Is there a scientific explanation for why these two trends were so tightly related before the early/mid 1970s and then because completely unlinked sub...

Is there a scientific explanation for why these two trends were so tightly related before the early/mid 1970s and then because completely unlinked subsequently?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Uh oh

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unsure. But the first thing that came to mind was coming off the gold standard in 1971, which is almost where the lines decouple. But really, corporate abuse was ramping up around this time anyways so it's hard to parse out the points, at least for me.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I heard that a big part of the gap went into health insurances, and if you add these into the sum of compensations they grow slower than productivity but don't stagnate like this.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the bottom line is "real hourly compensation" so that includes the value of benefits such as healthcare

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The key part is "production/non-supervisory workers". Wages were rising since the end of WWII because America essentially had no competition and was resupplying the rest of the world. Globalisation increased massively during the 70s and manual labour workers finally had competition so there was no longer an incentive to keep increasing wages, which is why they've just tracked inflation since then.

    Productivity has continued to go up because most of the western nations have transitioned to high tech but non-manufacturing roles, supplying information and skills instead of physical products.

    So tldr they're unlinked because they no longer track the same thing.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This stupid motherfricker.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The data clearly says Carter started this shit, you imbecile moron.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Face facts, Reaganomics ruined America.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          carter was doing reaganomics before reagan

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no, your college professor who told you that was lying, zoomie

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He did some things correctly, for completely wrong reasons. It was total bullshit in general, as America didn't have a supply problem.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cry more commie puss.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you have poop in your butt

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >America was commie before Reagan
            Imagine being this brain broken. People that hate Reagan aren't commies. They just want to make America great again by tearing out all the bullshit he pushed for and returning to a time when our economy actually worked for Americans instead of Republican donors.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The one book I read on the subject said it works in some periods but not in others. I think the problem of wealth distribution comes down to something more complex than a president's opinions.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stupid isn't even close, brain dead would be more scientifically accurate.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This stupid motherfricker.
      yes, not all of it, but yes

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Money printing and abandoning of the gold standard.
    You work, banks buy fruits of your work with mooney they made up from the thin air. As result all wealth trickles up, into financial institutions connected to money printer.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of that "productivity" comes from white-collar sectors, services (including those for foreign territories).
    The industrial productivity -excluding robots- isn't better nowadays than 50 years go...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What exactly do you mean by "excluding robots"?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Robots replaced a lot of 'specialized' workers with fewer engineers and maintenance workers. The average is lower but the productivity is the same or better. Although it's more related to quality than replacing people, Tesla was a good example that people+robots is better than too many robots or too many people (old carmakers)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          tesla cars are literal death traps, stop sucking elon's dick for half a second and look around you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Tesla was a good example that people+robots is better than too many robots or too many people
            Tesla which can't produce cars with any speed or quality and whose factories have a ridiculous injury rate?

            >t. not smart enough to even work for the man you seethe about

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >t. not smart enough to even work for the man you seethe about
            Where I live car manufacturing is what you get forced into if you can't get work anywhere else. It's basically the equivalent of the mines in other areas. Conditions are shit, takes no skill, and ruins your body.

            Pretty sure I'd rather work in fast food than for Tesla.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Tesla was a good example that people+robots is better than too many robots or too many people
          Tesla which can't produce cars with any speed or quality and whose factories have a ridiculous injury rate?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Google “gold standard 1971”

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Graph is fake. There wasnt a 90% productivity growth between 1948 and 1978. Nor 254% between then and now.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I smell gerrymandering, no data is correlated this well and then it just diverges
    Although i wouldn't be surprised if there was still a really big difference between the two

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because an event occurred that completely changed the US economy in 1971

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's deliberately misleading agitprop.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This literally just reaffirms the OP

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm too lazy to elaborate. Believe whatever you want to believe.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Compensation isn't going down if you control for changes in spending habits caused by reduced compensation
      That makes sense, I guess.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The CPI is a fixed basket of goods, so it ignores the substitution effect, aka no longer buying something when it becomes too expensive, or when a cheaper alternative emerges.
        That has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of compensation, as people substitute for better value regardless of whether or not their compensation increases.

