I clicked on IMDB just now and see that there are FIVE replies to my recent post in this thread.
I should read all five before responding, but the very first response was so absurd I had to click Reply at once.
Sorry if the absurdities have already been pointed out.
Notably absent from your comparison is anything about what wages did.
If A's percentage share of the pie INCREASED, then not-A's share DECREASED. I didn't know this was difficult math!
But !A contains a lot more than just workers. And we perfectly well know the size of the pie changes over time.
Corporate profits AFTER tax were $3.4 Trillion in 2024; and about $21 Billion in 1953. Yes, that's Trillion with a T. 11.8 is the multiplier to turn 1953 dollars into 2024 dollars, so call it $248 Trillion. Corporate profits have gotten a 1270% raise. GDP went from $390 Billion to $29.4 Trillion.
Foot, meet bullet.
Corporate profits are up 1,270%. But by your own numbers GDP went up 7,538%. In other words, corporate profits are now 1/6 of the share of the pie they used to be.
O.M.G. Let me rephrase that: O.M.F.G.
Loren do you "sanity check" numbers? Bill had 3 apples, bought 10 more, how many does he have now? If you get 10^3 or "1000 apples" as the answer do you think you should double-check the arithmetic??
Do you REALLY think that "corporate profits are now only 1/6 of the share of the pie they used to be." ???
Despite the graphs I have (generously!) provided over and over and over to help fight your ignorance? There's even such a graph in this very post that you quoted.
No, let me repeat my question.
Do you REALLY think that "corporate profits are now 1/6 of the share they used to be." ???
If you answer Yes, I will finally know not to waste further time on trying to improve your numeracy.
If you answer No, you display a Garbage-In-Garbage-Out approach.
21/390 = 5.38% // corporate profit share in 1953
3400/29400 = 11.56% // corporate profit share in 2024
Note that I didn't even need the 11.8 multiplier to convert to "constant dollars", i.e. "real dollars."
You, OTOH, I'm guessing started with a more difficult interpretation of the numbers, then forgot you then needed the 11.8 multiplier.
I'll be the first to admit that population increases, productivity increases, changes in the "dollar's value" -- all these things can complicate and irritate when doing simple arithmetic for posts like this.
It takes me a little while to compose a post like that, where I do a lot of arithmetic, trying to be careful.
But let me ask again:
Did you REALLY think that "corporate profits are now 1/6 of the share of the pie they used to be." ???
Sanity-checking is an antidote to arithmetic confusion. Unless you REALLY thought your "1/6 of the share they used to be" was sensical, you should have immediately understood that something went haywire.
Strawman? Or is this how LP really thinks? said:
$7.50 (in 2024 dollars or about 30¢ in then-nominal money) was a typical wage for unskilled labor in 1940, but let's be generous and double it for today! $15 per hour is a 100% pay hike!
Yes, corporate profits have gotten a 1500+% pay boost over the same period, but SO WHAT? Wages have increased; that's the important thing. To complain that the Super-rich did much MUCH better is just envy. They create jobs, brought us technical masterpieces like MS Windows, and so on.
Is that about right? Among other things you ignore that the cost of living is higher today INDEPENDENT of inflation: Cars and smart-phones are almost necessities today. And Americans expect some access to medical innovations.
In other words, people are better off--undreamt-of luxuries are now necessities.
Yes, they are!! Smart phones ARE almost a necessity(*) today. American lifestyle and long commutes make the luxury of an automobile a near-necessity outside of a few large cities. Technology has improved medical methods dramatically -- should they only be available for the elite?
* - Off topic perhaps, but the Thai government has adopted various programs since the Pandemic to funnel cash to the rural poor. BUT the recipients need a bank account and an App on their phone to receive the cash. The rural poor almost all have smart-phones, but lack bank account and wherewithal to install an App so can't get the benefits!
There has been a post elsewhere that showed that over Biden's term workers gained a net of 5%.
Wow! Talk about useless ill-defined statistics!
I guessed your number was inflation-adjusted, but why not spend a word or two so I needn't have to guess?
It's not my fault if you ignore data that doesn't agree with you. I forget who posted it but there was a graph showing 20% of inflation during Biden's term--but that worker income went up 25% in that same period.
Median wages, mean wages, minimum wages, household income, "constant dollars" or not? Lacking any such delineation your sentence is USELESS. What I ask is that YOU use complete clear sentences.
And where did you get this number anyway? "Average household income" is a common proxy for wages, but that includes dividends, etc.
And even a better statistic for "wages" will usually include CEO salaries and the like.
Do you now understand why "Share of the Pie" is an informative stat?
Perhaps it would be better for you to comment on the following graph, rather than presenting confused and unexplained numbers and pointing out the "pie has increased."
And again note that "Wages" are, as usual, defined to include CEO salaries, etc. The decline in pie-share for unskilled labor is much worse than the graph suggests.
Beware of how deceptive that graph is, note the different scales.
The numbers are plainly visible. Do you think the graph was designed to confuse? Or simply designed to put much information into a small space.
Those who designed and (I) who presented the graph thought it
an easy way to supply numbers to those who are familiar with the use of numbers and reading graphs. Perhaps you were not the intended audience.
I do agree unskilled labor has fared badly. There simply isn't a lot of demand for it in our high tech society, you need to make something of yourself.
AT LAST! An ounce of sensibility from Loren. You've identified a problem I and others here have been explaining over and over and over and over. Note by the way, that many skilled and semi-skilled workers are ALSO adversely affected by automation, out-sourcing, profiteering, etc.
The "need to make something of yourself" sounds like Blaming the Victim. What should we do with people too stupid to use a computer?
Leonard Peltier
