How Much Do Plumbers Really Make?

[l***@theydontknow.us]

How Much Do Plumbers Really Make?
By FRANCES ROMERO Frances Romero – Sat Oct 18, 6:40 pm ET

Forget the jokes about sagging workbelts, dirty t-shirts and plungers
- the day of the savvy, politically inquisitive plumber is now at
hand. Much has already been said of Joe the Plumber's sharp ascent
into the public eye over the past two days. Since the airing of the
final presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack
Obama on Oct. 15, reporters have discovered the following about Joe
Wurzelbacher, 34, of Holland, Ohio: He owes some taxes, apparently is
working toward his plumbing license - though he has worked in the
industry for more than a decade - and he voted for McCain in the
presidential primary.

After the debate, fact-checkers were in a frenzy correcting McCain on
several tidbits concerning the man who's now the most famous plumber
in the nation: his name, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (not Joe
Wurzelberger); that Wurzelbacher would face "much higher taxes" turns
out would not be true after he admitted that the business he wants to
buy likely wouldn't make enough to be taxed under Obama's plan; and
more importantly, the fact that McCain apparently mistook
Wurzelbacher's desired salary of $250,000 for his current salary,
which the plumber says is far less. Which of course begs the question:
How much do plumbers actually make? The standard assumption is that
they earn a pretty decent wage. Americans want and need working pipes,
just like they want and need their trash collected every few days -
sanitation being another service always in demand by consumers and not
always in demand by job-seekers, and typically pretty well paying as a
result.

That said, a plumber's earnings vary widely depending on the region in
which they work and whether a plumber owns a business that employs
others. Journeymen in cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles
and Boston are in higher demand and command higher prices - up to
about $250,000 a year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
2006 National Compensation Survey, pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters
and steamfitters nationwide made an average of $23 an hour, or about
$46,000 annually for a typical 40-hour workweek. But those numbers
lump different occupations together and don't give a complete picture
of the current market. A pipelayer, for example, mostly installs
pipes, while pipefitters and steamfitters install, maintain and repair
pipe systems.

Organizations such as the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors
Association and The United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters
(UA) (which has endorsed Obama) don't keep statistics on how much
members take home, or on industry earning standards. But a
representative at the UA says that owners of plumbing businesses would
likely take bigger hits in economic hard times because they incur the
production costs of keeping a company running. Paul Abrams, a
spokesman for Roto-Rooter, the nation's largest plumbing and drain
service provider, says he has seen evidence of that. "We've had some
people who owned businesses close up shop and come work for us,"
Abrams says.

He notes that some master plumbers (about five to seven years
experience) at the Cincinnati-based company make in excess of $100,000
a year. "A good plumber can pretty much write his ticket and make a
good living with a good amount of experience," Abrams says. The
outsourcing boom that has sucked information technology jobs overseas,
coupled with a dearth of workers in plumbing - a somewhat
recession-resistant market - makes for an industry ripe for growth. As
for Wurzelbacher, based on the region of the country he works in, the
amount of experience he has, and the fact that he is unlicensed, he
could be currently making anywhere between $40,000 and $70,000 - and
no, he won't get stung by the Obama tax plan even if he buys that
business. Still, not bad for an average Joe.

View this article on Time.com

Related articles on Time.com:

Paul Slansky's Weekly Index of the News


One more time:
"........based on the region of the country he works in, the amount of
experience he has, and the fact that he is unlicensed, he could be
currently making anywhere between $40,000 and $70,000 - and no, he
won't get stung by the Obama tax plan even if he buys that business.
Still, not bad for an average Joe."

This is something difficult to understand. The Republicans are making
a big deal out of this as though it were true. Obviously it is not.
Joe seems to be full of feces packed as well as the party who uses
this information. The only people with any interest in this are the
choir they seem to unceasingly preach to. The blokes they need to
reach to harvest their votes from pay little attention to them so what
is the point? To continue to lie doesn't make a lot of sense unless
one is trying to convince themselves?

[kujebak]

