- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,962
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
-
Features
Tariffs
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
double post
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
I doubt many would agree unless you're so atypical as to invalidate the comparison. A doctor 40 years could easily support a family on his wage alone. A non-managerial office worker today couldn't. A non-managerial office worker 40 years ago could just about do it, was a lot harder to fire and could probably count on the job until retirement, when it would provide a decent pension.
Nah. Watch from ~ 9 mins.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A[/YOUTUBE]
Inflation adjusted (i.e. for buying power), the median hourly wage has stagnated and is below the 1970s peak for ordinary (i.e. production and nonsupervisory) workers. Capacity utilisation has also fallen off since peaking then.
Yes, plenty of goods are better now or didn't exist then, but that's down to technology advancing as a matter of course, not wage suppression. The relevant comparison isn't between what we can buy now vs then, but the counterfactual : what we can buy now vs what we could be buying now had wages kept up with productivity
EricK
Senior Member
Why is it a poor comparison? I am not as well off as a doctor today; but on the other hand I am much better off than an office worker from back then. And a doctor now is much better off than a doctor then.
And women and ethnic minorities are much, much better off in terms of what they can get to do, and what they get paid.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,962
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Again, wrong comparison. As Canard du Jour pointed out, it's compare your present state to how well you would be paid if wages had kept up with productivity.
EricK
Senior Member
Firstly, I don't see what that has to do with comparing myself to a doctor of today.
But secondly, your argument seems to be saying: because we are not this much better of (I.e. Compared to some measure of productivity), we're actually worse off.
But why should that be relevant? If we're better off I.e. If all things considered it's better to live now than then, then seems the most relevant comparison.
At least this graph admits it's deception.
Note the qualification: Goods-producing workers. These days the good jobs aren't in goods production! Try looking at the people who design and build the automation. Note that most of us in these areas do not actually build the product and thus we aren't goods-producing workers.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,962
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Because it shows the unfairness of the system. The gains in productivity provided by the workers stopped going to the workers and made bigwigs far more wealthy disproportionally to their input into the system.
Gains in productivity are provided by the workers? Where did you get that from?
There must be some different reality you inhabit.
What factors do you imagine have caused things like farm yields or oil and gas extraction efficiency to go up? The workers turning harder on cranks?
Last edited:
LordKiran
Veteran Member
While I don't know the ratio of shipping jobs overseas to jobs lost to mechanization, I will say that had those jobs not gone overseas, they more than likely would have been mechanized instead (Where applicable) In essence, if China, Japan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, ect. not existed, the end outcome would have been pretty much the same. Fewer people working those 'good jobs'.
If jobs do come back from China under president Trump, they wont be for the union worker from 1980, they'll be for the college grad with a degree in robotics.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
Because the question was whether wage suppression i.e. outsourcing etc negatively affects consumers. Technological progress is not down to wage suppression, whereas the wages/productivity split since the 1970s is (rising productivity is relevant because nominal wage rises would otherwise be lost to inflation). If I thus froze your wages for the next 40 years, you might be no worse off but I'd still have made you worse off than you'd otherwise have been. Consumers have indeed lost out.
And that's only half the story. No longer being able to support a family on a single wage is a substantial reduction in living standards. Chronic financial insecurity and debt are substantial reductions in living standards. The biggest first world democracy just voted in favour of scrapping free-trade treaties and putting tariffs on the cheap imports (whether it'll happen or not) because too many people have lost out.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,057
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
+1 Agree.
The free trade pointy heads can prattle on all they want about how great their economic theory is. But unfortunately for the US, we have employed their practices far too long which is why we are a declining nation now.
We now know what the results of what free trade and NAFTA has done to this country. It is no longer just an economic theory it is an example of how to gut and ruin a once great nation.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
For most wage-earners, their higher productivity has far exceeded their value, so wage should NOT keep pace with higher "worker productivity" as it's called.
To get the optimum result for work done (for wage-earners or anyone), the formula is not for wages to "keep up with productivity," but for wages (or income) to keep up with the VALUE of each individual worker/producer.
"Productivity" is a false measure, because the workers are usually not responsible for their productivity level. I.e., productivity is determined more by how well the machines perform, not how well the operator performs.
It's true that the "worker productivity" has increased, but not the worker VALUE. The individual workers did not cause the productivity increase. Rather, it's the better machines and systems that have improved, making individual workers put out more value each, but the individual workers did not design the machines they operate.
If you just look at the worker VALUE (rather than "productivity"), if anything it has gone down.
The best economic reward system is one which rewards producers/workers for their PERFORMANCE or value or real contribution to the improvements.
By this standard, a minority of wage-earners have improved and have earned higher incomes, but most have not. And to over-reward them for their non-improvement would be a net loss or net cost to the economy, and reduced living standard overall.
To get the optimum result for work done (for wage-earners or anyone), the formula is not for wages to "keep up with productivity," but for wages (or income) to keep up with the VALUE of each individual worker/producer.
"Productivity" is a false measure, because the workers are usually not responsible for their productivity level. I.e., productivity is determined more by how well the machines perform, not how well the operator performs.
It's true that the "worker productivity" has increased, but not the worker VALUE. The individual workers did not cause the productivity increase. Rather, it's the better machines and systems that have improved, making individual workers put out more value each, but the individual workers did not design the machines they operate.
If you just look at the worker VALUE (rather than "productivity"), if anything it has gone down.
The best economic reward system is one which rewards producers/workers for their PERFORMANCE or value or real contribution to the improvements.
By this standard, a minority of wage-earners have improved and have earned higher incomes, but most have not. And to over-reward them for their non-improvement would be a net loss or net cost to the economy, and reduced living standard overall.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Yes.
