goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sys on September 01, 2013, 06:23:58 PM
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jts9CYW0N18%2FUhrQtmblDeI%2FAAAAAAAAW-w%2Fp7jINw_TCh0%2Fs1600%2FReal%2BWages%2Bvs%2BProductivity.png&hash=0a34703eec5937d8e34ba07ee9c036c1feefd9fb)
-
I apologize for dragging the avg productivity up so and thus ruining the graph, guys.
-
I've seen the same information on multiple different graphs, so I think it must be accurate, sys. Also interesting.
-
It has to have been like super easy to dominant competitors faces off in the '60's and '70's. Like child's play.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
i don't really have any coherent thoughts on fixing the problem, but i think it is probably the most important near-term issue to "fixing" america, and maybe mature economies in general.
-
Would love to see comparos to other countries.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
I guess I'm not terribly surprised that productivity is increasing at a greater rate than real hourly compensation. I would assume advances in technology would account for that. I am, however, baffled by the absolute flatline of compensation on or around 1978. WTF?
-
I guess I'm not terribly surprised that productivity is increasing at a greater rate than real hourly compensation. I would assume advances in technology would account for that. I am, however, baffled by the absolute flatline of compensation on or around 1978. WTF?
yeah, i assume it's mostly technology, maybe a little bit outsourcing. either way (or combining both), labor lost the ability to price itself.
-
I don't believe the flat line of compensation unless this graph is strictly blue collar work.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
I guess I'm not terribly surprised that productivity is increasing at a greater rate than real hourly compensation. I would assume advances in technology would account for that. I am, however, baffled by the absolute flatline of compensation on or around 1978. WTF?
yeah, i assume it's mostly technology, maybe a little bit outsourcing. either way (or combining both), labor lost the ability to price itself.
I mean I would expect to see ever widening lines back as far as you want to go. I really want to know what happened in '78.
-
I mean I would expect to see ever widening lines back as far as you want to go. I really want to know what happened in '78.
why? keep in mind that from this graph, you have no idea of the correlation before 1948.
-
Too many unskilled workers competing for entry level jobs.
-
Depends on how you are measuring productivity, and one must also consider the role of technology.
The reality compensation won't keep up. The U.S. was the industrial power of the world following WWII (other nations devastated, and as time past even third world industrializes due to cheaper costs) and could pay workers big time.
Competition has changed the game.
Mix in the influx of low-education/low-sill workers in an increasingly high tech U.S. market, which in turn undermine wages for low-education/low-skill domestic workers (those that for whatever reason reject or leave education) and wages will go down while the push for higher productivity will continue.
No way to really fix it at a societal level - only people can fix it at their individual levels. There are some things you could do to ameliorate it (reduce immigration inflow, drastically alter the anti-education subculture that permeates the U.S.), but I don't see the political or cultural will to do such things.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jts9CYW0N18%2FUhrQtmblDeI%2FAAAAAAAAW-w%2Fp7jINw_TCh0%2Fs1600%2FReal%2BWages%2Bvs%2BProductivity.png&hash=0a34703eec5937d8e34ba07ee9c036c1feefd9fb)
Improvements in technology and increased competition through globalization have had a huge impact on median wages, but there are also other factors at play here. Union membership has been steadily declining since the 1980's, which has had a negative effect on median wages. Income inequality continues to grow, as more and more wealth is allocated to those in the top income brackets. A relatively high unemployment rate has also kept wages low, as more and more people are willing to work for less (since there aren't as many good jobs out there these days). The anti-liberal movement out there will blame everything on "socialism" and Obama, but the truth is that there's enough blame to go around for everyone.
-
is 1978 the lead paint cutoff or the unprotected homosexual sex cutoff? conspiracies....
-
is 1978 the lead paint cutoff or the unprotected homosexual sex cutoff? conspiracies....
jimmy carter
-
I think if you found a graph of the avg CEO pay vs avg pay of workforce it mimics that graph and I think does so right around the same time frame. CEO's went fom like making 20x more than the avg worker in 1965 to 231x in 2011.
