Weaver95: And you know what? I can (and will) show these charts and that article to my die hard allegedly capitalist friends and they'll STILL ignore the data.

They will not ignore it. They will interpret the data correctly instead of what you are doing.

What is you interpretation?

Weaver95: And you know what? I can (and will) show these charts and that article to my die hard allegedly capitalist friends and they'll STILL ignore the data.

Be fun to see how they react to being told that between 1980 and 2011 the US economy doubled in size, had wage growth kept gong the way it had gone the previous 30 years? It would've grown a lot more, how much? Well between 1950 and 1980 the US economy tripled in size. So yeah, that much, actually more given a few factors. And the thing is, with a GDP of near $20 trillion instead of a bit over $13 trillion? All those people who like making money would have made a ton more money and be making a lot more money than they are now. Corporate revenues would be far greater than they are now, which means profits in literal amounts would be a lot higher.

Dancin_In_Anson: Corporate Self: Does the phrase "race to the bottom" mean anything to you?

You consider what to be a "race to the bottom"? Please elaborate.


GAT_00: He considers that a good thing.

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: I luckily got help

And if you hadn't? Where would you be now?

In all certainty? Going nowhere.

And I know you don't need 'race to the bottom' explained. Why would I have to explain what you've based your entire economic philosophy on?

Saiga410: They will interpret the data correctly instead of what you are doing.

The only conclusion one can make when productivity keeps growing while wages don't is that people are getting screwed. When at every previous point both were growing if not equally then roughly at the same rate, when that is no longer the case something isn't right.

Saiga410: Weaver95: And you know what? I can (and will) show these charts and that article to my die hard allegedly capitalist friends and they'll STILL ignore the data.

They will not ignore it. They will interpret the data correctly instead of what you are doing.

What is you interpretation?

Can't assume he's interpreting it incorrectly, and then ask him what is interpretation is, without looking a bit trollish.

FlashHarry: Cythraul: Jake Havechek: Reagan Legacy

Was Reagan president 40 years ago? Or are you just making a funny? :)

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 600x467]

have a look at the graph. note when the disparity really takes off.

The Carter Administration?

Saiga410: What policy can you point your finger at...

Anti-Union/Organized Labor
Anti-Minimum Wage
Anti-Education Spending
Anti-Social Net (any/all social program really)
Pro-Tax Break for Capital Gains and the Top earners

All in the name of 'Trickle Down' economics. I suppose that was the plan. Slow it all to a trickle.

I just feel bad for the reactionary racist/xenophobes and social-culture-warriors. They got played.

Has anyone mentioned that we could solve this problem with more tax cuts for the rich?

WhyteRaven74: when that is no longer the case something isn't right

The economy changed and I have listed in this thread several reasons why the labor economy changed. The base case no longer holds water so your assumption that what is going on is not right is wrong.

Weaver95: I know this. you know this. But my conservative friends will look at the evidence and will blame....socialism. no, really - that's what they'll say. then they'll make vague statements about unions, Obama tax hikes and profess their love of corporations. I can (and have) piled up stacks of evidence that proves that wages have been flat and that corporate america is f*cking us over and they just ignore it.

It sounds like you have stupid friends.

Dancin_In_Anson: I have a hell of an idea. All of you that are (and will be) pissing and moaning about how unfair life is need to pool your resources, come up with a business plan, start a business and give your employees a living wage, low (better yet no) cost benefits, pension, and whatever else they have a right to while turning a profit for you and your investors.

Problem solved.

So you are saying that the industrial revolution lead to no meaningful increase in productivity so that's why wages grew during it?

X-boxershorts: xanadian: BillCo:

Actually, during the Carter years, the disparity that started with Nixon began to close again.
We are looking at the same graphic, aren't we?

I'm not sure. Admittedly it's an imprecise graph but I looks like it expands signficantly during the carter administration '77-'81. (like 3 or 4 times as wide at the end as at the beginning.)

Not that it matters, you can't just attribute any changes in the economy to the President at the time (can't blame Obama for 9.6% unemployment in '09/'10, for example). Lots of factors come into play, in particular globalization and the development of previously nearly pre-industrial countries into global producers, as well as increased immigration to the US. Each of which would naturally depress wages to laborers in the US.

Also worth noting that inflation in the late 60s and 70s was significant, and inflatoin was in part tamed by lower input prices (wages for manual labor).

Saiga410: The economy changed and I have listed in this thread several reasons why the labor economy changed.

