Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   It's been forty years since the American workforce had benefits and salary that ran parallel to economic growth, and those forty years have been full of pay disparity based on both race and gender   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 199
    More: Interesting, Americans, health disparities, wage gap, Dean Baker, Wall Street reform, Economic Policy Institute, economic growths, salary  
•       •       •

2841 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 May 2012 at 10:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-02 12:33:49 PM  

WhyteRaven74: rumpelstiltskin: The effect of a productivity increase is hardly ever tied directly to an increase in workers' wages.

[currydemocrats.org image 500x379]

And yet there it is.


Well that's convincing. You found a 30 year period in all of human history where the two numbers, in a particular country, are correlated.
Find me another one. This time, see if you can go 50 years.
 
2012-05-02 12:33:57 PM  
Headline: "It's been forty years since the American workforce had benefits and salary that ran parallel to economic growth, and those forty years have been full of pay disparity based on both race and gender "

1. Is there anything in the article that substantiates subby's headline? Do the words race or gender appear anywhere in it?

2. If you'd like all of us workers to work together subby to fight this income inequality, you may not wish to go full bore WHITE MENZ WHITE MENZ in your headline when the article doesn't say anything about it.

It sort of makes you subby, seem like a huge trolling wanker more interested in having the working class warring against each other than working together to fight this trend and demand better.
 
2012-05-02 12:38:07 PM  

BillCo: Wow, productivity has grown faster than the hourly wage rate. It's almost like some sort of new fangled inventions came along that allowed workers to be more productive in the same amount of time.


Garbage. If those productivity gains were due to the PC, you'd have a huge spike when they became ubiquitous, and a comparative flatline the rest of the time.
 
2012-05-02 12:38:37 PM  

imashark: 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.



That's the point, which makes it a good example.
But there is a dash of sarcasm in my post.
 
2012-05-02 12:46:03 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: WhyteRaven74: rumpelstiltskin: The effect of a productivity increase is hardly ever tied directly to an increase in workers' wages.

[currydemocrats.org image 500x379]

And yet there it is.

Well that's convincing. You found a 30 year period in all of human history where the two numbers, in a particular country, are correlated.
Find me another one. This time, see if you can go 50 years.


That graph goes 62 years by my math. 2009 - 1947 = 62.

// math has a liberal bias
// perhaps The Maths work out differently?
 
2012-05-02 12:55:15 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: ou found a 30 year period in all of human history where the two numbers, in a particular country, are correlated.


The same thing happened in every country in Europe at the same time, also happened in Japan and Korea. And a large part of the problem of the late 1800s was that productivity was going through the roof and yet incomes for a large percentage of the population weren't really going anywhere, that wasn't good for anyone let alone the economy. Though that got straightened out at the end of the 1800s and the start of the 1900s for the most part and productivity and incomes grew. That they grow together is no surprise. If someone who made something by hand found a way to double their production, then they were suddenly twice as productive, and because they had more stuff to sell their incomes would grow. And thus it has always been. The only thing that changed when the industrial revolution came around is that all of a sudden you had people making stuff not for themselves to sell but being employed by an enterprise that sold the stuff. But whenever incomes didn't follow productivity you ended up with problems.

Debeo Summa Credo: Andrew Carnegie was more the norm.


Carnegie was retired by the time Ford was setting up his $5 a day wage. What Carnegie and people like him had done was a big part of what lead to various problems in the late 1800s. The people around in the early 1900s, certainly by the 1910s were different people who thought quite differently. In part because they had seen what people like Carnegie had done. Also things like anti-trust laws meant you couldn't have people doing what those people who'd come along previously had done.
 
2012-05-02 12:55:33 PM  

Geotpf: 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.


Absolutely. I'm not arguing against immigration per se, just pointing out that higher immigration results in lower working class wages relative to lower immigration. And the increase in immigration as a percentage of existing population from the 1960s on is one of the factors that has lead to slower wage growth.
 
2012-05-02 12:57:53 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: And the increase in immigration as a percentage of existing population from the 1960s on is one of the factors that has lead to slower wage growth.


Thing is you have to look at the entire history of immigration in the US and the history of US income growth to figure out whether or not it really is a factor in the way you think it is.
 
2012-05-02 01:07:09 PM  

BillCo: Wow, productivity has grown faster than the hourly wage rate. It's almost like some sort of new fangled inventions came along that allowed workers to be more productive in the same amount of time.


