StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:23 PM) Where was it ever written that risk takers are obligated to share their rewards? I still don't understand the sense of entitlement to someone else's risk's payoffs, when the reality is if that person hadn't taken their risk you'd have nothing. I don't understand the sense of entitlement to someone else's labor because you own a thing they use, when the reality is that you'd have nothing if that person hadn't worked! your post completely ignored my question, though. What's inherently different about the "risks" of buying an employee a computer in 2000 instead of, say, a typewriter in 1940?

come on guys this took me about 5 seconds to open a new tab and search! http://www.un.org/esa/policy/backgroundpap...rodriguez_1.pdf the cite: Fernald, J. G. (1999). "Roads to Prosperity? Assessing the Link Between Pubic Capital and Productivity." American Economic Review 89(3): 619-638.

See, meaningful discussion! Seriously, I appreciate the elaboration here. I guess the common theme there points back to "lack of bargaining power," then, at least for unskilled or low-skills labor.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:22 AM) You already know the answer to this...but aren't acknowledging it. What changed? We went from a local "American" economy to a world economy with world competition. That's what changed. That's a completely different explanation from your "jobs got easier thanks to computers/other tech" answer offered up earlier, though. World competition in labor markets may be an answer, but I think that graph looks specifically at American productivity gains. I guess the implication would be that our productivity gains are the only things keeping us employed; were it not for them, we'd have to compete with third-world wages on the same level?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:21 AM) Why? Because of the people we put in the senate, congress, the presidency and our various courts. I don't see how the government would really control that, though. It's private firms determining whether to give a huge bonus package to top execs or to raise wages for the rest of employees. What regulations/tax changes/etc. changed in that period that necessitated this shift? To me, this looks like blaming the government for something entirely controlled by private enterprise. eta more seriously though we escaped the Gilded Age without violent revolution.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:32 AM) Who bought the new technology? the same people that bought the new technology in the previous decades when productivity gains by labor resulted in increased wages for labor and increased profits for owners. What fundamentally changed in the late 70's or early 80's that changed this dynamic to owners keeping all of the productivity gains?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:14 AM) The idea that the Reagan administration had nothing to do with that is wrong. There was a purposeful attack on commodities prices in an attempt to take the knees of the Soviet Union out as that was their only access to hard currency. Wasn't monetary policy at the time pretty key to taking out stagflation?

crosspost

you gotta admit to the irony of saying "shut off the bias" and then following it immediately with a very flowery description of how Reagan saved America.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:57 AM) I've pretty much made it clear that I don't believe it's fair, but a lot of things aren't fair...I just don't get why you (or others) have expectations or per-conceived notions that your productivity should match profits. Productivity is through the roof in large part to computers and automation that the corporations own, that you use, which make your modern day productivity possible. But this is no different from every other workplace technological advance of the previous eight or nine decades, which makes no sense. That doesn't recognize the existence of skilled labor or, again, differentiate from previous technological advances. Why didn't the same apply to a typewriter? Surely secretaries and clerks could process and publish much faster with these new machines which require minimal training than before, much in the same manner that computers allowed productivity gains for typists. Well, if internet forums pontificating is so damn meaningless (and it pretty much is!), then, well, stop posting? I mean what is it that you want here? eta: you keep viewing these things from a personal angle. This isn't about me, personally, being treated fairly or unfairly. I think I'm reasonably well-compensated for my work. But the idea of "just up and quit" isn't a real objection in an economy with 9% unemployment and when we're talking about a decades-long trend across the entire economy. Some might say that such a concept of a labor market is...a utopia! Ideally, yeah, that'd be great. And employee-owned businesses that are highly successful and have generous profit-sharing plans do exist, so it isn't some sort of dumb, unachievable utopia. But more to the point, I haven't actually advocated for sharing profits on a nearly equal level here. I've questioned why productivity gains and wage gains have split since the 80's. The answers I've gotten back are "because technology made jobs easier," but that's nonsense because that's always been true for productivity gains. Great! I'd like to talk about why that is, if its fair or desirable and, if not, what might be done to change that. This would only make sense if work hours had decreased while overall productivity remained the same. The efforts for any individual task may be less, but now you simply perform more tasks or, stated another way, are more productive.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:48 AM) Shut off the bias, then we can talk. Reagan ushered in an era of prosperity unmatched by most, in a time where America was all but a blown engine that was stopped dead on the freeway. I could show you graphs showing how that unmatched prosperity wasn't seen by most!

Utopia? Throwing a tantrum? Saying there's no risk? huh? I thought we might be able to have a discussion on why wages have become separated from productivity, the fairness or justification for it, what implications expanding inequality might have etc. You've decided that I have some "insane utopian thought process" because I raise the question of "why are things different from the 60's and 70's?"