        Also, both the CPI and the IPD are rates between prices. The total amount of spending is not a factor.
        Not to mention that the deflator difference isn't even the biggest factor, so even if what you said were true, the original chart would still be grossly misleading.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The CPI is a fixed basket of goods, so it ignores the substitution effect
          are you sure about that lmao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_deflator
            >Unlike some price indices (like the CPI), the GDP deflator is not based on a fixed basket of goods and services. The basket is allowed to change with people's consumption and investment patterns.[2] Specifically, for the GDP deflator, the "basket" in each year is the set of all goods that were produced domestically, weighted by the market value of the total consumption of each good. Therefore, new expenditure patterns are allowed to show up in the deflator as people respond to changing prices. The theory behind this approach is that the GDP deflator reflects up to date expenditure patterns. For instance, if the price of chicken increases relative to the price of beef, people may spend more money on beef as a substitute for chicken.

            Pretty sure.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dont be so naive
            https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012915/what-are-some-limitations-consumer-price-index-cpi.asp

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Literally from your own link:
            >Substitutable Goods
            >One problem with the CPI that's been identified by economists, and which the Bureau of Labor Statistics freely admits, is that the index does not factor in the effects of substitution.2
            >The economic reality is that when certain goods become significantly more expensive, many consumers buy less expensive alternatives. For instance, they may buy the store brand instead of the name brand. Or they may buy regular gasoline instead of premium grade.
            >The CPI can't take this common practice into account. Instead, it presents numbers that assume consumers are continuing to buy the same amount of increasingly expensive goods.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/04/art3full.pdf
            >From 2003 through 2008, crop prices rose by 83 percent, animal slaughter prices grew by 26 percent, dairy prices increased by 34 percent, and oil and gas prices shot up by 230 percent. Despite all this growth, CPI inflation was just 19.7 percent over the same period. Thus, although crop, animal slaughter and processing, dairy, and oil and gas commodity prices are important contributors to consumer price inflation, even large increases in the prices of these commodities do not necessarily lead to excessively high rates of inflation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Keep reading
            >Hidden inflation refers to expenses that are not reflected in explicit price increases. One of the most common forms of hidden inflation is shrinkflation. Shrinkflation occurs when companies cut costs by offering a smaller product at the same price. Customers end up essentially spending more money as they spend the same amounts on less product.
            Is it really a "fixed basket of goods" if the Doritos price stays the same for 5 years but the pack size shrinks from 200g to 120g?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/04/art3full.pdf
            >From 2003 through 2008, crop prices rose by 83 percent, animal slaughter prices grew by 26 percent, dairy prices increased by 34 percent, and oil and gas prices shot up by 230 percent. Despite all this growth, CPI inflation was just 19.7 percent over the same period. Thus, although crop, animal slaughter and processing, dairy, and oil and gas commodity prices are important contributors to consumer price inflation, even large increases in the prices of these commodities do not necessarily lead to excessively high rates of inflation.

            https://i.imgur.com/Epymz12.png

            Literally from your own link:
            >Substitutable Goods
            >One problem with the CPI that's been identified by economists, and which the Bureau of Labor Statistics freely admits, is that the index does not factor in the effects of substitution.2
            >The economic reality is that when certain goods become significantly more expensive, many consumers buy less expensive alternatives. For instance, they may buy the store brand instead of the name brand. Or they may buy regular gasoline instead of premium grade.
            >The CPI can't take this common practice into account. Instead, it presents numbers that assume consumers are continuing to buy the same amount of increasingly expensive goods.

            only a "basedentist" would attempt to defy reality
            the graph does not lie, why do you?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/04/art3full.pdf
            >From 2003 through 2008, crop prices rose by 83 percent, animal slaughter prices grew by 26 percent, dairy prices increased by 34 percent, and oil and gas prices shot up by 230 percent. Despite all this growth, CPI inflation was just 19.7 percent over the same period. Thus, although crop, animal slaughter and processing, dairy, and oil and gas commodity prices are important contributors to consumer price inflation, even large increases in the prices of these commodities do not necessarily lead to excessively high rates of inflation.

