Here's How America's Minimum Wage Stacks Up Against Countries Like India, Russia, Gre

[SteadyMercury]

The United States has the biggest income disparity in the world.

This isn't true.

 

[AmazonTania]

One in four private sector workers earn less than $10 per hour. For those workers a 40 hr week translates to less than $19200 per year. That is $3800 short of the per capita figure for those earning the full $10 per hour.

You do realise that per capita is an average accumulation, correct? A vast majority of the population earns much more than $10 dollars an hour, otherwise, the average disposable income per capita would not be at the level it is now. Basic math tells us this.

And I really don't know where you got that one in four statistic from. About 13% of households earn up to or below $20,800 a year. That translates to $10 dollars an hour. That's not one in four. Again, a vast majority of the population earns more than this amount, which is why the per capita disposable income is so high. Again, nothing misleading about this particular figure.

For those poor souls earning the minimum wage, that $10 per hour looks awfully good; considering their financial gap from the "per capita" figure is even larger. In terms of purchasing power that $ 7.25 is valued 30% lower today than it was in 1968.

If you can't understand that per capita is merely an average accumulation, then I really can't help you. You also seem to ignore that half of these minimum wage workers are virtually unskilled, inexperienced workers.

Why you would expect employers to take a chance on these employees by paying these people more than their skills are worth is beyond me.

Where is this "vast" majority?

Okay! You see the number 13? That is the percentage of households who earn $20,800 a year or less in 2012. This translates to $10 a month.

Now subtract 100% from 13% and you'll calculate the percentage of households making above 20,800.

This is the vast majority.

The United States has the biggest income disparity in the world.

Really? Did Chile, Paraguay, Mexico, Singapore, China, Hong Kong, Costa Rica, Brazil and Haiti stop being nations overnight?

 

[AmazonTania]

I thought you knew how deceptive statistics can be to give substance to illusions that don’t mean a damn thing. That “average accumulation” you allude to is such an illusion..

There is nothing illusionary about the term. If I said, 'On average, the United States makes $23,000 in disposable income,' what exactly would that change? Most likely, you would be comparing the average figure to individuals who make less than average. I'm just trying to tell you that it would really help if you understood the terminology better.

Most people already know that the computed average is what is typically earned by most people. That's what an average entails. It's common, it's typical. To try and nitpick around it, calling it deceptive really doesn't change that. Especially if you are going to compare an average accumulate with one particular quintile group. It doesn't make sense.

Indeed, your illusion is edging closer to reality here. But I do think that in making that leap from $10 to “much more than $10 hour” you are ignoring all the millions of people earning from $11 to $15 per hour

First, you're complaining about small amount of workers earning the minimum wage. Then when you are told that very few individuals in the work force earns the minimum wage, you still want to complain about those earning less than $15 dollars an hour. Make up your mind.

You do know that income earned by individual workers and income earned by households are two different things, don’t you? Just ask if you aren’t sure! Some households might have two or more workers bringing home a paycheck. My stat was based on the individual worker and thus would be different from yours based on households! Basic logic would tell you that!

Income statistics are calculated by either households or families, not by the individuals. Both the Bureau labour of Statistics and the Census Bureau compute their statistics this way. Again, it would really help if you tried to understand the terminology and why these terms are used in this fashion.

Income Statistics - U.S Census Bureau

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann11.pdf

Yes, yes, yes, any one who has ears has heard how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. We know that a few at the top have most of the wealth while the rest of us are left with relatively very little to squabble over. And I know that statistics are used to gloss over that fact with the “per capita” BS. Your patronizing me is not going to change that.

We've heard that rhetoric before. Too bad it really isn't true. Again, it's really not my fault you can't understand the terminology.

I really don’t need your help. You might seek some though …so that you will learn to differentiate between household income and individual income!

Households are computed as individual income. Outside from conducting their statistics about races, the census does not conclude single individuals. Inside, they reference it by households. Families are a different category entirely and consist of many people under one statistical unit. Because many households consist of a single person, average household income is usually less than average family income, another frequently reported economic statistic, because a household consisting of a single person is not included in the average family income calculation.

It may sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but learning how these statistics are used will probably give out a better understanding of what you are attempting to discuss.

Am I really ignoring that? What gives you that idea? Didn’t we also include those making $10 or slightly more in our conversation? You choose to ignore the fact that the poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050 (total yearly income) for a family of four. Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.