Post by l***@theydontknow.us
How Much Do Plumbers Really Make?
By FRANCES ROMERO Frances Romero – Sat Oct 18, 6:40 pm ET
Forget the jokes about sagging workbelts, dirty t-shirts and plungers
- the day of the savvy, politically inquisitive plumber is now at
hand. Much has already been said of Joe the Plumber's sharp ascent
into the public eye over the past two days. Since the airing of the
final presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack
Obama on Oct. 15, reporters have discovered the following about Joe
Wurzelbacher, 34, of Holland, Ohio: He owes some taxes, apparently is
working toward his plumbing license - though he has worked in the
industry for more than a decade - and he voted for McCain in the
presidential primary.
After the debate, fact-checkers were in a frenzy correcting McCain on
several tidbits concerning the man who's now the most famous plumber
in the nation: his name, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (not Joe
Wurzelberger); that Wurzelbacher would face "much higher taxes" turns
out would not be true after he admitted that the business he wants to
buy likely wouldn't make enough to be taxed under Obama's plan; and
more importantly, the fact that McCain apparently mistook
Wurzelbacher's desired salary of $250,000 for his current salary,
How much do plumbers actually make? The standard assumption is that
they earn a pretty decent wage. Americans want and need working pipes,
just like they want and need their trash collected every few days -
sanitation being another service always in demand by consumers and not
always in demand by job-seekers, and typically pretty well paying as a
result.
That said, a plumber's earnings vary widely depending on the region in
which they work and whether a plumber owns a business that employs
others. Journeymen in cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles
and Boston are in higher demand and command higher prices - up to
about $250,000 a year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
2006 National Compensation Survey, pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters
and steamfitters nationwide made an average of $23 an hour, or about
$46,000 annually for a typical 40-hour workweek. But those numbers
lump different occupations together and don't give a complete picture
of the current market. A pipelayer, for example, mostly installs
pipes, while pipefitters and steamfitters install, maintain and repair
pipe systems.
Organizations such as the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors
Association and The United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters
(UA) (which has endorsed Obama) don't keep statistics on how much
members take home, or on industry earning standards. But a
representative at the UA says that owners of plumbing businesses would
likely take bigger hits in economic hard times because they incur the
production costs of keeping a company running. Paul Abrams, a
spokesman for Roto-Rooter, the nation's largest plumbing and drain
service provider, says he has seen evidence of that. "We've had some
people who owned businesses close up shop and come work for us,"
Abrams says.
He notes that some master plumbers (about five to seven years
experience) at the Cincinnati-based company make in excess of $100,000
a year. "A good plumber can pretty much write his ticket and make a
good living with a good amount of experience," Abrams says. The
outsourcing boom that has sucked information technology jobs overseas,
coupled with a dearth of workers in plumbing - a somewhat
recession-resistant market - makes for an industry ripe for growth. As
for Wurzelbacher, based on the region of the country he works in, the
amount of experience he has, and the fact that he is unlicensed, he
could be currently making anywhere between $40,000 and $70,000 - and
no, he won't get stung by the Obama tax plan even if he buys that
business. Still, not bad for an average Joe.
View this article on Time.com
Paul Slansky's Weekly Index of the News
One more time:  
"........based on the region of the country he works in, the amount of
experience he has, and the fact that he is unlicensed, he could be
currently making anywhere between $40,000 and $70,000 - and no, he
won't get stung by the Obama tax plan even if he buys that business.
Still, not bad for an average Joe."
This is something difficult to understand.  The Republicans are making
a big deal out of this as though it were true.  Obviously it is not.
Joe seems to be full of feces packed as well as the party who uses
this information.   The only people with any interest in this are the
choir they seem to unceasingly preach to.  The blokes they need to
reach to harvest their votes from pay little attention to them so what
is the point?  To continue to lie doesn't make a lot of sense unless
one is trying to convince themselves?

However, the underlying issue everyone seems to be
missing is that increasing marginal tax rates for primary
job creators (small business owners, one of whom Joe
"the plumber" was aspiring to become) to 40%, and
pitching a “tax reduction” for those unable to earn enough
to incur any tax liability to begin with, is going to poison
the economy by punishing creativity, and hinder econo-
mic growth, which, as anyone with a semester of under-
graduate economics knows, is the only way out of the
current federal fiscal predicament. Not to mention it
further promotes the malignamncy of entitlement men-
tality in the American society.

We are slowly reaching a point where in order to pre-
serve the current level of government programs most
people would rather support policies that contribute
to conditions that make those programs necessary,
in the way they already are for 45 million American
workers. Marxian ideas of “economic fairness”, and
“wealth redistribution” are beginning to obscure the
awareness of unskilled labor’s lack of intrinsic eco-
nomic value, and the need of a functioning entrepre-
neurial economy as an essential requirement for
wealth creation.

This might well be the ultimate promise of Obama’s
election campaign – double digit unemployment, and
30’s style soup kitchens, as the value the of the public
entitlements is stripped by governments monetary
intervention in a shrinking economy.

The only question that remains to be answered is
whether Obama TRULY IS the kind of New Deal
socialist he claims to be, or whether his “economic
plan” is just an instrument of his presidential cam-
paign.


 

[Bill Z.]

However, the underlying issue everyone seems to be missing is that
increasing marginal tax rates for primary job creators (small
business owners, one of whom Joe "the plumber" was aspiring to
become) to 40%, and pitching a “tax reduction” for those unable to
earn enough to incur any tax liability to begin with, is going to
poison the economy by punishing creativity, and hinder econo- mic
growth, which, as anyone with a semester of under- graduate
economics knows, is the only way out of the current federal fiscal
predicament.