Wages are determined like any commodity, by supply and demand. Trade treaties like NAFTA and TPP only result in US workers competing for wage rates with workers in areas like Mexico and Bangladesh. Such trade deals are great for global industries since they can manufacture in countries where there are low wages and few governmental restrictions (making manufacturing costs minimal) and selling their products in more affluent countries where they can make a huge mark-up on the price of the products. Such trade deals are, however, not so great for workers who want decent wages and an industrial base in their country to pay them.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
When uncompetitive crybabies lose their jobs, they think it's a "decline" -- but the nation is better off.
Good. More competition benefits 300 million U.S. consumers. Just like more automation benefits us all, even though a few million uncompetitive workers lose their jobs. Why should this small group of uncompetitive workers be subsidized at the expense of all consumers, including the poor?
And for consumers, who are enjoying the lowest sustained inflation rate ever. Every person in the U.S. has lower cost of living due to the trade deals. U.S. consumers today are better off than any nation's consumers ever in history.
They're entitled to profit from the benefits they are providing to 300 million U.S. consumers.
The vast majority of workers are made better off, as consumers, because of the increased competition = lower prices. It's only a handful of uncompetitive workers who suffer a net loss. In the long run, ALL benefit. Just as we've all benefited as a result of most American workers 200 years ago (in agriculture) being replaced by machines.
If every crybaby is given what they think is "decent" rather than what they're worth, we will get 50% inflation and a lower living standard
The function of the industrial base is not to provide "jobs" and incomes to crybabies who need pity, but to produce stuff for consumers.
We're all made worse off by "an industrial base" which is uncompetitive because its labor cost is too high. That industry improves as it replaces the high-cost workers with machines or with cheap labor.
It's good for everyone when the production cost, including labor cost, is brought down.
Good. More competition benefits 300 million U.S. consumers. Just like more automation benefits us all, even though a few million uncompetitive workers lose their jobs. Why should this small group of uncompetitive workers be subsidized at the expense of all consumers, including the poor?
And for consumers, who are enjoying the lowest sustained inflation rate ever. Every person in the U.S. has lower cost of living due to the trade deals. U.S. consumers today are better off than any nation's consumers ever in history.
They're entitled to profit from the benefits they are providing to 300 million U.S. consumers.
The vast majority of workers are made better off, as consumers, because of the increased competition = lower prices. It's only a handful of uncompetitive workers who suffer a net loss. In the long run, ALL benefit. Just as we've all benefited as a result of most American workers 200 years ago (in agriculture) being replaced by machines.
If every crybaby is given what they think is "decent" rather than what they're worth, we will get 50% inflation and a lower living standard
The function of the industrial base is not to provide "jobs" and incomes to crybabies who need pity, but to produce stuff for consumers.
We're all made worse off by "an industrial base" which is uncompetitive because its labor cost is too high. That industry improves as it replaces the high-cost workers with machines or with cheap labor.
It's good for everyone when the production cost, including labor cost, is brought down.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Indeed there were some who believed that the great depression was a wonderful time because prices of goods were so low and only about 25% of the US work force were unemployed (fuck 'em if they can't find a job). But not everyone thought it was such a great time.
Last edited:
EricK
Senior Member
Did the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act improve the situation?
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
WTF?
Why the fuck would you think that essentially government forced trade isolation would be any better than abandoning all attempts at fair trade deals? Fair trade is neither isolation nor an ignoring of the problems of unbalanced trade.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Protecting the spending power of the uncompetitive makes the economy worse, not better.
But not as low as in the 1920-21 recession, when deflation was worse.
The 25% unemployment figure was not reached until 1933.
And how do we avoid another great depression?
Not by imposing higher tariffs or by driving up the wage level. The period prior to the depression, the 1920s, was a period of high wages and high tariffs, continually increasing.
When the downturn began, 1929-30, the initial reaction by industry was to keep wages high and not lay off workers.
And Congress also increased tariffs still higher.
The result that followed was the worst depression ever. So protecting the uncompetitive, boosting their wages, protecting their jobs, etc., led to the exact opposite result from what was intended.
But not as low as in the 1920-21 recession, when deflation was worse.
The 25% unemployment figure was not reached until 1933.
And how do we avoid another great depression?
Not by imposing higher tariffs or by driving up the wage level. The period prior to the depression, the 1920s, was a period of high wages and high tariffs, continually increasing.
When the downturn began, 1929-30, the initial reaction by industry was to keep wages high and not lay off workers.
And Congress also increased tariffs still higher.
The result that followed was the worst depression ever. So protecting the uncompetitive, boosting their wages, protecting their jobs, etc., led to the exact opposite result from what was intended.
DBT
Contributor
If the essential purpose of forming a society is to benefit its members, provide security and provide the opportunity for a decent standard of income, wealth even, for everyone, yet we have a significant percentage of working poor with a stagnating middle class who struggle to pay their mortgage and support their family while the rich ever increase their slice of the pie, then we have failed as a society.
Failed to provide opportunity for the poor, failed to provide decent wages for ordinary workers, failed the middle class. We have become a top heavy society, worshipping celebrity, extreme wealth, status, ego and self absorbed narcissism being the values and principles of the way we do business and live our lives...far more so for those at the top of the heap.
Failed to provide opportunity for the poor, failed to provide decent wages for ordinary workers, failed the middle class. We have become a top heavy society, worshipping celebrity, extreme wealth, status, ego and self absorbed narcissism being the values and principles of the way we do business and live our lives...far more so for those at the top of the heap.