How the Real Plumbers from Ohio are Faring
From Vox Nova’s favorite Nobel laureate:
“First of all, they aren’t making a lot of money. You may recall that in one of the early Democratic debates Charles Gibson of ABC suggested that $200,000 a year was a middle-class income. Tell that to Ohio plumbers: according to the May 2007 occupational earnings report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual income of “plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters” in Ohio was $47,930.
Second, their real incomes have stagnated or fallen, even in supposedly good years. The Bush administration assured us that the economy was booming in 2007 — but the average Ohio plumber’s income in that 2007 report was only 15.5 percent higher than in the 2000 report, not enough to keep up with the 17.7 percent rise in consumer prices in the Midwest. As Ohio plumbers went, so went the nation: median household income, adjusted for inflation, was lower in 2007 than it had been in 2000.
Third, Ohio plumbers have been having growing trouble getting health insurance, especially if, like many craftsmen, they work for small firms. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2007 only 45 percent of companies with fewer than 10 employees offered health benefits, down from 57 percent in 2000.”
Comments are closed.
uh.. why are we suddenly concerned with Ohio plumbers?
Are those subcontractors, full-time employees at plumbing companies, or do they own their own business.
Third, Ohio plumbers have been having growing trouble getting health insurance, especially if, like many craftsmen, they work for small firms.
This statement suggests that their control group are the FTEs of the plumbing world. I think that you may be questioning the validity of “Joe the Plumber” and McCain’s argument on his behalf.
If that is the case, the dispute is over Joe’s plan to own his own plumbing business, at which point discussing individual income as an FTE is irrelevant. In other words, The quotes you provided aren’t helpful.
Because McCain brought them up, Jeremy?
Samuel “Everyman” Wurzelbacher is a political stunt and a lame one at that. A quick scan of Sam’s body language while talking to Obama reveals him to be quite hostile, obviously a plant. This faux “undecided voter” was flown to the Big Apple for a FauxNews interview. Milk it for all it’s worth. A few more gigs and he can pay off his back taxes and get the Harley tuned up. For the moment, Sam is the toast of Boonfoggle Ohio and that’s pretty exciting stuff.
Ah, I see, it’s all clear now. … wait, no it’s not. Are these Catholic plumbers? Do these plumbers vote as a bloc? Is there a lesson to be learned from Ohio plumbers that I am missing?
Don’t you mean “Vox Nova’s favorite sweatshop defender?”
Can we please recognize that the Krugman fans on this blog do not speak for the blog as a whole.
Jeremy: “sharing the wealth” or ensuring that all classes benefit from economic prosperity is at the core of Catholic social teaching.
Michael: I was being ironic. :)
MM: Thank God!
MM, am unclear on how sharing the wealth is a *core* concept of CST.
How do the Ohio plumbers fit in?
Seriously, how is this post have Catholic or political message – or what?
I’m partly playing dumb, but not really…. If there never was a ‘Joe the Plumber’ what would the point of this post be? Since there is a ‘Joe the Plumber’ what is the point of this post? I’m really not getting it.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my favorite Nobel laureate is Richard Feynman (and I’m not just saying that on account of his political views).
Jeremy,
Go back to any of the social encyclicals. Here are some quotes from John XIII’s Mater et Magistra:
“Economic progress must be accompanied by a corresponding social progress, so that all classes of citizens can participate in the increased productivity. The utmost vigilance and effort is needed to ensure that social inequalities, so far from increasing, are reduced to a minimum.
…From this it follows that the economic prosperity of a nation is not so much its total assets in terms of wealth and property, as the equitable division and distribution of this wealth. “
I would suspect that Dr. Feynman would have a spectacularly difficult time with the Mayberry Machiavelli’s and their politicization of his precious science. I would be wary of assigning too many of one’s political views on this gentleman.