Americans working much harder – for less pay

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: MSNBC.COM

Feel like you’re working a lot harder these days, putting in longer hours for the same pay — or even less? The latest round of government data on worker productivity indicates that you probably are.

The Labor Department said Tuesday that the American work force produced, at an annual rate, 6.4 percent more of the goods they made and services they provided in the second quarter of this year compared to a year ago. At the same time, “unit labor costs” — the amount employers paid for all that extra work — fell by 5.8 percent. The jump in productivity was higher than expected; the cut in labor costs more than double expectations.

That is, despite the deep job cuts of the past year, workers who remain on the payroll are filling in and making up the work that had been done by their departed colleagues. In some cases, that extra work came with a smaller paycheck.

The higher worker output and lower labor costs have been good news for companies struggling through the worst recession since World War II. So far, some 70 percent of companies in the S&P 500 have turned in better-than-expected profits for the latest quarter.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32374533/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

---

The 3rd and 4th paragraphs are a capitalist's wet dream. And all those profits, taken out of the worker's pockets, should sure bring a smile to the Wall Street investors.

[Kingofalldems]

1. More unions needed---employers have non union workers

over a barrel.

[mbperrin]

3. Yes, we need some countervailing weight!

Our union is restricted in Texas, but we're here!

AFT-AFL/CIO

[1handclapn]

14. our union just sold us out.... 1.5% raise in 3 years. ended any opportunity to advance in position

and pay, if we bid in a better posted 'in house' job, and that position ever is phased out in our lifetime we have to reduce our pay to "New Hire" level to bump back onto the floor... after waiting 90 days. all kinds of other crap, we got bonuses for 3 yr 5 year etc but we don't get it because the company puts it in a bank and pays the increase in the cost of our insurance with it.... and they raised our dues about 20%.

you max out on raises where you are first assigned in 5 years, 3 small raises, my 3 year was 18 cents.. you have to wait another 5 years to get a small increase.. that's it.

it's an aerospace buisness.. companies profit is 5 billion a year, cutting back on people and making us do more

[Xenotime]

29. Agreed.

[NC_Nurse]

2. Guess that means bigger bonuses for the fatcats. Ugh.

[primavera]

32. Well, you wouldn't expect those who go us into this to suffer, would you?

You wouldn't seriously deny this country's billionaires another yacht, would you? How else are they supposed to get to Monte Carlo for the season? And naturally, they have to have a new private jet with which to fly into Gstaad - even a peasant like you must know that flying last year's private jet simply isn't done! What an unfeeling lout you must be to try to take the Beluga caviar, truffled foie gras, and Dom Perignon from the mouths of this country's long-suffering billionaires!

[Honeycombe8]

4. I am, among others at my firm. We're tired....and being taken advantage of.

I'd love to quit and take a big cut in pay and go to work for a small business. I have a lot to offer, and I'd be willing to take the cut in pay.

But a small business couldn't afford to buy health care coverage for me, and with a big cut in pay, I wouldn't be able to afford it myself.

So I (and many others) are tied to our jobs for health care. I know, I know....we're lucky to have jobs. And we are. But I'd have another job, and I'd be able to offer a highly skilled level of work to a small business who couldn't otherwise afford to hire someone at that level. But because of health care, I can't make that switch.

It reminds me of the really old days, when miners and other workers were semi-slaves to the mining company. The pay was rotten, but the miners owed money to the mining companies (who owned the local stores, where the workers had to buy their supplies at high prices with low wages, requiring loans), and they weren't allowed to leave until their loans were paid in full. The miners, caught in a Catch 22, were never able to pay the loans off.

You load 16 tons
Waddya get?
Another day older
And deeper in debt
St. Peter don'tcha call me, 'cause I can't go...
I owe my soul to the company store

[HughBeaumont]

5. Haven't had a raise in 2 years. Most Americans have only had a paltry one in 30.

The joke is, I'm not kidding.

[OhioChick]

9. Nothing but pay cuts here. n/t

[Amos Moses]

10. great post

Thanks for linking to that very informative post. You did some nice work on that and I would have missed it otherwise. :applause:

[tocqueville]

6. check the interactive map

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29976394/ns/us_news-the_elkhart_project

[Lorien]

8. That's depressing. nt

[endless october]

7. that's because unions are less common.

[Amos Moses]

11. Lots of union haters these days.

Quite a few of them here on this forum. :puke:

[Deja Q]

33. I'll soon know if I'm one:

The union I'm in states it wants its members to be more flexible with job functions.

I'm still trying to suss out of it's HR regs, or union regs, that prevent more efficient use of employees.

Given what unions do, how much will it take to determine who is fucking whom around.

[Libertas1776]

12. You won't

find a union buster in me. We need more Unions and boy we need them now.

[MrSlayer]

13. As a Union worker, this is not happening to me.

But I'm one of the lucky ones to have a job. Construction has been taking a beating lately. It might take until next summer for everything to pick up.

[TommyPaine]

15. Microsoft contractors have been creamed by pay cuts.

I'm in the process of finding another contracting gig at Microsoft, but the pay's a joke, especially considering the cost of living in the Seattle area. My friend, for example, made $30/hr on his last contracting job, and now he's making $17/hr. Another guy on his team was making $40/hr before and how he's making $17/hr as well. Earlier this year contractor pay cuts of 20+% were made, though that seems a conservative figure based on what I've seen and heard.

For a company that's utterly dependent on contractors this seems outrageous, though due to cuts in the high tech sector as a whole Microsoft contractors may have fewer choices outside the company. I'm guessing executive bonuses and stock options are still quite healthy, however.

