Inflation-Adjusted Income For Median Male Worker Drops To 1968 Levels

Yo, this one goes out to all the median male workers in the house. How you livin' median male workers? Before you answer that, let me guess. You're hopeful about Swaziland gaining independence, but you still have a sad because of the Tet Offensive. You're excited about the Republican National Convention coming to Florida (Miami, that is) and things look good for Nixon/Agnew. You Green Bay Packers fans are kvelling over your Super Bowl win -- Super Bowl 2, I mean. And who just became Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Council in Iraq? Saddam somebody? I bet that guy has a bright future!

But all y'all median male workers maybe don't have one, and if you haven't figured out what I'm playing at, here's Zero Hedge with the scoop:

While the fact that a record number of Americans are living in poverty should not surprise anyone at this point, what should surprise many is that according to Table P-5 of the Census report of (Lack of) Income, the median male is now worse on a gross, inflation adjusted basis, than he was in... 1968! While back then, the median income of male workers was $32,844, it has since risen declined to $32,137 as of 2010.

The good news, median male worker, is that you've got plenty of company here in the "new normal" that looks like 1968. The bad news is that you're just a hop, skip, and a jump away from living the life of last night's debate star: Wolf Blitzer's "hypothetical sick 30-year-old" who will die without health insurance.

Also, if your life really is like 1968, then in about a year or so you're going to learn about something called the "My Lai Massacre" that won't do much to raise your spirits.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

CORRECTION:: An earlier headline for this story stated that inflation-adjusted median male income had hit "new low," but in fact, the current level of income is comparable to that of 1968, as stated in the article.

Comments

[jerdog365]

01:03 PM on 09/14/2011

Amerika, what a country.

[mclkarim]

12:43 PM on 09/14/2011

How could this happen? This is total poverty level. Trust me, in 1968 we were paying $40 a month rent for a large apartment in Massachusetts. Gasoline was about 20 cents a gallon. Our grocery and utility bills were nothing compared to now. What the h.... is going on here?

[tomjefferson2005]

11:54 AM on 09/14/2011

Google: NAFTA Wikipedia. According to that article; George H.W. Bush signed NAFTA on December 17, 1992. It was ratified later under Clinton. The majority voting for NAFTA in both the House and Senate, were Republicans.

[Malcolm Hensley]

11:24 AM on 09/14/2011

Many uniformed people (I was once one) would like to lay the blame for this on the Republicans. They deserve some of the blame but to be frank in this age of computers it's easy to look up and see the real culprits.

And to be honest I was surprised.

Part of the reason we are in this mess is unrestricted free trade (unfair trade). It started innocently enough with President Carter who granted China Most Favored Trade Status in 1980. Then in 1993 President Clinton signed NAFTA when the Democrats controlled both Houses. In 2000 despite little progress in human rights in China after Tiananmen Square President Clinton granted China permanent Most Favored Trade Status and we have since lost over 30% of our manufacturing jobs.

to be continued:

[Guy Fratianni]

02:20 PM on 09/14/2011

Google: NAFTA Wikipedia. According to that article; George H.W. Bush signed NAFTA on December 17, 1992. It was ratified later under Clinton

[Malcolm Hensley]

02:52 PM on 09/14/2011

But President Bush did not sign it into law.

""The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993;""

I'm not saying the Republicans are blameless! I'm saying that Democratic Presidents have been more effective in giving Wall Street what they want!

[Malcolm Hensley]

11:24 AM on 09/14/2011

Continued:

I'm afraid it gets worse. Many like to blame deregulation's on President Reagan and point out the banking industry. President Reagan did give us the adjustable mortgage when the Prime was double digits. It was President Clinton who signed the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA) when Democrats controlled both Houses that removed the barriers between states. This was the first step in growing banks to large to fail. President Clinton was also responsible for the second step, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in 1999 which allowed the banks to get into issuance and investing. This is when the banks became to big to fail.

It would appear the Democrats have a far more effective propaganda machine to so successfully lay all this blame on President Reagan!

Just some facts and an observation:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5413083_history-bank-deregulation.html

[Guy Fratianni]

02:07 PM on 09/14/2011

George H.W. Bush signed NAFTA on December 17, 1992. It was ratified later under Clinton
Talk about propaganda.....your's is quite evident. Also When the Republicans had Congressional control under Clinton for his last 6 years where were they? Going after a President who lied about a BJ

[Guy Fratianni]

02:19 PM on 09/14/2011

In 1999 The Republicans controlled the House and had complete control of the Presidency and the House along with the Senate for 6 years under Bush...hmmmm...I see propaganda..