            [...]
            [...]
            only a "basedentist" would attempt to defy reality
            the graph does not lie, why do you?

            First of all, you're playing semantics. I specifically used fixed to refer to the fact that it doesn't take substitution into effect.
            Second of all; I don't know if you've noticed, but you're now arguing against the reliability of the very deflator that was used in the original chart. If using CPI is effectively lying, then the whole premise of the OP is a lie, which is very close to what I orinally said (I called it deliberately misleading agitprop)
            So which is it? What's the lie? The OP or the refutation?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are the lie.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Black person they still deliberate exclude prices like rent from these calculations to make the numbers look better

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            housing prices in particular in the US (and some other places) simply must be excluded to prevent immediate collapse of their inflation-adjusted budgets. The infinite money synthetic leverage glitch shouldn't be included in the inflation data (because it shouldn't exist to begin with)

            Workers are worth less now. Automation, immigration and offshoring have largely seen to this. On the flip side products are much more accessible to these newly pauperized workers. Even the lowest trailer trash has a supercomputer they carry in their pocket and bananas year round.

            The median worker is certainly worth less now, but the average worker is startlingly more productive than in the past. You're right that the decline in wages doesn't matter for goods with corresponding decreases in cost, but important items are not decreasing, but increasing in a runaway manner such as housing and education.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but the average worker is startlingly more productive than in the past.
            That is a problem though. Imagine everything is so automated that you can keep everything working and provide everything needed in 100 man hours a day for a town of 10000. How do you employ more than a couple dozen of people? Obviouspy it's the society that needs an upgrade, not the technology.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You could just use the technology to upgrade the humans. I mean maybe that's racist to burgers or whatever but the solutions clearly exist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You could just use the technology to upgrade the humans
            What do you mean?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean you can specifically target the uncoupling of the median and averages, as identified in my post. This requires technological modification of intelligence in humans.

            The alternative of a [social] solution trying to replicate this effect is neither feasible nor sufficient for most nations and definitely not for the US where OPs image comes from

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This requires technological modification of intelligence in humans.
            Why?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you a bot, or a moron?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >housing prices in particular in the US (and some other places) simply must be excluded to prevent immediate collapse of their inflation-adjusted budgets
            how have there not been spree killings in the streets

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, they don't. Not even in the inferior CPI.
            https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-the-consumer-price-index-account-for-the-cost-of-housing/

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In 1965 US opened the floodgates of infinite turd world immigration.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Workers take home about 45%-50% of total wealth. Directly, as in paychecks.
    Another 25% is taken in taxes, broadly speaking.
    The 45-50% on workers taxes is also taxed in VAT and income tax, so total taxes are higher than 25%.
    The private capital business profit people keep about 25%. They also get taxed so the total is smaller.
    Government sends back a lot of the wealth back to the working class. At least 20% of wealth goes back directly, 10% as social security payments, 10% in medical services for geriatrics, almost all the rest is spent on childrum services like schools, including paying for 17 million school employees.
    Then theres police, army, roads, etc. Thats part of the compensation people get, its just not cash.
    The rich keep less than 25% of the pie (after they pay their taxes). From that 25%, they invest 15% and spend 10% on their own lyfestyle of hookers and blow.
    The 15% invested is mostly spent in construction. Thats why buildings exist, some rich person has to fund the construction of.. everything.

