about $23,000. NEVERTHELESS . . . In just 2.5 years of work at a salary of $12,500-$16,500 before moving to Fort Lauderdale in January 1986 I had managed to save $8,000. And I'm assuming there's a "median female income" somewhere helping to support this family of four, although the chart fails to acknowledge such. |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Feb 24, 2020 23:41:40 GMT
While there are several problems with this “study,” as doctorquant alludes to, also keep in mind this guy’s agenda: he’s starting a think that will advocate for a nationalist industrial policy, to challenge what he characterizes as free-market “fundamentalism” on the right. So he may very well have more in common with political liberals on some of these issues than political conservatives. (Though these labels are sort of silly, and I use the “political” prefix because, for example, many market advocates would classify themselves as classical liberals.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 23:44:32 GMT
Do you really think the median male earner in 1985 could cover these basics with only 30 weeks worth of work? I mean, shit ... in 1985 I made somewhere close to $15K. Per this chart I should have been able to afford to rent a 4BR house, pay for a family health insurance premium AND send a kid to college IN ADDITION to the car-related expenses I was incurring. Spoiler alert: No. Fucking. Way. The median income in 1985 was $23,620. Total cost of a public university was $3,682. Monthly housing costs for homeowners ... I found a HUD study that listed the median at $670. I'm inclined to trust it as it reflects 35 percent of median income. Healthcare ... I can't find an exact, non-inflation-adjusted number, but I think we can all take it as a given that that number has exploded more than any other. Cars, YMMV. So, I don't know if it could be done in 30 weeks. But it could be done. And as a gauge of shares of income, it illustrates if nothing else how crappy our statistics are that say median wages have increased and such. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 23:46:37 GMT
Do you really think the median male earner in 1985 could cover these basics with only 30 weeks worth of work? I mean, shit ... in 1985 I made somewhere close to $15K. Per this chart I should have been able to afford to rent a 4BR house, pay for a family health insurance premium AND send a kid to college IN ADDITION to the car-related expenses I was incurring. Spoiler alert: No. Fucking. Way. I'm skeptical, but then I wasn't a "median male earner" in 1985 and I suspect neither were you (if we're close to the same age). In 1985 I was two years out of school making almost $17,000. It seems the "median male earner" was a few years older and making about $23,000. NEVERTHELESS . . . In just 2.5 years of work at a salary of $12,500-$16,500 before moving to Fort Lauderdale in January 1986 I had managed to save $8,000. And I'm assuming there's a "median female income" somewhere helping to support this family of four, although the chart fails to acknowledge such.He had one, but the WaPo didn't include it as a chart. Cass also ran the numbers for female earners, whose median wage is about 80 percent that of men. In 1985, the typical woman needed to work 45 weeks to cover the four big annual expenses; today she needs 66 weeks. That means it was easier for a female breadwinner to provide for her family in 1985 than it is for a lone male earner today. |
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-919624-1312618814.jpeg.jpg)