[Malcolm Hensley]

02:37 PM on 09/14/2011

Which President signed Permanent Most Favored Trade Status for China?

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html

excerpt:

"China is seeking membership in the WTO because that would ensure China of free trade with other WTO members. If granted WTO membership, China would no longer be subject to its annual MFN review. But China would also have to abide by the WTO trade rules themselves, which would mean lowering their import tariffs against US goods.
The Senate overwhelmingly (83-15) voted for PNTR for China in September 2000 and President Clinton signed it into law. This law included the US's agreement for China's entry into the WTO."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_China.htm

The Republicans promise things to Wall Street, the Democrats Deliver things to Wall Street!

I'm not saying that many Republicans are not also guilty I'm just saying the Democrats are far more effective in giving Wall Street what they want!

These facts speak for themselves.

[Midlife45]

09:54 AM on 09/14/2011

This is not new news= as long as folks had equity they were not as concerned. Now that resources have dried up and are harder to tap people see it. Foreign workers have been pouring the footings around the along the coasts (more so than inland) for many years. All the old prejudices of 68 are also being exploited in the process, we do have some knowledge from already gone through it though.

[winslowsdad]

02:54 AM on 09/14/2011

So what happened to all those high paying blue collar jobs? Thirty, forty years ago there were many high paying constuction jobs here in Southern California. A lot of my middle class white friends had fathers or brothers who worked construction and made a good living supporting their families. Now, you drive by a contruction site and they're all Latinos. Are the whites and blacks no longer taking the construction jobs because the pay isn't high enough? How has the Hispanic or Latino worker changed the blue collar job market?

[gmikejake]

09:57 AM on 09/14/2011

Has "union busting" been happening there?

[winslowsdad]

11:43 AM on 09/14/2011

You bet it has. Good union jobs are hard to come by. A lot of contractors and builders are now Latino owned and hire only Latino workers, which many don't even speak English. I just read about a black guy who asked for employment from a Latino contractor and he was told "We only hire Hispanic workers". Don't get me wrong, most of these workers are very hard working, but they have taken over the entire industry and driven the wages lower. The Blacks are the ones who are suffering the most from the invasion. Unemployment for Blacks in California is above 15%.

[Once in a Blue Moon]

02:28 AM on 09/14/2011

Time. 24 hours a day. 168 hours a week. That's what we get on Earth. That's it. Unchanging. Firm. Fixed.

How do we spend time and energy? Work, relationships, recreation, sleep, nutrition, worship, education-learning, conflict-war, purchasing, addressing health issues, commuting (for work) and travel (for whatever), volunteering in community projects (not much anymore).

A former U.S. standard of a 40 hour work week is approximatley 25% of total time. That standard suggests a job is important, but not the purpose of living. More like jobs are means to ends, good ones- - - personal, professional, social, communal (work creates things for others).

Are we moving backwards, towards existence for basic survival rather than people thriving? Economists, this is NOT the same as a "thriving economy," i.e., unheard of corporate profits do not equal thriving people!

I am very concerned about the strange developments for U.S. workers, male and female. It is frustrating to hear rants about the unemployed being lazy, shifless and the economy not being productive enough. Unsound logic. Something is very wrong in this pattern. Where is it taking us; what, perhaps who, but definitely what is leading us there? It's effecting our values, our health, our happiness in negative ways, and there is no "body" taking responsbility for these changes.

Productivity? Another poster pointed out we are now two income households devoting more time to income producing work, in addition to people maintaining their homes, caring for children and elderly parents.

What's happening to American life?

[gmikejake]

10:01 AM on 09/14/2011

I know this will be unpopular but it must be said given the facts of our collective lives .... what is happening to American life depends largely on what socioeconomic class you live within. If you are wealthy, life is very good, and chances are that your wealth is increasing. If you are middle-class, you are likely doing everything you can do to stay in the middle-class including more work in your household, holding down spending, trying hard to just pay basic bills, etc. If you are poor, if you can, you are looking for a job, likely any job. And, obviously, good jobs are very hard to find.