    • 4 weeks ago
      DoctorGreen

      >almost all the rest is spent on childrum services like schools, including paying for 17 million school employees
      this is thief.
      the government shouldn't use slave's money to build more slave formatories and then tell they're paying their slaves back

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whence the idea that they must correlate to begin with? If the positions of "real hourly compensation" and "productivity" were switched, would you still inquire about it?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Whence the idea that they must correlate to begin with?
      They correlate. The wealth that is produces is given to workers, well at least 70% of it.
      10% of wealth is consumed by the rich, for their opulent lyfes.
      15% of wealth is invested by the rich. Theoretically this wealth belongs to the rich, but in physical terms it is used by everyone. For instance the rich might build a new housing development and rent houses to wageslaves, the houses belong to the rich but the common people would physically be using it. Same as workplaces, power plants, etc.
      About 10% of wealth is given to the working class but to pensioners, in social security and medicare.
      About 5% of wealth is used to provide free education in the USA, its a benefit that the working class gets, not as money but it has a money equivalent.
      Like 5% is used for generic "security", including military and police forces. Is that really a benefit for the working class? Dunno.
      Theres another 5% of wealth used for diverse gov program of dubious social value like funding science, and also for paying debt interest. But a solid 20% is given to workers (medicare, social security, cops, schools)
      The rest of the money is direct worker compensation, salaries. It all adds up to 70%. And the existence of that 70% depends on making investments to create workplaces, housing, etc. Roughly only 15% of wealth isnt used by the workers, its the part of the wealth used by the govt for dubious projects and paying interest, and the part that the rich blow in hookers and blow (15% of total GDP).
      Bottom line: 330 million wageslaves have a hell of a lot more income, collectively, that the capitalist class.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They correlate

        Yes? I asked whence the idea that they MUST correlate, not whether they correlate or not.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I asked whence the idea that they MUST correlate,
          The wealth is produced for a reason. Its either consumed or invested. Consumption is done mostly by the workers since they are many, the rich consume more each, but they are not many.
          What else do you think is to be done with all the houses built, cars made, crops planted, etc? Bill Gates isnt going to live in 1 million houses

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This does not answer my question.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I gave you a reason for the correlation.
            Due to fundamental reasons all wealth must basically be given to workers, not all but most of it. So productivity must be correlate with workers total income, on average.
            Because otherwise you have to answer what is done with that wealth. Products are made to be consumed and the masses of workers are the bulk of consumers.
            Thats a good reason for production to correlate with consumption. It doesnt mean it has to be 100% because some wealth is consumed by non-workers, and also some is invested. Also exports and imports change the math a bit, as for instance in a place like Japan the production is much higher than consumption, because a lot is just sent abroad, exported.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pure ideology.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What ideology? You are talking nonsense.
            The wealth produced is basically meant for the working class to consume, not all but most of it, at least on average.
            If a country has a huge export surplus this is less so, because production can be high but if its all exported, theres not much left for locals.
            In the USA its the opposite, the total supply of products exceed the local production, by something to the tune of 500 billion dollars a year
            Whatever isnt consumed by the workers is either invested or consumed by non-workers, which are still people but non-workers, basically the rich. They are not many, and can have lifes of opulence and only consume 10% of GDP. This would be a greater fraction in a place like Brazil, where production was not that big to begin with.
            It also depends on what is produced. Yatchs and small planes are used almost exclusively by the rich, while food, average cars and houses are used almost exclusively by average people.
            Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Warren Buffet dont eat more food than any 3 of their workers. They each might consume at most a few million dollars a year in their personal lives, warren buffet in particular doesnt consume much.
            So any wealth not consumed by the rich, not used in investments, is for the working class.
            And 2 thirds of investments are in construction, the other third is about half in electrical infrastructure and the other half in industrial vehicles and machinery, like planes, trains and big ships.
            Bottom line, the rich only consume 10% of wealth, therefire wealth and worker compensation correlate by 90%, at least in the USA.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is just like saying "Libras like Virgos".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That post is totally reasonable, you are a moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Take the first statement, "the wealth [...] is meant for". What does this mean?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It means that the majority of what is produced are goods and services meant to be sold to the people. Let's say you produce kettles. What do you with these kettles?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What does this mean?
            the wealth is for people. Its not just stashed in some hole.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Checked
            Economics is all ideology. In this case, it's just "the status quo is fine," and working backwards to justify it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      holy frick peak midwit
      >he even used 'whence'

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They correlate because they reflect economic output. Labor is an input to the production of goods and services. As the economy grows, so does labor compensation.