Interesting. Let me see if Fark has more info on that.
 
2012-05-02 01:10:10 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 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).


It also became cheaper to produce certain things (because of globalization and outsourcing), so a dollar could stretch farther.
 
2012-05-02 01:15:52 PM  
This article fails to mention the abundance of for-profit colleges which have deluded once meaningful college degrees. Now adays EVERYONE needs a degree for anything not having to do with "Would you like fries with that" and "paper or plastic" sorts of jobs.
 
2012-05-02 01:17:34 PM  

xanadian: Debeo Summa Credo: 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).

It also became cheaper to produce certain things (because of globalization and outsourcing), so a dollar could stretch farther.


Agreed. Globalization greatly reduces prices and puts significant pressure on working class wages. Same as the immigration effect.
 
2012-05-02 01:17:48 PM  

BillCo: Wow, productivity has grown faster than the hourly wage rate. It's almost like some sort of new fangled inventions came along that allowed workers to be more productive in the same amount of time.


rumpelstiltskin: The effect of a productivity increase is hardly ever tied directly to an increase in workers' wages. For example, when mills replaced weavers' cottages, the weavers did not see a commensurate rise in wages. Instead, the working classes benefitted from the reduction in skill required, opening up jobs for those who would otherwise not be capable of doing them.
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.


Unfortunately, economics does not agree with you.

"The marginal profit per unit of labor equals the marginal revenue product of labor minus the marginal cost of labor or MπL = MRPL - MCLA firm maximizes profits where MπL = 0."

Economically speaking, a company maximizes its marginal revenue of labor when the productivity gained by 1 more "unit" of labor equals the cost of adding 1 more "unit" of labor. Therefore, if there is a massive disconnect between the productivity output of labor and the cost of the labor input, then neither firms nor labor are not making as much money as they could be.

What I think a better statistic to look at for the sake of an economic argument, would be total output versus total earnings. If people are outputting more, but more people are getting paid, then economically speaking, that is a functioning system. I would hazard a guess that the numbers would not appear that way, but if anyone can find it, I would love to see it.

///I get that this is theoretical and the 1 to 1 match would only occur in an economic vacuum, but our economy is fundamentally flawed if firms are still making massive profit, while underemploying labor.

In a viable economic system, productivity gains should be shared equally (over time) between the firm and the labor it is employing. What is happening now is a complete warping of that dynamic, and it will likely have broad societal impacts well into the future.
 
2012-05-02 01:18:27 PM  

FlashHarry: Cythraul: Jake Havechek: Reagan Legacy

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

talkingpointsmemo.com

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


About the time the US peaked it's oil production

www.aspo-usa.org
 
2012-05-02 01:19:21 PM  

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.


And then Walmart undercuts you because of their economies of scale and lobbying.

"Get some bootstraps" is an incredibly naive and simplistic solution for a complex problem.

Debeo Summa Credo: Absolutely. I'm not arguing against immigration per se, just pointing out that higher immigration results in lower working class wages relative to lower immigration. And the increase in immigration as a percentage of existing population from the 1960s on is one of the factors that has lead to slower wage growth.


But then you also need to factor in the increased demand for products and services from a larger population leading to more jobs being created.

WhyteRaven74: whenever incomes didn't follow productivity you ended up with problems.


Exactly. All that impressive productivity doesn't matter if no one can afford to buy the stuff being made.
 
2012-05-02 01:24:36 PM  
www.willisms.com

There's immigration by decade going plenty far back. Now let's just limit ourselves to the first few decades of the 20th century, when there were tons of immigrants. In 1900 the population was 76 million and in 1910 it was 92,407,000, so that's an increase of about 16 million and over half of that was immigration. Now in 1900 the average salary across all industries was $438 a year. In 1910 it was $574 a year. So in 10 years the average income had grown by 31%. Ten years later the population in 1920 was 106,461,000, so an increase of of about 14 million in ten years, of which a bit over a third was immigrants. And in 1920 the average income was $1407 a year. That's not a typo, the average income in 1920 was 2.45 times bigger than in 1910. Now not everyone saw their wages grow that much, if you worked in the building trades the average wage in 1910 was 52 cents an hour, in 1920 it was $1.08 an hour, so it just more than doubled. So looking at the first two decades of the the twentieth century in America, when the population increased by 30 million people, with just over 14.5 million of them being immigrants, wages were not depressed as a result. In fact one might wonder what the hell happened between 1910 and 1920 that caused wages to increase so much. As another example of income growth the average public school teacher in 1910 made $492, by 1920 that had grown $970 a year. The wage didn't double bit certainly grew by a huge amount for just 10 years and add to that these are public sector employees which shows that all incomes were growing by large margins.
 