Your claim about the skill of labor would've been valid at one time, but that time was over 100 years ago. Also as for the size of the labor pool, if unemployment trended upward and remained fixed at a higher point, then you'd have a case, but that hasn't happened. If unemployment went from hovering at its low points somewhere around 5% to say 9%, sure your point stands. But it hasn't done that, so it doesn't. Also the argument rests on the assumption that across the board the labor pool would've grown, that isn't the case either. Also boomers never flooded the labor market, they started entering it around 1964, and wages kept growing for over another decade, so despite a pretty big number of people reaching the age at which they would seek employment the economy not only employed them wages kept growing.

Dancin_In_Anson: Wow. I'll give you credit for knowing your limitations.

Go fark yourself asshole. You don't have a goddamn clue you idiotic farking waste of life.

Cinaed: Saiga410: What policy can you point your finger at...

Anti-Union/Organized Labor I can agree with this somewhat... overlay %union membership with this and see if there is at least a corilation.
Anti-Minimum Wage I can give you a little on this
Anti-Education Spending Has always increased... I fail to see where even more is going to help
Anti-Social Net (any/all social program really) Has no baring on compensation rates vs productivity
Pro-Tax Break for Capital Gains and the Top earners Has no baring on compensation rates vs productivity

All in the name of 'Trickle Down' economics. I suppose that was the plan. Slow it all to a trickle.

I just feel bad for the reactionary racist/xenophobes and social-culture-warriors. They got played.

Debeo Summa Credo: , as well as increased immigration to the US. Each of which would naturally depress wages to laborers in the US

The amount of immigration in the early 20th century was huge, yet wages grew quite nicely then. So that line of reasoning doesn't work.

See, I went the opposite direction and decided to be less productive. Hence, being on Fark while at work.

Are we better off today than people were in the 70's? A better question I would ask, are we as comfortable as people in the 70's?

You have a refrigerator, fresh food, movies/leisure time, emergency care when needed and a roof over your head. I believe we have become content with having our standard of living at a certain wage. Automation, globalization, and cheap credit are allowing us to live better or equal to our parents, despite what the media and Fark.com posters say.

I am not shocked at the graph and I think this is not a bad thing. We don't need the entire US having so much disposable income that it destroys our planet at a faster rate than we are currently.

Lastly, I would lump this in like the Chinese economy. There was increase urbanization from the 50-70s in the US, therefore making the 'average' wage per capita soar going from more agrarian to industrial and city workforce. It just tapered out, much like the Chinese will, and then Cambodia, Thailand, etc.

WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: The economy changed and I have listed in this thread several reasons why the labor economy changed.

Your claim about the skill of labor would've been valid at one time, but that time was over 100 years ago. Also as for the size of the labor pool, if unemployment trended upward and remained fixed at a higher point, then you'd have a case, but that hasn't happened. If unemployment went from hovering at its low points somewhere around 5% to say 9%, sure your point stands. But it hasn't done that, so it doesn't. Also the argument rests on the assumption that across the board the labor pool would've grown, that isn't the case either. Also boomers never flooded the labor market, they started entering it around 1964, and wages kept growing for over another decade, so despite a pretty big number of people reaching the age at which they would seek employment the economy not only employed them wages kept growing.

Nicely put but we cannot look at the unemployment % over the time period because of the ever changing measuring metric. I think there is some impact from the labor pool changing but my views is that the main driver is the technological changes.

How I see it.

1. Technological changes (simplified jobs, ie push hamberger icon, or one person doing what was multiple peoples jobs, ie payroll office)
2. Demographics, we hit a demographic bubble with the boomers while also opened the workforce more to half the population.... could be a corilation.
3. Lowered bottom marginal rates, lessened the economic pressure to the middleclass and poor to scramble for higher wages... mind you I said lessen
4. Easy available cred, see 3.

Marcus Aurelius: To be fair, Reagan did assure me that those massive tax cuts for the wealthy would be trickling down. He just didn't say when. Or where.

Whatever. Letting people or evil corporations (groups of people) keep more of what they earned doesn't concern me nearly as much as our Bush/Obama bailouts. People were having a hard time paying their mortgages, so we gave a bunch of money to people so that they could pay their mortgages banks so they wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of the bad loans they handed out.

Between "butthurt over letting people keep more of their money" and "butthurt over giving rich people money collected from all people", I'll find more offense over #2 every time.