      For the economy as a whole, productivity is measured by looking at total labor and capital inputs relative to total output. Specifically, it's the ratio of aggregate output to aggregate input. So by identity, they should track each other over time.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Again, the issue is that each series is deflated by different measures of inflation. This adjustment is made to nominal values to a get real, or inflation adjusted, measure of output and labor compensation. The nominal value is divided by the deflator to get the real value.

        Productivity as shown in the chart reflects the growth in real, aggregate output relative to real, aggregate inputs (labor and capital). To get a measure of real output, a deflator that represents an index of *output* prices is used.

        Labor compensation, as shown in the chart, uses a deflator that represents an index of *consumption goods & services* prices. This is supposed to capture "real wages".

        Because the index of consumption goods and services prices increased more than the index of output prices (and these are *not* capturing the same thing, by definition), real compensation is going to fall relative to productivity!

        If you use the *same* deflator for both, this divergence goes away. This meme chart, by construction, is misleading.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So what's really going on here, then? This chart was made popular by EPI, a left-liberal think tank in DC funded by labor unions. The trick I described with deflators was done in order to fit a narrative that "labor is not getting their fair share any longer."

          This may or may not be true, but you have to understand that the chart was popularized to push a political narrative, first and foremost.

          Labor unions, particularly public sector unions, are an important interest group within the Democratic Party coalition in the US. They have relatively less power than they did, say, 50 years ago, but nonetheless are a major cash cow for the party. In any case, they remain an important interest group in the US, and it makes sense that one of their think tanks would fudge the numbers to support their agenda.

          I personally think unions are worth supporting, but that's a separate matter. Objectively, this is why the chart looks the way that it does!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Because the index of consumption goods and services prices increased more than the index of output prices
          Shouldn't they be fairly correlated though, considering that consumers consume ouputs? Are other companies/governments buying so much much stuff nowadays

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but output prices include the prices of machinery, etc. bought by businesses that happen to have seen slower price growth than consumer goods and services across the board (CPI).

            The difference in growth between both price indices is enough to cause the two time series to diverge when deflated.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So what's really going on here, then? This chart was made popular by EPI, a left-liberal think tank in DC funded by labor unions. The trick I described with deflators was done in order to fit a narrative that "labor is not getting their fair share any longer."

          This may or may not be true, but you have to understand that the chart was popularized to push a political narrative, first and foremost.

          Labor unions, particularly public sector unions, are an important interest group within the Democratic Party coalition in the US. They have relatively less power than they did, say, 50 years ago, but nonetheless are a major cash cow for the party. In any case, they remain an important interest group in the US, and it makes sense that one of their think tanks would fudge the numbers to support their agenda.

          I personally think unions are worth supporting, but that's a separate matter. Objectively, this is why the chart looks the way that it does!

          I am replying to let you know I don't take your conclusions seriously

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, this is a theory. You could just as easily theorize that they should be inversely proportional.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wrong. The productivity statistic we're discussing is, by definition, a ratio of real aggregate output over real aggregate input. One of these aggregate inputs is labor.

          [...]
          I am replying to let you know I don't take your conclusions seriously

          Opinions are like buttholes. We've all got one!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And whence the assumption that input and output must correlate in any way?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but output prices include the prices of machinery, etc. bought by businesses that happen to have seen slower price growth than consumer goods and services across the board (CPI).

      The difference in growth between both price indices is enough to cause the two time series to diverge when deflated.