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:34 AM) I'm not sure how to read that confusing website -- but it looks to me like small employers employ more people than large ones. "all firms" have ~121M paid employees. Firms with 500+ employees have a total of ~61M employees, or roughly half. Firms with 100-499 employees have ~17M.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:31 AM) I already said I think executive and ceo wages are out of control...but in the end, what can you do about it? Nothing. Thus far this discussion has accomplished nothing but highlight that rich people are rich, and they're not sharing with you. I never expected them to share with me...I guess that's the difference in how I see things. If you find discussion of ideas and concepts to be pointless then...stop posting? eta there's a difference between diagnosis and prescription, and you can have a discussion of the former without the later!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:26 AM) I thought small businesses were the bulk of employment? No, and the US is actually relatively low in that regard. Firms with 500+ employees account for 50%, and firms with at least 100 count for 64%. eta the problem comes in defining what a "small business" is since it's a vague term. As we saw somewhat recently, Republicans were defining "small business" as all s-corps, which was nonsense since it encapsulated multi-billion dollar firms.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:22 AM) What additional risk? Legal battles, patent battles (we can talk about the need of patent reform but whats the point), the fact is that right now these largely profitable companies are assaulted by lawsuits all over the place. And a multitude of other fees and risks they take, such as employee safety, etc... But those aren't risks brought on by increased productivity. What's more risky about buying a PC that entitles upper management/ownership to all productivity gains that doesn't apply to buying a typewriter 50 years ago?

What additional risk are employers assuming that's led to record profits and record productivity that's fundamentally different from every technological advance before 1980? eta the point is that they've been entitled to an ever-decreasing share of the rewards. That's what stagnant real wages in an expanding economy means. eta the common employee is arguably at more risk than the wealthy business owner* anyway, at least in an economy with less-than-full employment. If the company goes bust, well, they've likely still got millions/billions in the bank and its on to the next venture! For the typical office worker? It's the unemployment lines, dipping into the 401(k) to make the mortgage payments, etc. They're not risking an investment in hopes of an ROI, but the overall effects on their actual lives would likely be much worse. *obviously an illustrative example and not applicable to all businesses, mostly just the large ones who employee a majority of the country.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 11:11 AM) But you don't see all the major Dem candidates (in 2008 in this case, since 2012 has only one Dem candidate for Prez) trying to say they want another JFK. You do see pretty much all the GOP candidates referencing and trying to make themselves out to be Reaganites (which, by stated policy stances, they are not). What we did see was people expecting Obama to be something ridiculous, and it was laughable. But I generally agree with your point, people look back on previous Presidents and try to make them into something they wanted them to be. Democrats tend to idolize JFK as an optimistic visionary, and both sides generally idolize Lincoln and deify the founders. I think that's fundamentally different from how the modern GOP treats Reagan, though. They don't just use him as a shining exemplar of Republicanism, but actively want to embrace the same policies and ideals he did (or at least they now believe/say he did). You don't really see the same for any other President. You hear a lot lately about Clinton-era tax levels etc. etc. as pushback against the GOP's incessant call for more tax cuts always, but Clinton himself isn't pointed to as a mythical figure who saved America.

Well you've got to adjust for inflation etc. etc. but you're right for recognizing that personal or individual comparisons aren't what matters here. It's not a chart about someone's economic "woes" but the state of our economy, our income/wealth inequalities as a whole and the sustainability of the status quo. It's not about comparing my life or my possessions to others or 'keeping up with the Jonses' type jealousy bulls***. Personally, my wife and I aren't doing too bad for a couple of people in our late 20's and both of our incomes have gone up decently since entering the workforce in 2007. But that's not really the point. At least for me, its a much more philosophical question at play here than "he's got cooler stuff than me!"

ie there is no warfare but class warfare, smash capital, viva la revolucion! more seriously I don't know how you can look at data showing real wages being stagnant for decades and the explosion of household debt that correlates damn near perfectly and not see the connection. Advocating for universal thrift isn't the answer, either, because we see what happens when households stop spending in a consumption-based economy.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) While I agree with you that someone gets those gains, it's not us. While we all wish the corporations would increase our pay by 100% every year since they're making so much money due to increased productivity (assisted by computers or not), I've also accepted reality and that's not going to happen. You can take a cynical view of the realities of the situation while still recognizing core problems with it, though. I guess I really don't understand your objection here beyond "life isn't fair," which doesn't really address anything.

Somebody still captures those productivity gains, though, and it ain't "the computer." It's another human who's doing no more work than they were doing before. And, really, computers are just another tool. Productivity gains in the past from tool improvements led to increased wages; why do computers get a special position from all other tools?

It's bulls*** anyway, everyone knows it's really 105.37%.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) For clarification... I think CEO/executive pay is completely out of whack with reality. I think corporate profits are insane despite the recession (as a matter of fact they've never been higher), etc. I'm not arguing that about the graph in every regard... I'm simply saying that it should be, to some degree, expected that wages slowed while productivity skyrocketed due to automation and advancements in technology that assist us with our work. What I'm not saying is that CEO's deserve to be paid 99% of the companies profits and the rest of the employees 1%. Why should we expect or accept wage increases to be divorced from productivity increases? If my work is generating more revenue, why should someone else get to keep the difference? I realize that we're probably coming to this from different first principles, but I hope you can see my POV.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) I thought it was pretty clear. I think you're creating this issue because of a bias you have towards anything pro-conservatives or pro-GOP. At the end of the day the edit didn't change anything. You're assuming that people that watch Fox News are too stupid to realize that the call to war didn't actually mean war with guns and violence, but a war against an ideology by way of political action. Until you can present me with someone on Fox News saying "here's the clip of a union thug, stay in your homes. Those union thugs are coming after you with their bats to change your mind" this is just some bulls*** point-the-finger nonsense. I posted it in response to someone saying it was violent rhetoric from a union. I didn't create an issue but pointed out some follow-up information on the statement and Fox's actions with a one-line post. You're the one who flipped out over it. But please, keep the excuses for deliberately editing the video coming. They just did it for the hell of it, not because they expected it to portray his comments in a negative way! Speech only has power if things are explicitly stated!