American Worker Productivity Rises, Pay Doesn't
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
Is that graph relating workers productivity, or a manufactures productivity, NOT the same.
FAST
I imagine technology has a lot to do with the continued rise in productivity. But I'll agree that income inequality is a major, major issue for the economy, more so than I think most people realize.
Btw, what happened in 1973 that made wages and productivity diverge like that? According to this chart, which has probably been doctored like any other statistics, the two were basically in tandem for decades, then took a massive turn.
Btw, what happened in 1973 that made wages and productivity diverge like that? According to this chart, which has probably been doctored like any other statistics, the two were basically in tandem for decades, then took a massive turn.
I think the computer started up in business then. Word processors came in. Assembly line as well. Made for simple effeciencies that continued to get better.
Imagine something as simple as a mail out pre and post computer.
If you read the foot notes you'll see the productivity number is full economy, hour comp is for non-supervisory production workers. Explanation is simple, low skill jobs have moved to other countries, high productivity is happening in other (services, hi-tech...) sectors. Apples and oranges.
There are at least 2 or more different theories for the discrepancy between productivity and wage growth.
One theory I come across, as that graph posted here I have seen before seems to be famous, one reason is that during the 1970's the family unit in the USA began to decline. Meaning more single moms. Also more women entered the work force beginning in the 1970's which corresponds to the declining wage levels.
Obviously, this makes a lot of sense, since more labour aka the liberated American woman, entered the work force, pushing wages down.
Seems to me this theory is as good as any other ones I have heard. Remember, China was still in the Cultural Revolution yet wages were already declining relative to efficiency gains in the USA.
Supply and demand of workers. How come that was never brought up in that article?
These leftist don't care about economics. Should we say that?
:Eek:
One theory I come across, as that graph posted here I have seen before seems to be famous, one reason is that during the 1970's the family unit in the USA began to decline. Meaning more single moms. Also more women entered the work force beginning in the 1970's which corresponds to the declining wage levels.
Obviously, this makes a lot of sense, since more labour aka the liberated American woman, entered the work force, pushing wages down.
Seems to me this theory is as good as any other ones I have heard. Remember, China was still in the Cultural Revolution yet wages were already declining relative to efficiency gains in the USA.
Supply and demand of workers. How come that was never brought up in that article?
These leftist don't care about economics. Should we say that?
:Eek:
canada-man
Well-known member
What caused the decline of the family unit? Was the seed sown in the 60's?
If you say that, the lefties on the board will accuse you of being a redneck, a racist, a bigot, anti-Islam, unCanadian, unChristian, a troll, etc., etc.
These are wages for "production/non-supervisory" labor , i.e. unskilled labor. This work has gone to other markets
There are actually 3 sectors.
1) Government workers with their job security, high wages and benefits.
2) The trades such as plumbers, electricians, etc. Also, the professional class such as lawyers, dentists, brokers, etc.
I doubt the folks in 1 and 2 are suffering financially.
3) Everybody else.
canada-man
Well-known member
leftist anti-male welfare policies that lead to the rise of single mothers. the biggest example is Black America
Would be interesting to know what happened after 1973 that caused wages to stagnate. Is the government sucking more money out of the economy then in the 70s?
This might be of interest to some folks on the board. The data is for 1970.
Average MLB salary $29,303
Average Toronto house price $29,492
Ford Mustang $3,258
Average NHL salary $25,000
24 bottles of beer $5.09
TSE 948
MP salary $18,000
Postage stamp $0.06
Average MLB salary $29,303
Average Toronto house price $29,492
Ford Mustang $3,258
Average NHL salary $25,000
24 bottles of beer $5.09
TSE 948
MP salary $18,000
Postage stamp $0.06
This is another of those screwing the dead horse theories. There is very little correlation between increasing productivity and wages in the first world economies. The simplest explanation is that as the productivity increases, the prices decrease and may even decrease the revenue per worker. Simply put, productivity does not drive wages. Agriculture is the best example where downward pressure on incomes is contrasted by incredible leaps in productivity.
If the two line both showed the entire economy (vs productivity total economy, compensation unskilled labor) you'd see that compensation does follow productivity. US income is up MASSIVLY in real terms since the 70s
This is a bullshit chart and it's scary how few recognize that, including the OP.
Actually it's incidental. Compensation in the first world economies includes benefits and taxes and this chart(like most bs charts on this subject) only shows hourly wages. The price index is not taken into consideration either. And, of course, the price of labor is only one of the factors in determining productivity. There are other factors that determine value of workers' input. It's a very complex subject that some people want to bring down to mere slogans for political reasons.