      >Whence the idea that they must correlate to begin with?
      When you create 200 tools an hour, you expect those 200 to be sold somehow somewhere. When you make 500 an hour instead, you'd expect 500 to be sold somehow somewhere. Where do the goods go?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Where do the goods go?
        To other companies or governments. The typical consumer isn't buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of mining equipment or huge servers or hellfire missiles or whatever. A large chunk of the value is also probably going to shareholders

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So you basically say that the extra productivity gets wasted on creating bullshit jobs?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No? I said a lot of it gets sent to other companies, you as a consumer won't directly benefit from that output

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which implies it gets wasted.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you consider buying mining equipment, computers, machines, etc "waste" then sure. Good thing nobody here is in charge of anything important lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It would save more working hours than it takes to build it, if it didn't get wasted.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Corporate tax cuts, deregulation and Neoliberalism have destroyed the middle class.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theres only about 30% of additional wealth that can be transfered to the working class.
    By that i mean, if the rich wnt without any profit, if all investment ceased, and if government shady projects like funding for science or paying interest on debt stopped, workers could get 30% of the wealth sent to them. Which would be like a 50% raise in real terms of their wages.
    Regarding the investments, they might still get done as long as workers agree to allocate half if their raise money into investments, which they would own, but its important that they get done. Their own jobs depend on these electrical plants being built.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The real reason: skill outsourcing. Basically, computerization took many responsibilities away from workers. Before affordable computers being a skilled, reliable accountant was something much harder. Much more was done by hand. Once hardware and software innovations made many accounting skills practically obsolete, per worker productivity did "rise", but that wasn't because the accountants became more efficient. On the contrary, they became more replaceable, driving their real wages stagnant.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Once hardware and software innovations made many accounting skills practically obsolete, per worker productivity did "rise", but that wasn't because the accountants became more efficient
      It definitionally is. Arguing tools don't make humans more efficient is nonsensical.
      >On the contrary, they became more replaceable, driving their real wages stagnant.
      How come replaceability only applies to workers but not employers when it comes to wages? Surely as skill ceilings decrease more job openings at more businesses become available. You hear about businesses b***hing about a lack of hires all the fricking time, including even basic shit like farm work, but you don't hear about spikes in offered wages at those businesses.

      In reality the replaceability argument is nonsense. Workers should be paid for their productivity. If you produce more, regardless of how you did so, you should be compensated more.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but not employers
        It does. That is another market factor that influences wages. More employers per a limited pool of skilled workers means higher wages.
        >Workers should be paid for their productivity
        Good luck trying to enforce that. Even your fellow workers will be a hurdle because nobody wants to work more as some c**t raises the bar for everybody. But that aside, if you are extremely productive, but there are many other people who can replace you -- sorry, you either accept a pay cut, or get fired. That's how the real world will always work.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It does. That is another market factor that influences wages. More employers per a limited pool of skilled workers means higher wages.
          It demonstrably doesn't. Also, bold of you to include skilled as if that should matter. Unskilled labor can have a limited pool as well.
          >https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/15/pounds-60m-in-uk-crops-left-to-rot-lack-of-workers-nfu-farming
          >https://www.independent.com/2017/06/22/labor-shortage-leaves-13-million-crops-rot-fields/

          >if you are extremely productive, but there are many other people who can replace you -- sorry, you either accept a pay cut, or get fired.
          In the real world, how replaceable or productive you are has zero bearing on an ultimatum of accepting a pay cut or getting fired. It's almost like workers have shitty leverage and institutions should be built up to prevent the exploitation of labor, such as unions and minimum wage and overtime laws.

          >Good luck trying to enforce that
          Worker co-ops are a thing.
          >Even your fellow workers will be a hurdle because nobody wants to work more as some c**t raises the bar for everybody.
          This statement makes no sense. You're either suggesting an especially productive worker would require everyone else to keep up or have their wages cut or you're suggesting that in the current system worker wages match each other, both of which are nonsense. And fellow workers doing the same job already create a pretense to threaten people into taking pay cuts since employers can threaten to dump your workload onto them. All the more reason for workers to present a united front when negotiating wages.