2012-05-02 01:26:23 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: That's the point, which makes it a good example.
But there is a dash of sarcasm in my post.


The margin of error on my sarcasm meter needs adjustment, apparently. It only registers +/- 10 on the Murray scale. With that, I probably needed +/- 5.
 
2012-05-02 01:27:34 PM  

Dr Dreidel: rumpelstiltskin: WhyteRaven74: rumpelstiltskin: The effect of a productivity increase is hardly ever tied directly to an increase in workers' wages.

[currydemocrats.org image 500x379]

And yet there it is.

Well that's convincing. You found a 30 year period in all of human history where the two numbers, in a particular country, are correlated.
Find me another one. This time, see if you can go 50 years.

That graph goes 62 years by my math. 2009 - 1947 = 62.

// math has a liberal bias
// perhaps The Maths work out differently?


Perhaps you need to look at the graph again. How long does the correlation last?
 
2012-05-02 01:28:49 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: imashark: 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.



That's the point, which makes it a good example.
But there is a dash of sarcasm in my post.


Oh, and its a bad example in your argument, because it is not a productivity per employee gain. Your analogy was related to the total labor pool.
 
2012-05-02 01:29:07 PM  

meat0918: 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.

About the time the US peaked it's oil production

[www.aspo-usa.org image 640x260]


Somebody forgot to log into their alt, Canyon. ;)

There is a whole lot of corilation going on with the inflection point.
 
2012-05-02 01:30:23 PM  

WhyteRaven74: [www.willisms.com image 520x330]

There's immigration by decade going plenty far back. Now let's just limit ourselves to the first few decades of the 20th century, when there were tons of immigrants. In 1900 the population was 76 million and in 1910 it was 92,407,000, so that's an increase of about 16 million and over half of that was immigration. Now in 1900 the average salary across all industries was $438 a year. In 1910 it was $574 a year. So in 10 years the average income had grown by 31%. Ten years later the population in 1920 was 106,461,000, so an increase of of about 14 million in ten years, of which a bit over a third was immigrants. And in 1920 the average income was $1407 a year. That's not a typo, the average income in 1920 was 2.45 times bigger than in 1910. Now not everyone saw their wages grow that much, if you worked in the building trades the average wage in 1910 was 52 cents an hour, in 1920 it was $1.08 an hour, so it just more than doubled. So looking at the first two decades of the the twentieth century in America, when the population increased by 30 million people, with just over 14.5 million of them being immigrants, wages were not depressed as a result. In fact one might wonder what the hell happened between 1910 and 1920 that caused wages to increase so much. As another example of income growth the average public school teacher in 1910 made $492, by 1920 that had grown $970 a year. The wage didn't double bit certainly grew by a huge amount for just 10 years and add to that these are public sector employees which shows that all incomes were growing by large margins.


Are those inflation adjusted numbers? I would be shocked if they were.

According to this Link, inflation for the period 1910-1920 was 92%, (there was a war on, increasing prices and wages), significantly cutting in to those gains.
 
2012-05-02 01:35:36 PM  
Keep complaining about pay disparity. Some day, you'll be paid more for simply gracing your boss with your presence. I'm certain of it.
 
2012-05-02 01:38:46 PM  
You actually believed in Raygun's voodoo economics america.

It's no wonder your economy and country are in the shiatter. You're just too stupid to live.
 
2012-05-02 01:39:05 PM  

mycatisposter: Keep complaining about pay disparity.


So stagnant wages aren't a problem?
 
2012-05-02 01:44:08 PM  
just popping in to see if the usual suspects are still defending capitalism...
 
2012-05-02 01:46:58 PM  

WhyteRaven74: rumpelstiltskin: ou found a 30 year period in all of human history where the two numbers, in a particular country, are correlated.