See, this is why we use the word 'household' instead of 'individuals.' To keep people such as yourself from bringing up irrelevant points. If you want to discuss the poverty line with a family of three or more, then you must refer to the income statistics regarding families. Otherwise, what you are telling me is just meaningless.

Household income and family income are two different things.

Why you would expect employers to take a chance on these employees by paying these people more than their skills are worth is beyond me.

I am not saying that. I just posted this op because I thought working people might be interested. The elusive living wage is disappearing from these shores due to outsourcing of good paying jobs to foreign countries. Some people with degrees are forced to work in low wage jobs, and many can’t even find a job. Meanwhile WALMART, Mc Donald’s and other corporations are enjoying phenomenal profits. They can afford to raise the minimum wage but they won‘t! I guess the American people are just gullible because they keep buying from the corporations whose products are not made in the USA!

Walmart has razor thin profit margins. If they could increase the wages of all their associates by even 25 cents it would be nothing short of a miracle, let alone $7 whole dollars. In the business sector (especially food and accommodation), wages are increasing and businesses have no other way of recouping their cost.

 

[JQPublic1]

You do know that income earned by individual workers and income earned by households are two different things, don’t you? Just ask if you aren’t sure! Some households might have two or more workers bringing home a paycheck. My stat was based on the individual worker and thus would be different from yours based on households! Basic logic would tell you that!

Income statistics are calculated by either households or families, not by the individuals. Both the Bureau labour of Statistics and the Census Bureau compute their statistics this way. Again, it would really help if you tried to understand the terminology and why these terms are used in this fashion
Income Statistics - U.S Census Bureau (Income Statistics - U.S Census Bureau)

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann11.pdf
.

You are quite good at dancing around facts aren’t you? All the while you manage to put your twist on things while masquerading as some kind of economic expert who knows more than anybody else.

In reality, it is plain that your “expertise” emanates from Google and the ability to avoid plagiarizing by clever extrapolation, even though you don’t have a real grasp of your subject material.

You repeatedly say that I don’t understand the terminology associated with our present discussion. That has prompted me to action. The following definitions should leave no doubt as to what is meant when these pertinent terms are used. BTW my understanding of these terms is apparently better than yours.

Per Capita
1. Per unit of population; per person: In that year, Americans earned $15,304 per capita. Among the states, Connecticut has a high per capita income.
2. Equally to each individual.
MY UNDESTANDING: This means that if all the income earned by Americans in a year was equally distributed… every man woman and child, working or not, would receive equal amounts

Personal Income:
Personal income is an individual’s total earnings from wages, investment interest, and other sources. In the United States the most widely cited personal income statistics are the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s personal income and the Census Bureau’s per capita money income. The two statistics spring from different traditions of measurement—personal income from national economic accounts and money income from household surveys


MY UNDERSTANDING: DO I have to explain? Here it is in black and white. That first sentence is dynamite. Pay close attention to the word “individual.” Its a word used quite extensively by the BEA and the IRS. . A real economist would know that. Your suggesting that Income statistics are generated solely by families or households is ridiculously amateurish.

Household Income:

Household income is a measure commonly used by the United States government and private institutions, that counts all the income of all residents over the age of 18 in each household, including not only all wages and salaries, but such items as unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments, regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely.[1] The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.[2].[3]

MY UNDERSTANDING: I concur with the above. It appears to me that I have just proven that it is YOU who does not understand the terminology bandied hereabouts. Household income differs from Personal Income because one pertains to individual earnings and the other pertains to an aggregate of income from ALL workers in the household over the age of 18 from a variety of sources to include unearned income!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Household+income+in+the+United+States

 

[AmazonTania]

You do know that income earned by individual workers and income earned by households are two different things, don’t you? Just ask if you aren’t sure! Some households might have two or more workers bringing home a paycheck.

Some may have, but the vast majority does not. When it comes to defining income and computing the statistics, households are used. As for individual income and household income being different, no one really said it was the same.

My stat was based on the individual worker and thus would be different from yours based on households! Basic logic would tell you that!

What stats would those be? I'm just curious because it doesn't seem like you understand the methodology of any of the statistics you were using.

You are quite good at dancing around facts aren’t you? All the while you manage to put your twist on things while masquerading as some kind of economic expert who knows more than anybody else.

I know more than most of the people who have participated in this thread so far.

In reality, it is plain that your “expertise” emanates from Google and the ability to avoid plagiarizing by clever extrapolation, even though you don’t have a real grasp of your subject material.