-
Are we sure that's just for the US? I am also curious what happened in 1978.
-
i'm sure that the source i got it from portrayed it as displaying data from the us. i am not sure that the underlying data are as claimed, but i have no particular reason to doubt it.
-
i'm sure that the source i got it from portrayed it as displaying data from the us. i am not sure that the underlying data are as claimed, but i have no particular reason to doubt it.
Ask them if they have other countries and more years and worldwide totals, too.
-
Ask them if they have other countries and more years and worldwide totals, too.
i think you should maybe just try googling.
-
Ask them if they have other countries and more years and worldwide totals, too.
i think you should maybe just try googling.
eh, I've been on my phone
-
Are we sure that's just for the US? I am also curious what happened in 1978.
Just spitballing here but the early 80's is when china first opened up to western companies.
Without doing any research I would guess that most the middle class blue collar manufacturing jobs started moving overseas and that white collar jobs did not increase enough to offset the loss of these jobs.
Is there a graph showing a comparison of white collar to blue collar?
-
i think it's more about tech. and i don't think it was some 1978 event.
like if a capitalist uses capital to buy a robot that can make 2x the sewing machines his worker controlled machinery used to, does it follow that he's going to pay his workers 2x to run the robot? especially if he can now downsize his staff by half.
same with white collar labor and computers, software, etc.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feconographics.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F03%2Fproductivity-vs-compensation.jpg&hash=d078265e2addd80279130dc873ef209092ae034d)
This one seems to make a little more sense to me. Your graph showed productivity rising at a constant rate, while this one seems to see a sharper increase around 1995 (around the time of the internet becoming much more common in the workplace?)
-
it makes more sense to me too, because there isn't such a dramatic dichotomous, labor wins v capital wins point of separation.
i'd like to better understand the divergence, though. because axis of % vs numbers? or a difference in the underlying data (like compensation index is more sophisticated than real compensation and includes some adjustment for purchasing power or something).
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.boingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2F1168cbCOMIC-ld-income-distribution.jpg&hash=d625585cb7daa6ec226f906936da677a6e187784)
-
China. Women entering the work force.
-
You know what will be good for wages? Tons of newly legalized unskilled labor. I always thought the whole theory of supply and demand was bullshit anyway.
-
I thought you were going to say marijuana for a second and I was going to agree with you but then you said the stupid labor thing you said.
-
You know what will be good for wages? Tons of newly legalized unskilled labor. I always thought the whole theory of supply and demand was bullshit anyway.
i seriously doubt that will be good for wages
-
Marijuana is correct. Saw a story last week stating how the state of Washington is blown away by how much weed its residents smoke and how much more it is than what was thought when pushing legalization through. They originally thought the state consumed 85 metric tons. After running a study since legalization, they found that the actual number is more like 167 metric tons.
The article said that the actual number equates to 5-7 joints per resident per week, or something like that.
Lots of tax rev in the legalization idea.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
How does pot legalization help wages? I guess the theory is that, long term, you're removing more people (lazy potheads) from the workforce, thus reducing supply and boosting wages? While we're at it, let's legalize meth and heroin too. I mean, there can't be any harm to doping up the masses.
-
Pot and heroin comparos are dumb.
-
pot<<<alcohol<<<<<<<<<cigarettes<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<cocain<<<<<<<<<<meth<<<<<<heroin
-
Technology is great! Increased productivity is great!
Correlating marginal tax rates with wage growth is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
-
FYI, productivity is supposed to outpace wage growth, in a developed/developing economy.
Thanks to michigancat for getting the real graph, instead of the one with giant arrows laid on top of it.
-
I thought you were going to say marijuana for a second and I was going to agree with you but then you said the stupid labor thing you said.
You are a rough ridin' moron.