          Fundamentally labor and business are enemies and workers have to be allies with one another or they will be used against each other to the sole benefit of their employers.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but he said SKILLED workers, not fricking fruit picking farm labour lmfao.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >NTA but he said SKILLED workers
            I know he said skilled workers. My point was that nothing about his argument wouldn't apply to unskilled workers and reality doesn't conform to his beliefs.

            Businesses don't set prices for labor based on need, skill, or scarcity.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Machine learning finally caught up and started 3x-ing one guy’s productivity…jews paid that man a double salary and laid off the other two…that resulted in an overall loss because the average salary between the three men was now 2/3 of what it used to be

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    gold standard went away and then people bought stocks instead or at least city dwelling yuppie israelite hybrids I use those terms to denote the qualities and identities honestly and not as an aspersion

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i dunno, post the fricking source for your image so we can see how "productivity" and "real hourly compensation" are defined/measured

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Computers, outsourcing.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Removal of the Gold Standard.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Workers are worth less now. Automation, immigration and offshoring have largely seen to this. On the flip side products are much more accessible to these newly pauperized workers. Even the lowest trailer trash has a supercomputer they carry in their pocket and bananas year round.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That trend has started to reverse, from a few years already, since more people retire from work than enters the workforce. This is true in east asia, europe and to a lesser degree in the USA

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Indeed, I know my employer has been handing out raises and bonuses left and right since 2020. They have a lot of trouble getting new, young people in the door. The unfortunate thing is that most of the people they are getting now are absolute dogshit.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well golly, they might have to up their game a little more if they're not seeing the results they want!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Let's hope, for the sake of maximizing the return on the time I spend there. Unfortunately, I do not think the younger generation is very smart or driven, generally. My job is somewhat technical and most of the young people I see do not know how to think to solve problem. Kids don't exactly grow up building crystal radios any more.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was talking about companies. They drag their feet at every turn, but they'll have to be worth working for or fail

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    almost everyone in the usa has a home and food and transportation, they complain about nothing. Mostly about fears of losing what they had all their lives

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everybody in the US is starving, as the regulations male it impossible to produce and sell healthy food. This is a global problem, by the way.

      Relatedly, you typically see a story about how wages' share of GDP has fallen, which is explained by the productivity and compensation divergence.

      However, that decline basically reflects how GDP, or gross domestic product, has experienced changes over the last several decades. The "gross" rather than "net" measurement includes depreciation costs. Because of the rise of IT investment (computers, other business technology), depreciation as a share of GDP has risen. This change makes it seem like wages' share of the economy has fallen. What's really occurred is this shift in the composition of GDP due to higher measured depreciation. Adjust for that and labor's share of output remains relatively stable.

      These statistical artifacts are used to make political arguments, but don't work once you take into account those details. Issues relating to the cost of living relative to income aren't persuasive at this level of aggregation.

      Again, the way the data is constructed explains what's going on here. This is really the most "scientific" explanation you can get from that chart and related arguments.

      Most of the US's economic problems reflect uneven growth across different sectors of the economy, Baumol's cost disease (look it up) and rent-seeking through regulatory capture by private and political interest groups. All of these problems are harder to explain with the marxist or partisan rhetoric you typically get on forums like this one.