You repeatedly say that I don’t understand the terminology associated with our present discussion. That has prompted me to action. The following definitions should leave no doubt as to what is meant when these pertinent terms are used. BTW my understanding of these terms is apparently better than yours.

Per Capita
1. Per unit of population; per person: In that year, Americans earned $15,304 per capita. Among the states, Connecticut has a high per capita income.
2. Equally to each individual.
MY UNDESTANDING: This means that if all the income earned by Americans in a year was equally distributed… every man woman and child, working or not, would receive equal amounts

Personal Income:
Personal income is an individual’s total earnings from wages, investment interest, and other sources. In the United States the most widely cited personal income statistics are the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s personal income and the Census Bureau’s per capita money income. The two statistics spring from different traditions of measurement—personal income from national economic accounts and money income from household surveys

MY UNDERSTANDING: DO I have to explain? Here it is in black and white. That first sentence is dynamite. Pay close attention to the word “individual.” Its a word used quite extensively by the BEA and the IRS. . A real economist would know that.

Thanks for proving my point. You don't understand a thing you are trying to discuss. Allow me to inform you. First of all, a real economist would know that Personal Income is calculated on an aggregate level. While it may be the total earnings from wages, investments and other sources of income of an individual, it is also the total earnings from wages, investments and other sources of income from all individuals. It probably would have been better if you actually looked up the definition on Google.

This is what personal income is:

And this is personal income by disposition:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0678.pdf

Now you do have something called 'Personal Income per Capita' which is nothing more than Gross Income per Capita. Again, all you are doing is with the per Capita metric is calculating the average personal income made by in the country. It's no different from the Disposable Income statistic I used a few post back.

If you are not understanding this by now, I will dumb it down for you. Income Statistics are NOT used with individual income or Personal Income as you have decided to use. When you are comparing two different types of income, class by class, quintile by quintile, what is used are Households and/or Families. Again, Personal Income is the sum of all the incomes actually received by all individuals. Part of learning the terminology is understanding how the terminologies are used, which you were apparently out to lunch on.

When it comes to the income distribution, it is calculated by households and families. This is used by ALL government institutions. The Census, the BLS and even the IRS. The only time where individuals are use in these statistics are when you are getting down to the nitty gritty of the data. In which case, I am talking about income distribution by age, sex and race.

Your suggesting that Income statistics are generated solely by families or households is ridiculously amateurish.

There is nothing amateurish about it, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Personal Income is an aggregate. Household and Family is distributive. Household income is what is used to compare incomes between two different classes or quintles, not personal income.

And I'm not even going to address your Per Capita point again. If you can't understand the fact that the term is an average accumulation and not meant to be a distributive term, that's your particular malfunction.

MY UNDERSTANDING: I concur with the above. It appears to me that I have just proven that it is YOU who does not understand the terminology bandied hereabouts. Household income differs from Personal Income because one pertains to individual earnings and the other pertains to an aggregate of income from ALL workers in the household over the age of 18 from a variety of sources to include unearned income!

Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Household income in the United States - encyclopedia article about Household income in the United States.

All you've really proved was how far Google and Wikipedia can take someone, especially when someone uses it as an economic textbook. Even your own source refutes you, which demonstrates how clueless you are.

BEA's personal income measures the income received by persons from participation in production, from government and business transfers, and from holding interest-bearing securities and corporate stocks. Personal income also includes income received by nonprofit institutions serving households, by private non-insured welfare funds, and by private trust funds.

 

[JQPublic1]

Ok, the original intent of my starting this thread was to discuss the comparison of our minimum wage with that of other countries. Amazon Tania has come here and diverted attention away from that objective... Like all know- it- alls , she has caused the audience's eyes to glaze over and beat a hasty retreat to more inclusive environs where their posts have a chance of being respected by others. ...HEY... wait for me fellas!

 

[JamesTheWarlock]

Can't post URLs yet, so add http and such,
crawford.anu.edu.au/public_policy_community/content/doc/Minimum%20wage%20J%20Rob%20Bray%208%20May%202013.pdf

Figure 1 shows the estimated real value of the mininum wage through 1907-2007. I believe "real value" means adjusted for inflation.

The current GDP in Australia is 61.789.48 USD per capita.
The current GDP in USA is 48,111.97 USD per capita.

Unemployment is at 7.4% in USA, 5.7% in Australia.

Too tired to dig up more right now.