Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] getting more [OT] - anyone knowsanything?

Subject: Re: [OM] getting more [OT] - anyone knowsanything?
From: Dirk Wright <wright@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:06:08 -0500
>
>I don't think we are losing ground financially if you look at what people 
>earn. U.S. minimum wage in 1973 was $1.80/hr I believe. I think it's very 
>close to $7.00 now, about the same, if not a bit more in comparison. In my 
>line of work, a rookie cop would earn 4to  4 1/2  times the salary they 
would 
>earn in 1973, also on par with the above OM comparison. But the OM-4T is a 
>much more featured camera than the OM-1, and may not be the best comparison, 

I agree that it is not fair to compare the OM-1 with the -4t, but I disagree 
about wages. The situation in that regard is somewhat complex, as this 
statement from the Economic Policy Institute, an apparent "think tank" based 
in the US, indicates:

"The most important indicator of how working people are doing economically is 
whether, and by how much, "real wages" -- the inflation-adjusted purchasing 
power of our paychecks -- are rising.

-For 23 years, from 1973 through 1996, the news about wages and benefits 
wasn't good for most workers. However, a turn-around began in 1997. There are 
still many losses to be regained, but the wage trend is finally moving in the 
right direction.

-The wages paid at the median of the pay scale (in other words, the job in 
the middle, which pays more than half of all jobs but less than the other 
half of all jobs) declined between 1973 and 1996, but finally began rising in 
1997-99. However, this median wage did not surpass the 1989 level until mid-
1999 and it remains substantially below the level reached in 1973 when the 
downturn began.

-There are a growing number of jobs paying poverty-level wages, defined as an 
hourly wage so low that a worker employed full time cannot pull a family of 
four above the poverty line. In 1998, 290f all workers were in jobs paying 
poverty-level wages, a larger share than in the past.

-The share of the work force receiving employer-sponsored health insurance 
has been falling: from 80 0n 1979 to 75 0n 1998. Pension coverage was 
largely unchanged over this period -- just 490f workers have a pension 
through their employer.

-Wages became more unequal between 1979 and 1999 -- the rich got richer and 
the poor became poorer."

Now, I don't know if this "Institute" is some left wing radical group or a 
middle of the road non-partisan assemblage, but I think most economists will 
agree with the above. I don't mean to spread doom and gloom, and I certainly 
don't intend to start an argument about this, but I only wanted to say that I 
based my statements on the writings of people with more expertise in this 
area than I. 

What I am trying to say is that to a great extent, all of the talk by upper 
level government officials about how well the economy is doing here in the US 
does not tell the whole story, and as a result, things that were affordable 
back in 1973 are out of reach by now. One example I have in mind is the fact 
that my parents bought a brand new single family home on a 1/4 acre lot back 
in 1964 on the salary of an enlisted man in the Navy at the ripe old age of 
28. Here I am, 41 years old, and just now buying a 30 year old single family 
home much, much farther away from my workplace. Granted, I am divorced with 
one child, but I am also much higher paid, relatively speaking than my 
father. I also live in a more expensive area, so maybe my comparason is not 
completely fair. But, to make my point, photographic gear at least appears to 
be more expensive, relatively speaking, than it used to be 20 years ago.

-- 
Be Seeing You.
Dirk Wright


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz