Socialist Seattle

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Chili_Wango

I believe there is a fallacy in your thinking as well. Every single statistic related to economics is proving your arguements to be false. Wages continue to DROP while productivity and net earnings continue to RISE. There is a huge descrepenacy that you cannot find an explanation for.

[booker]

Originally Posted by Chili_Wango

I believe there is a fallacy in your thinking as well. Every single statistic related to economics is proving your arguements to be false. Wages continue to DROP while productivity and net earnings continue to RISE. There is a huge descrepenacy that you cannot find an explanation for.

You should be careful making global statements such as "every single statistic", particularly when you are providing zero data or support for your claim. In my field (engineering), wages continue to go up, and as such, so is productivity. I worked my ass off to get into that field for a reason. Those folks with an art history degree may be experiencing a downturn in wages. YMMV. While I cannot speak for every particular wage area in the United States, the 2013 statistics from the Economic Policy Institute (August 2013) indicate, at worst, that the wages have been flat (but that doesn't tell the entire story). That being stated, almost all the data used for these studies is based upon household and/or employer surveys, which are notorious for being at best, correlative data, and are usually (when used for correlations, etc and not higher level statistics) prone to high margins of error. Additionally, the study authors state that they ran regression analyses for the parameters in the study, but do not provide said results, and state only that they did some statistical analysis on publicly available data. But, I digress.

However, if you fall within the bottom 20th percentile of folks used in the above cited study, you have experienced a fall in wages. This can be due to a number of factors, but the data appears to indicate that this may be a result of educational differences. There is also a gender difference. That has been around for a long time, and it doesn't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.

Not sure what your statistics were, but it would be nice to see them so we can have a real discussion of what you are basing this opinion on.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Chili_Wango

Yes I took business classes in college; however nothing above a 200 level class.

Did the professor, by any chance, bring up the Ben and Jerry's CEO compensation model?

When they started they promised that the CEO, Ben I believe, would not make more than 5 times what the lowest worker made. When he was set to retire, they could not find anyone who wanted the job at that wage. They upped it to 7 to 1 and eventually to 17 to 1.

They eventually sold it to Unilever, a multinational corporation, for over $300,000,000. In 2011, the CEO was reported to have made $4,000,000 the previous year.

Pat

[Chili_Wango]

[QUOTE=booker;553162]You should be careful making global statements such as "every single statistic", particularly when you are providing zero data or support for your claim. In my field (engineering), wages continue to go up, and as such, so is productivity.[QUOTE]


True. Thanks for calling me out on that. The point stands though. Productivity rates and net earnings for companies continue to rise while wage stagnate.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Chili_Wango

The point stands though. Productivity rates and net earnings for companies continue to rise while wage stagnate.

Prove it.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Chili_Wango

True. Thanks for calling me out on that. The point stands though. Productivity rates and net earnings for companies continue to rise while wage stagnate.

Would you like a larger shovel?

TR

[Dean Jarvis]

Originally Posted by Chili_Wango

True. Thanks for calling me out on that. The point stands though. Productivity rates and net earnings for companies continue to rise while wage stagnate.

This is true. It's due to extremely high unemployment. Too many people chasing after too few job's puts the employer in the drivers seat. When unemployment is low the job applicant has a better chance of negotiating higher wages.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Dean Jarvis

This is true. It's due to extremely high unemployment. Too many people chasing after too few job's puts the employer in the drivers seat. When unemployment is low the job applicant has a better chance of negotiating higher wages.

As booker stated, not all job seekers are created equal. Those that earned a degree for a skill in demand are not competing for the same jobs that graduates with B.A.s.

[Chili_Wango]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Would you like a larger shovel?

TR

I'm currently in my office and am unable to access the websites where I wish to provide evidence for my statements. Will provide them later.

[Dean Jarvis]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

As booker stated, not all job seekers are created equal. Those that earned a degree for a skill in demand are not competing for the same jobs that graduates with B.A.s.

The operative word here is "in demand". My son graduated from Law School two years ago. There were only 5 in his graduating class that found a job. He just passed his Patent test and looking to upgrade his employment. Right now he would be considered one of those in the stagnant income categories.

As I said, when there is low unemployment, it creates more "demand" in most every job category.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Chili_Wango

I'm currently in my office and am unable to access the websites where I wish to provide evidence for my statements. Will provide them later.

Looking forward to it.

[plato]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110224.htm

Here's something to go on. The productivity gains from increased automation and 'instant' communication probably don't translate into increased wages.

[Chili_Wango]

Alright. Here it goes: I prefer to use articles that draw on a number of primary sources. I believe they provide a bigger picture and a more accurate view of the topic; plus econ papers are about as dense as science papers, they author saves us the time from having to digest the primary source (unless of course I have a reason to doubt the validity of the primary source).

I am not offering a solution, merely highlighting what I believe to be serious problems that our current economic state has.

http://www.gfmag.com/global-data/eco...ome-inequality

I find this particular represention of wealth distribution across the world to be very troubling. The US, and a hand full of other developed nations, have a wealth distrbution that mirrors those of poorer, less-developed nations. I find it rather interesting that the US appears to have similar distributions as those of communist and socialist nations as well.


Communism and Socialism is supposed to help distribute wealth somewhat evenly across the whole population. However, due to a perversion of the system and corruption, the wealth is hoarded by the guys at the top. It appears that our capitalist society is following the same lines. While i'm ont saying that the 3 types of economic systems are simliar; I'm saying the perversion and corruption of the 3 yeild the same effects.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ic-inequality/

Pay particular attention to the fourth graph. 3,600 people hold 35% of the TOTAL wealth in the US. We condemn other economic systems, yet the distribution of wealth is begining to mirror the "others".

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629

I find the juxtaposition of the increase in income gains between the different social classes to be quite striking. Streck-Fu mentioned earlier about mobility between the different social classes and tossed a few common names about including Bill Gates. It is impossible to justify the success of our economic system based off the successes of a very select few. While it is not impossible for those in the bottom 40% to work their way to the top, they do not relfect the overall population, they are the exception. You have the bottom 40% of the population holding only 30% of the wealth. That's about 126 million people. You cited a couple of names, and in light of the fact that they came from the bottom 40%, 2 from 126 million, you're going to have to do better than that.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629

Here is a good explanation and summary to statistical analyses regarding the income gap since the 70s.


I do not know of solutions; I merely recognize a problem. Here is my dilemma: I cannot possibly justify ordering somone to give their hard-earned money away (we all experince this every year in April); yet, how can you justify the sequestration of wealth while the majority of the population suffers? Whether people care to admit it or not, capitalism, just like every other economic system, is susceptible to perversion and corruption. And that is exactly what has happened today.

The arguement for welfare pigs sucking on the tit of big government angers me too, but you have to realize there are an estimated 50 million on welfare, roughly 16% of the total population; they are the minority. So what about the rest of the population, the hard-working white collar workers, skilled tradesman, etc.

Streck-Fu also used the commonly tossed around examples of success stories like Bill Gates and Oprah. I believe these inaccurately reflect reality. Stories like such are the exception. We have about 60% of the populaiton holding about 60% of the wealth. That 189 million people. Compare that to the top 1%, 3,600 people. Pretty big difference eh? Then again compare it to the bottom 40% of folks who have only 30% of the wealth. Thats roughly 126 million people, and you give me 2 names to give evidence of the success of our current economic system? You have to be kidding me.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorli...nd-leadership/

This is an interesting article that I have yet to to decide if the primary source is sound or not. It could be a possible explanation as to why we see the hoarding of wealth at the top, especially in the bank bailouts that the wonderful POTUS did.

Either way the system is broken.

P.S. This is my second attempt at the reply. My first attempt took too long and when I hit submit, I had to sign back in restart from scratch...

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by plato

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110224.htm

Here's something to go on. The productivity gains from increased automation and 'instant' communication probably don't translate into increased wages.

The original assertion, as I understand it, was that wages are dropping for employees that are more productive creating greater business profits.

Since machines are not salaried or waged, I don't see how it factors into the issue.

[Chili_Wango]

Originally Posted by plato

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110224.htm

Here's something to go on. The productivity gains from increased automation and 'instant' communication probably don't translate into increased wages.

While that is disturbing, it's difficult to include factors when discussing production; i.e. advancements in technology. If you make a machine that can increase the output of products by 30%, the worker isn't necessarily working any harder, it's the machine. So why should the worker be rewarded? Then again the poor fellow is most likely be making jack shit in the first place while is CEO rakes in millions.

Like I said in my previous post, I find it difficult to demand that my CEO give me money, money he earned; but how can he/she justify hoarding the wealth why giving everyone else the scraps?