Wednesday, May 28, 2025

By the TRU Measure, 1 in 4 Are 'functionally Unemployed'

Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity calculates how many Americans are unable to afford the basic necessities of life. "The unemployment data, as it's put out, has some flaws," LISEP chairman Gene Ludwig told CBS MoneyWatch. "For example, it counts you as employed if you've worked as little as one hour over the prior two weeks. So you can be homeless and in a tent community and have worked one hour and be counted, irrespective of how poorly-paid that hour may be."

Posted by Whatsleft at 08:33 AM | 24 COMMENTS | permalink

More

If you're making less than $100,000, you aren't earning enough to cover basic human needs, according to research by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP), which defines a 'minimal quality of life' as a working-class lifestyle.

[image or embed]

-- NowThis Impact (@nowthisimpact.bsky.social) May 21, 2025 at 3:33 PM

Comments

... Which one should we really be giving our attention? ...

That would depend upon the information you are looking for.

If you are looking for ~functionally unemployed, but employed~ - then look at the TRU

From the cited article ...

... LISEP's measure encompasses not only unemployed workers, but also people who are looking for work but can't find full-time employment, as well as those stuck in poverty-wage jobs. ...

If you are looking for those who are not employed then look at the usual unemployment figures.



#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-27 06:46 PM

"List of Minimum Wage Rates by State 2025"

www.minimum-wage.org

Everyone should make it a point to know how little employers can pay for labor in this natin we call "the richest nation in the world."

#2 | Posted by danni at 2025-05-28 09:56 AM

"For example, it counts you as employed if you've worked as little as one hour over the prior two weeks"

And even under those relaxed standards, LftHndThrds still does not count as "employed."

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-28 12:37 PM

If you work 40 hours per week but don't earn ebough to rent a basic 1 bedroom apartment then effectively you are unemployed and I think that when I shop either in-store or online I would like to know if the businesses I deal with operate on underpaid labor and there should be a wat for ne to know; perhaps a website that researches local wages and offers information to consumers? If employers won't reveal the information it could be gathered from present or former employees providing it. Why should an employer be afraid of the public being informed about the condititions that the emloyees we deal with are working under? Average workers are too busy surviving to read long pages about economics but if they could look at a chart that shows basic information about compensation of employees from top to bottom listed simply, I think they would be interested enough to examine their own compensation and compare it with other jobs. There are reasons most employers do not want employees to have compensation among themselves but it should be considered a violation of the 1st Anendment to forbid them from talking about it with their fellow employees and the right to do so should be made a federal law so that, even in "right to work" states employers would have to compete with each other to hire and retain enployees; free market principle which should not be denied to employees.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2025-05-28 02:49 PM

"Average workers are too busy surviving to read long pages about economics but if they could look at a chart that shows basic information about compensation of employees from top to bottom listed simply, I think they would be interested enough to examine their own compensation and compare it with other jobs."

Even employers who treat their workers very fair would want to continue to maintain some confidentiality of compensation.

And there are wage surveys everywhere, and the opportunity to seek employment elsewhere is always present.

IOW, there is a fair amount of transparency out there already.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2025-05-28 03:07 PM

"IOW, there is a fair amount of transparency out there already."

Ihere probably is but I don't know of a simple charts listing all employers in an employment market defined geographically, including notations for employers who refuse to cooperate. Wages should be available for comparison just like prices for goods or services; secrecy only benefits employers. Could include a column for benefits like insurance with + signs to indicate levels of benefits offered. Put it online so job seekers could know in advance what the prospective employer is paying compared to what other enployers are paying. Seems to me that a clever entrepreneur could assemble the site and use social media advertising to get current emokoyees thinking and potential new employees to want to consider switching jobs. Employers are very complacent and it would be good to create dissent among employees by offering valuable information to them in a format that would make it quick and easy to know the market for their skills.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2025-05-28 03:29 PM

"Even employers who treat their workers very fair would want to continue to maintain some confidentiality of compensation."

Why? It's so Free Speech to talk about your pay, that it's illegal for companies to fire you for talking about it!

I mean, I can see why they threaten employees for talking about it.

Apparently only one of us can see that any employer who does that isn't trustworthy.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-28 04:09 PM

7

nope

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2025-05-28 04:19 PM

I didn't say anything about firing someone for repeating their wage.

I'm just saying it's appropriate for your employer to keep private information private.

your driving record
your wife's prozac prescription
your compensation plan including a bonus schedule that's specific for your job.

What business is it of any fellow employee to know that about you?

In fairness, your fellow employee's information isn't your business either.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2025-05-28 04:22 PM

"I'm just saying it's appropriate for your employer to keep private information private."

But... why shouldn't salaries be public information?
It's public when you work for the state.
Are those employers behaving inappropriately, or do you have a different standard for private sector.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-28 04:26 PM

So, my answer is, a salary range should be public, whereas the specific salary number is probably okay to keep under wraps.

But mostly, the reason to keep it hidden is to not negatively impact morale at the company, when Joe finds out Mary is making $25K more despite being a newer hire.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-28 04:27 PM

"What business is it of any fellow employee to know that about you?"

