Wages are for socialists!

9 comments on “Wages are for socialists!
  1. snoop diddy says:

    the middle class is sooo droll and soooo last century.
    Get with the program peons.

  2. JonnyJames says:

    That’s what happens when you de-industrialize the economy, destroy unions, off-shore tech jobs, H1-B visa programs.
    That’s what happens when the economy is taken over by the financial crooks , the financial industry is de-regulated and the system rigged by them for them.

    Who needs a living wage when we are slaves anyway? Who needs health-care when you are supposed to die before you can collect any “pension” money?

  3. hlgold5000 says:

    The data used for the “median male workers earnings” in 1968 is totally wrong.

    In 1968, I was a executive with a major NYC book publisher earning $23,000. That was a top, top salary back then. Even adding benefits, no way would my salary + benefits equal $38,000. The average white collar “executive’s” salary was more in the $15,ooo-18,000 range + medical benefits. There was no profit sharing in most jobs back then.

    So now this joker on Zero Hedge is telling us that the average salary back for all sectors of the economy then was $38,000. This is a total fabrication.

    But then again, I suspect that Zero hedge didn’t expect anyone over 70, who worked back in the 1960’s, to fact check his data. Max, you ought to double check these articles for accuracy before giving it out to your readers. This mis-information also reflects on you.

  4. stacyherbert says:

    @hlgold5000 – The Zerohedge article links to the source data from the Census, it is the Census bureau which provided the data at which you are so hysterical and you could have downloaded the excel file and fact checked for yourself before making such an embarrassing error; it clearly states in the said link that the median male income in 1968 was $5980 OR . . . OR . . . OR . . . OR . . . in INFLATION ADJUSTED numbers . . .$32,844 . . . BINGO . . . exactly as the article states;

    Please check your facts before spewing ignorance in our comment threads.

  5. the underfundedmentalist says:

    u forgot the other half of the slogan,
    wages are for socialists & bailouts/bonuses are for capitalists!

  6. the underfundedmentalist says:

    was dat?

    dude, im a trillionaire in Zimbabwe!

    but I can’t teach my weinheimer how to sit…

  7. Steven Rowlandson says:

    If you want a study of the unity of big business ,big government and big communism one needs to watch the documentary “In the shadow of Hermes”‘ by Juri Lina. You will never see the world of finance , big money and politics the same again. http://current.com/community/93369998_documentary-in-the-shadow-of-hermes-by-j-ri-lina-2011.htm

  8. Canuckistan says:

    I don’t have a problem with the average joe earning the same now as they would have earned in 1970. Most people who earn more just turn into gluttons (eat too much food, drink too much booze, take too many drugs, buy too many gas-guzzling toys or electronic gadgets). Better to keep everyone living frugally.

    What I have a problem with is the excess wealth from society going towards the top 1% who turn into gluttons (see above).

    What should happen is the excess wealth from society should go towards pollution abatement, wildlife protection and protection of wilderness areas, space exploration, science research, medical research, disease and crime control, social support systems. Instead it just ends up in the pocket of some billionaire hedge-fund manager who builds a 20,000 sq. foot home with marble everything.

  9. Robert Mockan says:

    @ Canuckistan

    I visited Hearst Castle many years ago. That was his house back when it was built. It had marble everything, swimming pools, gardens, many rooms each with its own very large bathroom and spas. All stone, glass, and steel. On top of a hill.

    I object very much to any body having to live with less, and in the world the way it should be we should all have that standard of living. The way one lives, and the toys one keeps, should not be based on “success”, however measured, in competing with others who are, less able, or less intelligent, or (as is presently the case), more ethical, or more honest.

    Competition by choice is good, but competition as a criteria to determine how one lives and as a basis to having or not a standard of living, is for primitives.

    People say what I have just described is impossible because that is not the way the world works, or how people behave.

    Bull shit! A truly intelligent people would figure out how to make it happen, for every body. Anything less is simply a failure of vision.

Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Buy Gold Online
Buy Gold Online