Saiga410: 1. Technological changes (simplified jobs, ie push hamberger icon, or one person doing what was multiple peoples jobs, ie payroll office)

That same stuff was going on between 1945 to the point where incomes started stagnating. And it's something that's been happening for over 100 years. As for payroll, sure that got easier, but back when there weren't HR departments. And HR departments tend towards being a bit bigger than the personnel offices they replaced.

Big_Fat_Liar: banks so they wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of the bad loans they handed out.

One of the factors in what happened with housing is the lack of income growth.

WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: , as well as increased immigration to the US. Each of which would naturally depress wages to laborers in the US

The amount of immigration in the early 20th century was huge, yet wages grew quite nicely then. So that line of reasoning doesn't work.

Really? Should we go back to the industrial/labor/fiscal policies of the early 20th century then? Or should we consider that other external variables might affect wage rates?

Immigration drastically slowed down after the immigration act of 1924, an then picked up gradually in the second half of the 20th century.

Link

Immigration is only one of many factors, but you cannot deny that higher levels of immigration will result in relatively lower working class wages than what would have been observed with lower levels of immigration.

It will never change. If they change it and pay us more the stock holders will be pissed and stocks will fall because profitability won't be as high. Get as much out of your employees as you can for as little money as possible. If they don't like it they can quit and then you higher a young kid and pay them even less. Share holders are the root of all evil. The product and quality no longer matters. Purely the bottom line and dividends.

Capitalism. It's great for Business.

/jaded
//am I wrong?

WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 1. Technological changes (simplified jobs, ie push hamberger icon, or one person doing what was multiple peoples jobs, ie payroll office)

That same stuff was going on between 1945 to the point where incomes started stagnating. And it's something that's been happening for over 100 years. As for payroll, sure that got easier, but back when there weren't HR departments. And HR departments tend towards being a bit bigger than the personnel offices they replaced.

You cannot be stating that the efficiency increases by optimization of mechanical systems is on par with efficiency increases generated by the electronic revolution...

OK I have given an attempt at rationalizing the causes of the change in growth rates, what is your opinion on the causes?

higher = hire

hahaha

WhyteRaven74: Big_Fat_Liar: banks so they wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of the bad loans they handed out.

One of the factors in what happened with housing is the lack of income growth.

Huh? Lack of income growth resulted in house prices quadrupling or more between 1997 and 2006? I would have hated to see what prices would have gone to if wages had been growing.

Starfly: Lastly, I would lump this in like the Chinese economy. There was increase urbanization from the 50-70s in the US, therefore making the 'average' wage per capita soar going from more agrarian to industrial and city workforce. It just tapered out, much like the Chinese will, and then Cambodia, Thailand, etc.

Sorry troll, there's no room for rational thought or consideration of any global or economic variables here that can't be digested by looking simply at a pretty graph.

The correct answer is "REAGAN!!!1!!". We also would've accepted "We told them it would trickle down LOL"

-2/10

Dancin_In_Anson: Aarontology: FIX OLD, NO NEW

This means what? Ask not what you can do for your country but ask what your country can do for you?

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Sure thing! Let me round up a few thousand low-middle income folks with zombie student loans and underwater homes to search their couches for extra change. I'm sure we'll come up with at least 100K in a jiffy.

Get knocked down 7 times get up 8! That's the American spirit! Glad to see someone still has the fire in their belly.

Irrelevant to the average American, and as much a chance of becoming that Amurcan Bootstrap Millionaire as the average black kid does of hanging his fortune on being a sports start or entertainment mogul. The funny thing to me is the Right would forward that fake Bill Cosby email with the hibby and the hoppy and the kids today need to wear their hats straight and pull their pants up and get educated and stop believing the sports/rap dream with pudding pops and the what not, but on the same hand still preach that farcical, once in a million shot to white people that education doesn't really matter but hard work will make you rich.

The system's a joke as is your defense of it. Unless you are one of the top elites and then I can see why it matters to you that the average is continued to be farked in this country. Because you're doing the farking.

Debeo Summa Credo: Really? Should we go back to the industrial/labor/fiscal policies of the early 20th century then? Or should we consider that other external variables might affect wage rates?

On the issue of people, the difference between then and now isn't a matter of immigration policy, but rather the people running stuff. Companies back then, even huge ones like DuPont expanded because with a ready labor pool, they could expand. Then people like Ford got people rushing to them by offering good wages, in Ford's case wages so good people said he'd put himself out of business. An increase int he size of the labor pool is neither an asset nor a liability when it comes to things like wages, at least not by itself. It comes down to the actions of others. If you're an old school business leader, you see an increase in the labor supply and start salivating as you ponder what new enterprise you can undertake. Oh sure these people you hire are going to want more money over time and stuff, but compared to what you can make for yourself? So what? Now, if you're risk averse, not particularly interested in even doing what you already do better, then yeah it works out a bit differently.