The same thing happened in every country in Europe at the same time, also happened in Japan and Korea. And a large part of the problem of the late 1800s was that productivity was going through the roof and yet incomes for a large percentage of the population weren't really going anywhere, that wasn't good for anyone let alone the economy. Though that got straightened out at the end of the 1800s and the start of the 1900s for the most part and productivity and incomes grew. That they grow together is no surprise. If someone who made something by hand found a way to double their production, then they were suddenly twice as productive, and because they had more stuff to sell their incomes would grow. And thus it has always been. The only thing that changed when the industrial revolution came around is that all of a sudden you had people making stuff not for themselves to sell but being employed by an enterprise that sold the stuff. But whenever incomes didn't follow productivity you ended up with problems.

.


Now you're just making stuff up.
 
2012-05-02 01:48:29 PM  

meat0918: FlashHarry: Cythraul: Jake Havechek: Reagan Legacy

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

talkingpointsmemo.com

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

About the time the US peaked it's oil production


And that's why we need to DRILL, BABY, DRILL

/vote Republican!
 
2012-05-02 01:50:25 PM  

imashark: rumpelstiltskin: imashark: 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.



That's the point, which makes it a good example.
But there is a dash of sarcasm in my post.

Oh, and its a bad example in your argument, because it is not a productivity per employee gain. Your analogy was related to the total labor pool.


Of course it's a productivity per person gain. Are you claiming a skilled weaver wouldn't make more parts in a mill? The productivity gain was due to a technological change, which had side effects that made a skilled weaver worth less per piece. That''s usually what happens.
 
2012-05-02 01:53:26 PM  

WhyteRaven74: mycatisposter: Keep complaining about pay disparity.

So stagnant wages aren't a problem?


I have a feeling he's one of those guys that also thinks whites are oppressed by blacks
 
2012-05-02 01:54:30 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Are those inflation adjusted numbers? I would be shocked if they were.


They're not, and inflation for the first couple decades was all over the place and spiked hard when WW1 came along but then went down almost as fast. But wages kept up with inflation, if they hadn't that would've been bad.
 
2012-05-02 01:56:00 PM  

Weaver95: jst3p: 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.

*sigh*

no. they are otherwise intelligent people..but they're blinded by their emotions. they believe what they want to believe, and facts that don't fit their internal narrative are simply ignored. its a very human sort of thing to do. when I realized that the facts were simply too numerous to ignore, I changed from being a Republican to being a libertarian...but it cost me a couple/few friends and not a small number of political allies. it wasn't easy to do either, and the mainstream GOP considers people like me to be apostate traitors. I left a LOT behind when I stopped following the GOP distortions and started looking at things objectively. not everyone can make that sort of transition.


Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you're not a libertarian. I once got into libertarianism, I am familiar with it, and you and I are no libertarians. Being a libertarian is one of three things: 1, you actually believe their crap; 2, you are too ashamed to be called a conservative or Republican; or 3, you are a liberal and haven't admitted it yet.

You may think you're no. 2, but you're really no. 3. Same goes for another ex-Republican who likes to bemoan the loss of his party. He's a liberal too.

Liberal isn't a dirty word, people. Now come, join me at the gay baccanal and we'll eat some grilled, Christian baby.
 
2012-05-02 01:59:35 PM  

rudemix: The system's a joke as is your defense of it.


Yeah, you're right. Life is just too haaaaaaard. Best to just sit around and wait for someone else to save you.


Baryogenesis: And then Walmart undercuts you because of their economies of scale and lobbying.


You should read Sam Walton's autobiography.

Baryogenesis: "Get some bootstraps" is an incredibly naive and simplistic solution for a complex problem.


And another, "it's too haaaaaaaard for me. I need someone else to make it for me.
 
2012-05-02 01:59:43 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: Now you're just making stuff up.


Are you trying to say that in Europe wages and productivity didn't grow?
 
2012-05-02 02:00:12 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You should read Sam Walton's autobiography.


You should read Das Kapital.
 
2012-05-02 02:02:43 PM  

FarkedOver: You should read Das Kapital


Remind me again which economic model has been more successful in history.
 
2012-05-02 02:05:01 PM  

roc6783:

Unfortunately, economics does not agree with you.

"The marginal profit per unit of labor equals the marginal revenue product of labor minus the marginal cost of labor or MπL = MRPL - MCLA firm maximizes profits where MπL = 0."