[Deja Q]

34. Given the quality of Microsoft's products, I wouldn't put in any more effort than utterly necessary.

Your guess about bloated executive bonuses is bound to be correct too... theirs may not be deserved, but that's beside the point.

[midnight]

16. How else are the tax payers going to pay for the luxuries of the

Banksters, the health insurance of the elected officials, and the war for the oil co.?

[lovuian]

17. yes our standard of living has gone down and down

thanks Republicans

[Wednesdays]

18. K&R

:kick:

[opihimoimoi]

19. We can thank all them W Bush voters...gave us 8 years of crappy leadership...

[moonbatmax]

20. And this is why, when an economist smiles,

the American worker's blood runs cold.

Over the last ten years, if not more, I've learned to recognize a few code words. Not that it takes any great leap of brilliance, or anything more than simple logic. Just consider these terms:

Reduced Labor Costs

This should be obvious: what economists call "labor costs", you probably call your paycheck. Of course, that's not the whole story. You've also got fringe benefits, like one of those employer-provided health care programs everyone likes so much. Paid vacations, bonuses, all those other little tokens of appreciation? Labor costs, all.

Of course, that's if you're employed "full time", a category employers have worked to define almost completely out of existence. Part-time employees, temps, and contractors are exempt from such lavish expenditures, so employers have managed to "reduce labor costs" immensely over the past couple of decades, just by recategorizing the majority of their work force.

Saves a bundle!

Of course, having redefined all the positions they can (or can get away with), employers are now suddenly forced to "reduce labor costs" even further. With little choice left but to reduce wages and salaries directly, they've found they can make it a lot more palatable by eliminating part of the workforce itself. Those who survive the cuts know who'll be next, and just what they'll face on the "open market." Given a choice between "reduced cost" and "no cost", the choice for most is a no-brainer. This also contributes to our second term:

Increased Worker Productivity

Just because a business has cut its workforce in half doesn't mean it can get by on half the work. If anything, it needs to do even more with what's left to stand any hope of survival. That means getting at least the same amount of work from half the staff it had, and that means at least twice the workload on the staff remaining. Fortunately, having watched half their fellows clean their desks and go, the employees remaining have every motivation to demonstrate their continued value to their employers. What's a little more work for a little less pay? Beats the alternative, doesn't it?

That's Increased Worker Productivity. That means higher profits, which means happy shareholders, and an Improved Economy.

Which means happy economists.

In Summary: Fewer Employees * More Work * Less Pay = Improved Economy

Is this an accurate assessment? I don't know. I suppose not.

I don't consider myself an economist. Not much of one, in any case. I imagine a "real" economist would rip my "analysis" up one side and down the other, and show me how I'm wrong in no fewer than two dozen different ways. That's how much of an economist I figure I am. It still doesn't change the reality of what's happening to us all.

No doubt, we would be much better off, if we could "just" learn to better manage our finances, and budget our income "right". I don't think most of us get much of a chance to do that. I think most of us are too busy trying to make what little money we can, or training for that better paying job we hope will finally pull us out of our troubles, just a little bit. Until then, what point is there even trying to "manage" money that's mostly spoken for, even before we see it? What "plans" can be made for money already "planned" for the monthly bills?

I'm sure it's no easier for businesses struggling just to stay above water, but they at least have the option of trimming their workforce, and squeezing what's left. If they can do enough of either or both, they just might manage to survive, and the economists will cheer their Reduced Labor Costs, and their Increased Worker Productivity. I don't know. Is that enough for them to declare an Improved Economy? Do they even look at household incomes? Do even mortgages matter to them unless they're going "underwater"?

I remember reading in Newsweek last year, among a list of threats to our economy, one of the top, if not the top, was an increase in personal savings. That's right: One of the greatest dangers to our economy is a rise in our personal savings rate at one of its lowest points in our nation's history. Well, if that's what scares the economists, then I hope every one of them is shaking in his boots. When the choice is between personal savings and a "healthy" economy, then that, too, is a no-brainer:

Fuck the economy.

[Systematic Chaos]

22. I think you are pretty much spot on. Very simple and effective post.

My family was Jersey/Connecticut for the most part, and my immediate family was dysfunctional and bigoted to beat hell, but at least they were staunchly pro-union! I rebelled against all the intolerance, and decided on my own that unions were a great thing so at least they had something right.

My wife wrote a very pro-union comment on a card after her (formerly our when we worked together) call center did the same kind of anti-union presentation that Target and Wal-Mart love to do. She's pretty apolitical but has leftist tendencies also. She made me very proud!

[Crowman1979]

26. If there is any occupation that deserves to be laid off, it would be an Economist!

Even Pimps have higher moral standards than those people.

[BOG PERSON]

21. Working harder at what exactly?

All we get paid to do is move money around.

[RebelOne]

23. I can relate to that story.

I was one out of three copy editors doing 28 magazines among us. In December, the other two copy editors were laid off. I have now inherited all 28 magazines. More work but no more pay.

[cap]

24. Wall Street is also cutting contractor's pay...

The TARP money is funding large bonuses for the powers that be... but they are quietly cutting contractor pay by about 15-20%

[Blue_Tires]

25. what else is new?

[lonestarnot]

27. One can only run a good horse so long before it dies.

[OwnedByFerrets]

28. And Wall St LOVES it.

[Zorra]

30. A major reason the Supreme Court appointed Bu*h to office was to bring about

economic conditions that would destroy the bargaining/economic power of labor and the middle class.

Banksters and transnational corporations pay big bucks for talent that can orchestrate profitable economic conditions over the long term that serve the interests of transnational banks and corporations, and they can't let democracy get in the way.

[DebbieCDC]

31. The corporatists have to have a permanent underclass to do their bidding

That's us folks.

[conspirator]

35. It's the race to the bottom nt