Debeo Summa Credo: Huh? Lack of income growth resulted in house prices quadrupling or more between 1997 and 2006? I would have hated to see what prices would have gone to if wages had been growing.

A huge part of what drove that was bad mortgages offered to people who didn't mean the usual requirements. Part of why they couldn't meet the requirements for a standard mortgage can be fairly easily traced back to a lack of income growth. If incomes keep growing the number of people who can't qualify for a regular mortgage doesn't exactly grow, so any market for offering mortgages to people who can't qualify for a regular mortgage doesn't grow much.

rumpelstiltskin: The effect of a productivity increase is hardly ever tied directly to an increase in workers' wages.



And yet there it is.

Debeo Summa Credo: WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: , as well as increased immigration to the US. Each of which would naturally depress wages to laborers in the US

The amount of immigration in the early 20th century was huge, yet wages grew quite nicely then. So that line of reasoning doesn't work.

Really? Should we go back to the industrial/labor/fiscal policies of the early 20th century then? Or should we consider that other external variables might affect wage rates?

Immigration drastically slowed down after the immigration act of 1924, an then picked up gradually in the second half of the 20th century.

Link

Immigration is only one of many factors, but you cannot deny that higher levels of immigration will result in relatively lower working class wages than what would have been observed with lower levels of immigration.

Well, one good thing about immigration for the US is it avoids a Japan-like stagnation, with too many old people and not enough young people.

WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: Really? Should we go back to the industrial/labor/fiscal policies of the early 20th century then? Or should we consider that other external variables might affect wage rates?

On the issue of people, the difference between then and now isn't a matter of immigration policy, but rather the people running stuff. Companies back then, even huge ones like DuPont expanded because with a ready labor pool, they could expand. Then people like Ford got people rushing to them by offering good wages, in Ford's case wages so good people said he'd put himself out of business. An increase int he size of the labor pool is neither an asset nor a liability when it comes to things like wages, at least not by itself. It comes down to the actions of others. If you're an old school business leader, you see an increase in the labor supply and start salivating as you ponder what new enterprise you can undertake..

I think you're underestimating the effect of labor pool/supply on wages. Its simple economics that would indicate greater supply = lower price. The black death resulting in significanlty increased wages for surviving laborers.

And as regards your affinity for 'old school business leaders', you're the first seemingly liberal viewpoint I've heard trying to claim that the industrialists at the turn of the 20th century were somehow more generous to their employyes than employers of today. Henry Ford's $5 wage was an outlier. Andrew Carnegie was more the norm.

rumpelstiltskin: You can see a similar thing these days. Before, only men were capable of providing productive labor, but now, even women are able to contribute to the workforce. This has allowed the working classes to have both husband and wife employed, which was not possible in the past.

Are you trolling in your example? Because the side effect of having both men and women employed is an increase in the labor pool, thereby depressing the wage of each individual.

In short, you have a bad example.

A more pertinent example is that a commercial graphic artist (say in one of those big sales firms) in the 80s and 90s used to have to draw graphic art by hand. He may have been able to produce 1-2 final images a week using pencils, inks, and paper. Today, with all the technology we have (computers, software, etc), he can produces 5 iterations a day, and have those iterations be 90% of what a final draft would be.

All these charts are saying that is the artist's work product is now valued less to corporations because it is easier and faster to create them due to the tools available.

Is that right, or just, or equitable? I don't know.

The obvious solution is some sort of system where everyone gets equal outcome no matter what. Give everyone the same amount of money, no matter their skill set, ambition, reliability, creativity, life choices, work ethic, or productivity. That is the only "fair" way.

And if you choose not to work, no worries. You will still be given all the comforts of life plus a little more so you don't feel bad about yourself when you see others that have a bit more than you.

If you already have wealth, that will be stripped and redistributed to the proletariat. It is patently unfair that you get to keep what you have earned.

Also, all school grading systems should no longer utilize GPA or representative grade indicators like A,B,C etc. This is unfair. No student should have a higher GPA or grade avg. than any other. All scores will be leveled so all students get the same.

America would then be the liberal Utopia we've all been dreaming of and all problems would go away.

Okay, I'm not sure if 80s and 90s are the right period. I was thinking of small firms that couldn't afford the expensive graphic arts software in the 90s. My example would probably be better using 60s and 70s as the base time frame.