And what I'm saying is, that's up to you, not your employer, if you want to share those details.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-28 04:28 PM

Even employers who treat their workers very fair would want to continue to maintain some confidentiality of compensation.

Why?

Employers who treat their employees fairly shouldn't be worried about employees discussing how much they get paid since they would be getting paid fairly.

The only reason I can think of for employers not wanting employees discussing their wages is so they can pay certain employees less.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-28 04:28 PM

-But... why shouldn't salaries be public information?

well, to put it bluntly...the public is too stupid to understand compensation structures.

I'm guessing by these questions, it's obvious where your compensation falls on the spectrum in your organization.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2025-05-28 04:41 PM

-Employers who treat their employees fairly shouldn't be worried about employees discussing how much they get paid since they would be getting paid fairly.

It's not that my employer forbids me to walk down the hall and tell someone what I make. I don't care if employees talk with each other about it.

It's that I don't think the employer should be compelled to share my compensation to the world.

what part of my compensation is your business?

salary
company car
phone, expense account
commission structure
bonus structure
profit sharing
benefits
deferred compensation agreement

what part of any of that is your business?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2025-05-28 04:44 PM

-And what I'm saying is, that's up to you, not your employer, if you want to share those details.

okay. I think employers should STFU on how employees talk to each other.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2025-05-28 04:45 PM

-But mostly, the reason to keep it hidden is to not negatively impact morale at the company, when Joe finds out Mary is making $25K more despite being a newer hire.

that's right. To keep morale from the toilet.

Unless you're going to argue that Joe is getting screwed solely because Mary is awesome at her job.

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2025-05-28 04:53 PM

It's not that my employer forbids me to walk down the hall and tell someone what I make. I don't care if employees talk with each other about it.

I agree it's not the employers job to tell employees what other employees are making.

But, There's definitely a sense of taboo in society about discussing wages.

It gives employers leverage to have people in the dark about how much their coworkers are making.

Take my industry, for example.

When a shows gets sold to a network, the salaries for all employees are included in the contract. When the contract is written, the salary for each person of a certain position is presented at maximum compensation.

Now, if the production company can negotiate to pay you less than what they're getting from the network to pay you, that difference gets put into the pockets of the owners of the company.

Due the nature of this industry being predominantly freelance, the difference in what each employee is getting paid wildly varies from person to person.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-28 04:58 PM

"When a shows gets sold to a network, the salaries for all employees are included in the contract. When the contract is written, the salary for each person of a certain position is presented at maximum compensation."

I'm learning something here. I know nothing about the entertainment industry.

A "show" isn't just the product...the show...but it's actually an organization? That makes sense but I never saw it that way.

And in the context of this discussion, I can see why you question keeping compensation secret and the consequences.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2025-05-28 05:05 PM

A "show" isn't just the product...the show...but it's actually an organization?

The show is the product, but it's also the lifeblood of the production company.

NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, Netflix, etc ... don't actually produce anything themselves anymore. They pay third parties for their content.

Even flagship shows like NCSI, law and order, sitcoms, documentary reality series like the Kardashians or competition shows like survivor or the bachelor, etc ... are produced by third-party companies, which the networks pay to make them a show.

Back in the day, those same companies would be producing the shows on their own lots, that rarely happens these days.

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-28 05:23 PM

"what part of my compensation is your business?"

All of it, when you work for the state.
So why should it be different when you work for the private sector?

If it's good enough for all those scumbags in Congress, if it's good enough for all those lazy government DEI hires, it's good enough for the public at large.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-28 05:56 PM

Who benefits when this information isn't public?
Nobody but the employer benefits.

Though perhaps the individual suffers, if you make a smaller amount of money than you'd like people to believe.
But you're already suffering that harm financially, so you should learn to take it on the chin like a man.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-28 06:02 PM

I actually went to the LISEP website. It was interesting to find out that, based on their methodology, my 20-year-old daughter at the University of Arizona would need to be receiving $44,737 per year to meet minimum quality of life.

www.lisep.org

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-05-29 01:38 AM

#4 | Posted by danni

Tell ya, after I found out one business with those pesky tip amounts that show up at checkout in non-restaurants weren't being shared with employees, I started giving cash tips. I'm not subsidizing some business owner who won't pay a living wage.

#24 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2025-05-29 03:26 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Retort Weekend Tunes (33 comments)

Florida Locals Defy DeSantis, Restore Pulse Rainbow Crosswalk (31 comments)

Homeowner Shoots 2 Men in Masks Claiming to Be Cops (26 comments)

Greene Issues Scathing Rebuke of Conditions in Gaza (25 comments)

FBI Plans to Lower Hiring Standards (23 comments)

WTTC: U.S. Only Major Nation to See Decline in Tourism (12 comments)

Bluesky Blocks Mississippi over Age Verification Law (11 comments)

Vance Mocked for WWII History Blunder (8 comments)

Only 8 People Show Up to Nancy Mace Speech (8 comments)

DOJ Sent Congress Epstein Files That Were Already Public (8 comments)