free advice is adjusted to market price

Chicago Workers’ Collaborative  is an Illinois non-profit organization that unites low-wage workers so we can receive the proper respect and treatment in exchange for our important labor.  We educate about workplace rights, provide critical services to our members, and mobilize to gain full access to employment for all workers, especially immigrants and African Americans. The CWC presently is working on the following initiatives:

  • Collaborating with the Illinois Department of Labor and the Illinois Attorney General’s office to improve enforcement of state labor laws.
  • Growing the membership of our Chicago and Northwest Suburban Worker Service Centers by providing critical Assistance to our members.
  • Aiding our worker members to locate the best legal assistance for employment-related issues.
  • Working with law enforcement authorities in arresting the perpetrators and helping the victims of human traffiicking.
  • Bringing together African-American and Latino workers to end the criminalization of our people, including Comprehensive Immigration Reform, so we may all work and participate in our community as equals.
STOP is a community organization that builds the power of residents on the Southside of Chicago to impact the forces and decisions that affect our lives. We fight for human rights to racial and economic justice through organizing, popular education, and leadership development amongst people most directly affected by issues like gentrification, displacement, incarceration and criminalization of youth of color and health cuts.

For the past five years, STOP has fought back against the war on the poor through tenant, youth and healthcare organizing, action research and education, alliance building, and collaborating with tenant associations, youth and community organizations, and labor unions from around the city and nation. Our accomplishments include stopping the displacement of over 600 low income and working class black residents, bringing immediate redress to human rights violations occuring in the Cook County Juvenile Detention Center and stopping the closure of four southside mental health clinics.
The cost of being an adult, then and now

nanner:

glossylalia:

downlo:

ipomoeaandthestarstealers:joligreenredqueen:It’s Harder to Get Started Today:jhameia:imissedtumblr:

I told him that, although I agreed with him that young people should save more, there is also a strong case that it is much more difficult today for a young person to establish themselves financially as he did when he was a young adult.

He looked at me strangely. “What do you mean?” he asked.

So, I laid it out for him, piece by piece. Afterward, it occurred to me that the entire discussion might make for a good post here, particularly with some specific research to back it up.

Real wages Let’s start with income. In 1970, the average wage earner took home $312 per week (in 1982 dollars). In 2004, the average wage earner brought home $277 per week (in 1982 dollars) – and it’s still falling. That means that, once you factor out inflation, the average wage earner in 1970 brought home about 18% more than the average wage earner today.

Home prices Even if you adjust for inflation – and even if you take into account the crash of the housing bubble from 2007 to today – the median price for a home in the United States has gone up more than 50% since 1970. Remember, that number accounts for inflation, so what that number actually means is that the cost of a home requires 50% more of a person’s paycheck than it did in 1970.

Education prices The cost index of an average undergraduate education since 1970 drastically outpaces the growth of the Consumer Price Index. In short, disregarding inflation, the cost of an undergraduate degree today is roughly 30% higher than it was in 1970.

Other essentials In order to compete in today’s workforce, a young person often must have items – paid for out of their own pocket – that weren’t needed in 1970, including a cell phone, a computer, and home internet access. Often, when searching for work, it becomes very difficult for a young person to compete without these extra expenses.

So, to summarize, in order to have housing and an education comparable to what a young person had in 1970, they must spend 50% more on housing, spend 30% more on education, and do it all while earning about 18% less money. That doesn’t even include the extra expenses needed to compete.

I look at my own parents for an example. My parents purchased the house I grew up in for $20,000 – and that included seven acres of land. At the time, that was approximately what my father earned in a year. Today, if I were to purchase a similarly-sized house with seven acres of land, I would be spending well over $100,000 – significantly more than an annual salary.

My parents were also able to find good work without the cost of a college education. Today, the jobs they both had would be completely unavailable to someone if they did not have a college education, putting significantly more expense on the back of a young person today.

I’ve read many times that Generation X is the first group of Americans who have it worse than their parents. The numbers above illustrate that truism perfectly. What’s particularly galling about the rising cost of living (for middle classed U.S. citizens and legal residents) is that a BA is now a requirement for relatively low-paying, entry-level jobs that absolutely do not require special skills. Either institute subsidized higher education that makes it possible for as many people as possible to go to college or make employers stop requiring college degrees for jobs that don’t need them.

Truths. File under: Reasons Why Glossy Can’t Contribute To Her 401k. 

Cross file under: Reasons Why Nanner Doesn’t Have Cable Anymore and Reasons Why Perfectly Lovely, Progressive Liberal People Have to Remain in or Near Their Red State Native Lands.

In our 2010 “Colorlines: Race and Economic Recovery” TV special, we profiled Tisha, an unemployed young mother trapped in Connecticut’s support system. Tisha’s a trained home health care aid who had to let her certification lapse when a family member fell ill. But the system’s neither designed nor funded to help her get back into her field and match her with a job; instead, Tisha’s required by the state to spend forty hours a week at an underfunded city-run job training (read: dress-for-success) program. If she doesn’t go, or if she gets part-time work, or if she uses up her lifetime allotment of weeks in the program, she loses her food stamps. At the end of the program, a participant has no new skills, no new job openings in their community, a black mark on their employment record, and even fewer legal options to support their family. You can imagine that ‘curious’ doesn’t begin to describe their response.
absurdlakefront:

Compare to a chart of GDP recovery over the same period using the same nations.
Something is very, very wrong with the U.S.

Okun’s Law tells us that labour productivity, crudely measured as GDP/employment, and ignoring subtleties like hours worked and quality of labour, normally falls in a recession. Because the percentage fall in GDP will be two or three times as big as the percentage fall in employment. And it did fall in all the other countries. But in the US it didn’t fall at all. Labour productivity actually increased. GDP fell a little over 4%, peak to trough, and employment fell nearly 6%, so the GDP/employment ratio increased by over 1%.
The US is an even bigger puzzle if you think that business cycles are caused by productivity shocks. Sure, you could always argue that US firms and workers were expecting even bigger productivity growth, so when it actually came in at only 1%, that was a negative shock to productivity. But you would have to work hard to convince me that that’s plausible. And what were all the other countries expectations for productivity growth — chopped liver?
Why did US productivity increase during the recession? Why doesn’t your explanation also apply to the other 6 countries?
Why is the US an exception?

absurdlakefront:

Compare to a chart of GDP recovery over the same period using the same nations.

Something is very, very wrong with the U.S.

Okun’s Law tells us that labour productivity, crudely measured as GDP/employment, and ignoring subtleties like hours worked and quality of labour, normally falls in a recession. Because the percentage fall in GDP will be two or three times as big as the percentage fall in employment. And it did fall in all the other countries. But in the US it didn’t fall at all. Labour productivity actually increased. GDP fell a little over 4%, peak to trough, and employment fell nearly 6%, so the GDP/employment ratio increased by over 1%.

The US is an even bigger puzzle if you think that business cycles are caused by productivity shocks. Sure, you could always argue that US firms and workers were expecting even bigger productivity growth, so when it actually came in at only 1%, that was a negative shock to productivity. But you would have to work hard to convince me that that’s plausible. And what were all the other countries expectations for productivity growth — chopped liver?

Why did US productivity increase during the recession? Why doesn’t your explanation also apply to the other 6 countries?

Why is the US an exception?