Economically speaking, a company maximizes its marginal revenue of labor when the productivity gained by 1 more "unit" of labor equals the cost of adding 1 more "unit" of labor. Therefore, if there is a massive disconnect between the productivity output of labor and the cost of the labor input, then neither firms nor labor are not making as much money as they could be.

What I think a better statistic to look at for the sake of an economic argument, would be total output versus total earnings. If people are outputting more, but more people are getting paid, then economically speaking, that is a functioning system. I would hazard a guess that the numbers would not appear that way, but if anyone can find it, I would love to see it.

///I get that this is theoretical and the 1 to 1 match would only occur in an economic vacuum, but our economy is fundamentally flawed if firms are still making massiv ...


OK, that seems like a serious response, and deserves a serious answer.
First, what your math claims is simply that a company can make a boatload of money by hiring one more cheap laborer and selling his product for much more than the labor costs. That's true. But here we're measuring a worker's output by how much he can make that the company can sell, not how much the worker can make. So if a worker costs 1 penny per day, and can make a hundred widgets worth a thousand dollars, it doesn't make sense to hire one more worker unless you can sell a hundred more widgets, no matter what the cost of hiring one more worker is. And if the company can sell a hundred more widgets, it makes sense to hire the worker for as little as possible.
I acgually agree with your claim that as productivity increases, the benefits should be allocated more evenly. I'm not sure exactly what adjective should be applied to that sort of economy. Maybe "healthy". Maybe "fair". Whatever, it's not a technical term I am familiar with.
 
2012-05-02 02:05:12 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FarkedOver: You should read Das Kapital

Remind me again which economic model has been more successful in history.


What does that have to do with Das Kapital? It basically goes into detail about the capitalist model. I'd like for you to point out one flaw that Das Kapital had. (other than being written by Marx, because that doesn't count)
 
2012-05-02 02:09:13 PM  

WhyteRaven74: rumpelstiltskin: Now you're just making stuff up.

Are you trying to say that in Europe wages and productivity didn't grow?


They've both been "growing" since 95 in this country. If I'm to understand this discussion, that would be irrelevant.
 
2012-05-02 02:11:25 PM  
Xanadian sings the songs that remind him of the good times
 
2012-05-02 02:11:38 PM  

verbaltoxin: Liberal isn't a dirty word, people. Now come, join me at the gay baccanal and we'll eat some grilled, Christian baby.


Christians: The other white meat.
 
2012-05-02 02:19:20 PM  

WhyteRaven74: mycatisposter: Keep complaining about pay disparity.

So stagnant wages aren't a problem?


In and of themselves...? No they are not a problem.
 
2012-05-02 02:25:19 PM  

WhyteRaven74: mycatisposter: Keep complaining about pay disparity.

So stagnant wages aren't a problem?


Well not to companies it's not. To the worker, yeah... it's kind of a problem.
 
2012-05-02 02:28:55 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: Are those inflation adjusted numbers? I would be shocked if they were.

They're not, and inflation for the first couple decades was all over the place and spiked hard when WW1 came along but then went down almost as fast. But wages kept up with inflation, if they hadn't that would've been bad.


Right, so assuming your numbers and my link were correct, nominal wages went from 52 cents per hour in 1910 to $1.08 in 1920, but that $1.08 in 1920 only corresponds to 56 cents in 1910 dollars if you remove the 92% cumulative inflatoin for that period. 1.08/(1+.92)= .56, which means real wages went up 7.7% for the decade. Not terrible, but nowhere near what you inferred/implied from/with the nominal numbers.
 
2012-05-02 02:32:13 PM  

Saiga410: meat0918: 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.

About the time the US peaked it's oil production

[www.aspo-usa.org image 640x260]

Somebody forgot to log into their alt, Canyon. ;)

There is a whole lot of corilation going on with the inflection point.


canyoneer is far more doom and gloom than I about peak oil. The bigger correlation is that productivity has increased because of automation and computers. Less people make more stuff in this country.

I find it an interesting challenge, and largely self correcting. Eventually oil will be more expensive than the alternatives, with or without government intervention. There is some merit to accelerating the move, if only to be the world leader in alternative energy technology and being able to sell it to other countries. Of course, there are also national security interests to having your own energy sources, rather than relying on potential enemies for energy.

I expect we will adjust in America with some minor to medium social upheaval, but nothing as bad as what he predicts; but overall technology will adjust, lifestyles will adjust, and the majority of people will move on, just as they did with the introduction of the car, the TV, and the computer.

Other countries... might have a bit more trouble as oil continues to climb in price, but who knows, they might beat us in terms of adjusting because many of them are more actively investing in new energy R&D
 
2012-05-02 02:41:51 PM  
rudemix: The system's a joke as is your defense of it.

Dancin_In_Anson: Yeah, you're right. Life is just too haaaaaaard. Best to just sit around and wait for someone else to save you.

Baryogenesis: "Get some bootstraps" is an incredibly naive and simplistic solution for a complex problem.


Dancin_In_Anson: And another, "it's too haaaaaaaard for me. I need someone else to make it for me.

I see you haven't changed a bit, Dancin.....still a complete asshole.
 
2012-05-02 02:41:55 PM  
And NO mandatory paid vacation, still.
 
2012-05-02 03:12:26 PM  

ginandbacon: There's also the fact that women entered the work force in very large numbers in the 70s and 80s.


Because one income could no longer support a family.

/Thanks, Republicans.
 
2012-05-02 03:24:36 PM  

Trolljegeren: ginandbacon: There's also the fact that women entered the work force in very large numbers in the 70s and 80s.

Because one income could no longer support a family.

/Thanks, Republicans.


I'm not sure that's really what happened. A lot of couples got divorced and the women's movement catapulted a lot of middle class white women into careers. Most men could still raise a family in the 70s and 80s on their own or with their partners working a bit, but after the majority of women were in the workforce, employers could play different groups off one another to suppress wages.

There are a lot of complex factors that come into play in this discussion, the only one I've seen that really seems like the sine qua non is the anti-union steps by federal and local governments. Unions seem to be the biggest factor in wages and benefits.

This is not my field though, I'm really going off personal experience and the little bit of reading I have done.
 
2012-05-02 03:25:42 PM  

SuperTramp: rudemix: The system's a joke as is your defense of it.

Dancin_In_Anson: Yeah, you're right. Life is just too haaaaaaard. Best to just sit around and wait for someone else to save you.

Baryogenesis: "Get some bootstraps" is an incredibly naive and simplistic solution for a complex problem.

Dancin_In_Anson: And another, "it's too haaaaaaaard for me. I need someone else to make it for me.

I see you haven't changed a bit, Dancin.....still a complete asshole.


Alas, the collective IQ of fark has dropped an entire standard deviation with the return of this one moron. Back to the loch with ye, Nessie.
 
2012-05-02 03:29:34 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: roc6783: ***snip***
OK, that seems like a serious response, and deserves a serious answer.
First, what your math claims is simply that a company can make a boatload of money by hiring one more cheap laborer and selling his product for much more than the labor costs. That's true. But here we're measuring a worker's output by how much he can make that the company can sell, not how much the worker can make. So if a worker costs 1 penny per day, and can make a hundred widgets worth a thousand dollars, it doesn't make sense to hire one more worker unless you can sell a hundred more widgets, no matter what the cost of hiring one more worker is. And if the company can sell a hundred more widgets, it makes sense to hire the worker for as little as possible.
I acgually agree with your claim that as productivity increases, the benefits should be allocated more eve ...



What your missing is what is economically defined as "labor." You think of labor as of a guy on a line making a widget. Economics defines it as "The aggregate of all human physical and mental effort used in creation of goods and services."

So within the construct of your example, if the revenue to be gained by selling one more widget, is greater than or equal to the cost of hiring the staff to sell one more widget, economics says it is the most efficient to do so.

Within the construct of these findings, which I agree do not seem to be the best statistic with which to make an economic argument, if productivity is outpacing the cost of labor this significantly, than there is something inherently wrong with the economic system. It is not operating efficiently according to economic theory.

///My wild-ass guess as to the root of the problem? Companies are taking fewer and fewer research risks. We are getting more and more incremental innovations while actual breakthroughs are slowing. Since today's stock prices are more important than the long term success of companies, investments into pure research by private entities will grind to a halt. We have the benefit of the computer, but 100 years from now, the pace of true innovation, and therefore, new opportunities for industry and workers, will dramatically slow. Assuming we stay on the same track as we are today.
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report