[doonooch]

10:12 AM on 09/14/2011

ironically, the ones calling the unemployed lazy are the employed working class who are just a heartbeat away from unemployment and poverty. It's amazing the lack of solidarity between the working class and the impoverished. The American working class are the ones who enthusiastically support the rich getting tax cuts. Go figure.

[Malcolm Hensley]

01:23 AM on 09/14/2011

Something to think about.

Our Democrat Presidents have a history of helping the poor but the focus has changed about 30-31 years ago.

In 1980 President Carter gave Most Favored Trade Status to China. In 1993 when Democrats controlled both Houses President Clinton sign NAFTA despite candidate Ross Perot dire warning. President Clinton after successfully helping the poor of Mexico had to top this! So despite little or no progress in human rights after Tiananmen Square in 2000 President Clinton desperate to help the poor in China gave China permeant Most Favored Trade Status with the U.S. China's GDP has grown at about 10% ever since.

The U.S. in the same period has lost over 30% of it's manufacturing jobs! Most forget this but those entry level manufacturing jobs are the first rung out of poverty! Unfortunately our leaders have moved the ladder to the fast developing nations at our poor's expense!

[gutz54]

11:15 PM on 09/13/2011

Welcome to the "Change"

[gmikejake]

10:03 AM on 09/14/2011

A change that has been occurring, rapidly, for most of us since about 1980 with the dawn of "Reaganomics," aka "voodoo economics" or "trickle-down economics."

[doonooch]

10:40 AM on 09/14/2011

Reagan is the godfather of America's decline. He bought some time while he was POTUS, but his economic policies had long term consequences which are now being realized today.

[hifie]

08:41 PM on 09/13/2011

I am not worried about sports star money. We cant afford to go to the games anyway. I have been saying for the last 8 years that are jobs are leaving the US. Corporations have been doing this for 40 years.
Wages have remained stagnant. Prices continue to rise as cost stay stagnant. More money to the bottom line. We are being driven into a two tier society. China has built a entire economy and a new middle class based on the work American corporations have sent them. Our middle class is disappearing. We used to have one provider in a household. Then two. Now teens chip in to keep it going and we still can not keep up. Food prices on many products have doubled in the last 3 years. This is not Obama it is corporations in pursuit of greater profits.
These corporations and big money individuals are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince everyone that the problem is everything but jobs being sent overseas. Try to sell yourself on the idea that if the good jobs were still here that we would still be suffering. If you have connived yourself. seek help you are in need.

[honky1234]

07:45 PM on 09/13/2011

Women joining the workforce caused the decline of everybody's wages. Basic supply and demand of the labor market.

[kitkatborn]

09:50 AM on 09/14/2011

Flagged for misogynistic viewpoint.

[gmikejake]

10:06 AM on 09/14/2011

Fanned for standing up against mysogyny.

[honky1234]

02:30 AM on 09/15/2011

I wasn't intending to be misogynistic, although I'm not surprised it was interpreted that way. I was simply offering a reason why the inflation-adjusted salary of men has decreased. The author gives no reason why this has happened.

Real wages of men have decreased 32% since 1973. This is despite the fact that college education levels are at an all time high.

[andrc657]

07:44 PM on 09/13/2011

Sports stars are paid millions while employees who work at the sports venue in concession stands or sweeping up make little more than minimum wage and live in poverty. Where is the justice in this? This is one example of the tremendous disparity in income in this country.

[fmirabelli]

07:43 PM on 09/13/2011

32 years have come and gone and the median salary is less than 1968 levels. It is truly dismal to see that democrats and republicans have done little to increase the median wage.

I do not have the answers, but we cannot continue within this economic recession with so many problems left unsolved. Who ever is chosen to be the President in 2012 must face the reality of our country and solve the issues of jobs, immigration, NAFTA, health care for everyone.

[DismayedRepub]

07:35 PM on 09/13/2011

This is not so much a story of decreased earnings as it is of the decreased purchasing power of what you earn. Inflation is very much the influence at work here.

[kitkatborn]

09:54 AM on 09/14/2011

You are so wrong. Inflation is and has been fairly low, for lo these many years. Try again, and this time have facts to back it up.

http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp

[DismayedRepub]

12:45 PM on 09/14/2011

You can't use data going back to 2000 to explain what happened back to 1968.