If you have a successful business and are bringing home 300,000 per
year, you are not going to shut the business down and take a much
lower paying job merely to avoid some taxes.

Taxing high personal incomes does not necessarily hinder economic
growth - rather it encourages you to invest in what is presumably a
successful business by using your profits to expand the business
rather than to buy some expensive toys whose only value is in being a
status symbol.

[kujebak]

Post by Bill Z.

However, the underlying issue everyone seems to be missing is that
increasing marginal tax rates for primary job creators (small
business owners, one of whom Joe "the plumber" was aspiring to
become) to 40%, and pitching a “tax reduction” for those unable to
earn enough to incur any tax liability to begin with, is going to
poison the economy by punishing creativity, and hinder econo- mic
growth, which, as anyone with a semester of under- graduate
economics knows, is the only way out of the current federal fiscal
predicament.

If you have a successful business and are bringing home 300,000 per
year, you are not going to shut the business down and take a much
lower paying job merely to avoid some taxes.
Taxing high personal incomes does not necessarily hinder economic
growth - rather it encourages you to invest in what is presumably a
successful business by using your profits to expand the business
rather than to buy some expensive toys whose only value is in being a
status symbol.

Yours in an argument for lowering corporate taxes.
Taxing business income at a rate lower than highest
marginal personal income would seem to motivate
the proprietor to keep more money in his company,
but as you well know his personal spending deci-
sions are not going to be subject to a 4% difference
between the current max. corporate tax rate, and
Obama's highest personal tax. They are more
likely going to be motivated by the opportunity to
avoid *all taxes* by leasing a new car, rather than
buying it, or living on groceries purchased for the
business ;-)

From a macroeconomic perspective it makes no
difference whether he spends his money on a piece
of business equipment, another worker, or a yacht.
In all of these cases he will contribute to economic
growth by providing opportunity for economic gain
to someone else, which is something only he (the
entrepreneur, the business owner) can do, and not
the wage earner. The low-income wage earner only
exchanges his personal mental/physical effort for
cash, and he spends all his money on basic ne-
cessities. He does not create any excess value
in the process.

Basic economics ;-)

[Bill Z.]

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
Taxing high personal incomes does not necessarily hinder economic
growth - rather it encourages you to invest in what is presumably a
successful business by using your profits to expand the business
rather than to buy some expensive toys whose only value is in being a
status symbol.

Yours in an argument for lowering corporate taxes.

Nope - you have to consider what you get for the corporate taxes.
Comparisions between European countries with various tax policies
found that there were high-tax countries with very solid economies and
low tax countries in the economic pits. The critical factor was not
the tax rate, but how well the government was managed - i.e., what you
were getting for those taxes.

Post by kujebak
From a macroeconomic perspective it makes no
difference whether he spends his money on a piece
of business equipment, another worker, or a yacht.

Not true at all. Why do you think the cost of a VCR dropped to the
point where it is a consumer item? It was because of all the
investment in chip design and manufacturing. To build a VCR in the
1950s would have cost a fortune and the machine would have been huge -
can you imagine how big it would be with each transitor being a vacuum
tube (or even a transistor wired directly onto a circuit board)? If
all the profits were spent on yachts, we'd still have 1950s technology
and be far poorer for it.

Post by kujebak
Basic economics ;-)

Nope - dumped down and deeply flawed economics.

[kujebak]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
Taxing high personal incomes does not necessarily hinder economic
growth - rather it encourages you to invest in what is presumably a
successful business by using your profits to expand the business
rather than to buy some expensive toys whose only value is in being a
status symbol.

Yours in an argument for lowering corporate taxes.

Nope - you have to consider what you get for the corporate taxes.
Comparisions between European countries with various tax policies
found that there were high-tax countries with very solid economies and
low tax countries in the economic pits.  The critical factor was not
the tax rate, but how well the government was managed - i.e., what you
were getting for those taxes.

Post by kujebak
From a macroeconomic perspective it makes no
difference whether he spends his money on a piece
of business equipment, another worker, or a yacht.

Not true at all.  Why do you think the cost of a VCR dropped to the
point where it is a consumer item?  It was because of all the
investment in chip design and manufacturing.  To build a VCR in the
1950s would have cost a fortune and the machine would have been huge -
can you imagine how big it would be with each transitor being a vacuum
tube (or even a transistor wired directly onto a circuit board)?  If
all the profits were spent on yachts, we'd still have 1950s technology
and be far poorer for it.

Post by kujebak
Basic economics ;-)

Nope - dumped down and deeply flawed economics.

Nonsense. Early Japanese VCRs (1978 – 1987) contained
very little new technology. Their price was brought down to
mass consumer level by globalization of labor, which is an
entirely different topic. As an illustration of the relationship
between government tax policy, and technological progress,
which I suppose was your basic point, this example is not
very appropriate.