      The problem is that there is nothing worthwile to do, you force people to work in bullshit jobs, while you outsource the remaining real job, everybody starves, and is disabled (including mentally) from the malnutrition.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cartoonishly paranoid opinion. Almost psychotic, actually.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Most famines are not total, often there is food, but is too low quality, with not enough nutrients, especially heavy metals. Crops used to accumulate them, but they were bred and genetically modified not to. Essentially you get the same problem as the starving children, as the food is also devoid of nutrients, it doesn't matter that it's nominally called a steak. No heavy metals leads kwashiorkor, as the proteins don't work.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            please stop posting naked children

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It was to illustrate a disease, and completely appropriate.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you are a pedophile

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are either insane, or trying to harm me.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Greed and integrated use of technology

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The graph is a bit misleading. The two time series are adjusted using different deflators that don't account for inflation in the same way. If you look at both series in nominal terms (not inflation adjusted), there's no divergence.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Relatedly, you typically see a story about how wages' share of GDP has fallen, which is explained by the productivity and compensation divergence.

      However, that decline basically reflects how GDP, or gross domestic product, has experienced changes over the last several decades. The "gross" rather than "net" measurement includes depreciation costs. Because of the rise of IT investment (computers, other business technology), depreciation as a share of GDP has risen. This change makes it seem like wages' share of the economy has fallen. What's really occurred is this shift in the composition of GDP due to higher measured depreciation. Adjust for that and labor's share of output remains relatively stable.

      These statistical artifacts are used to make political arguments, but don't work once you take into account those details. Issues relating to the cost of living relative to income aren't persuasive at this level of aggregation.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Again, the way the data is constructed explains what's going on here. This is really the most "scientific" explanation you can get from that chart and related arguments.

        Most of the US's economic problems reflect uneven growth across different sectors of the economy, Baumol's cost disease (look it up) and rent-seeking through regulatory capture by private and political interest groups. All of these problems are harder to explain with the marxist or partisan rhetoric you typically get on forums like this one.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This isnt even corrected for housing prices lmao
    Reality is MUCH worse

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The emergence of neoliberalism and the post-war ramping-up of Zionist subversion of the west.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When the gold standard was abandoned, increased money printing devalued wages (among other factors).

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there a scientific explanation for why these two trends were so tightly related before the early/mid 1970s and then because completely unlinked subsequently?
    more capitalism, less socialism.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Outsourcing and weakening of labor unions is probably a big one

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dropping the gold standard turned the economy into fiddling around with the Fed's excel sheet. Of course they can get away with a bunch of financial shenanigans, including fricking over workers, when money isn't real anymore.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what a meaningless word salad

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >money isn't real anymore.
      "money" was never real. gold is real, so are other tangible items of value.
      the word "money" originates with the temple of juno moneta in rome, in ancient rome at the beginning metals were traded by weight , but then the the temple of juno moneta started circulating coins, which were initially weight denominated, as a means of facilitating small transactions. eventually the coins became value denominated rather than weight denominated which was when the juno moneta cult realized that they could get rich simple by buying back their old coins and stamping larger numbers on them.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Producers subsist through the good graces of the Government (subsidies, tax exemptions, endless facilities, etc.), making the whole "economic" movement between producers and consumers null, i.e. the Government pays producers to produce, the consumption is a secondary, excremental, process.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      word salad and also you are israeli but you have no power here

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >denounce the literal merchant class
        >yOu ArE israeli

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cringe. You are not going to fit in by dropping buzzwords, israelite. Also im reporting you for derailing the thread. have a nice day

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What "buzzwords"?

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    heres a couple of hints:
    starts with j
    ends with ews

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Heres the real explanation:
    Average wages have kept up with inflation, but this has concentrated in management and professional jobs.
    Minimal wage wagies are buttfricked. Thats a lot of people.
    So its not like the billionaire class are hoarding the wealth, its more like the top 40%

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So its not like the billionaire class are hoarding the wealth…
      …its the israelites that are doing it, since 1970s there have been endless wars and they were all for the benefit of israel

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Its the top 40% of the population, which includes the israelites.
        Thats a lot of people, they can consume a lot more than a few thousands billionaires and make twice on average what the bottom 60% makes.
        You think you cant buy a house because Elon or the israelites are using all the wood and cement for themselves? Pff

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And the israelites' scheme has worked terribly, their zionist homeland is on the verge of collapse and they're the most hated minority everywhere else they live.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *