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.

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.

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: Everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

Except for you. We know. The realization of this must be a terrible burden. You have my sympathy.

I am improving myself, but I luckily got help. I don't expect such details of greyness to the world are understandable to you.

Dancin_In_Anson: Good thinking. You are willing to pay this yes?

Were you gone because of a head injury? And your rehabilitation has progressed enough that you can type again?
Because your "I've got mine, fark you" and "Poor people are lazy" trolling in this thread really doesn't seem like you're bringing your A game.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

And another way to look at it

It is a pretty good time to be a white male.



/it pretty much always is

It's almost as if the past 30+ years of conservative policies have farked the lower and middled classes while enriching the upper class.

Shocking, just shocking.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.

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.

Don't you understand? Everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps! Details such as income, savings, debt, all of that is irrelevant.

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

in the mid-90s when business computing and automation began really gaining traction in the workplace?

It's still fairly close, but the gap builds in the early 80s. It doesn't really accelerate much in the 90s.

Nixon, right. I always forget about him. You know that he resigned on national TV?

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.