40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart.

[Andylusion]

"Productivity in the economy grew by 80.4 percent between 1973 and 2011 but the growth of real hourly compensation of the median worker grew by far less, just 10.7 percent….

"The pattern was very different from 1948 to 1973, when the hourly compensation of a typical worker grew in tandem with productivity.

"Reestablishing the link between productivity and pay of the typical worker is an essential component of any effort to provide shared prosperity and, in fact, may be necessary for obtaining robust growth without relying on asset bubbles and increased household debt."

40 Years of Economic Policy in One Chart CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

In the 1970s wages detached from productivity and the richest among us began using their newly acquired wealth to reduce taxes on capital, role back regulations, break unions, "and induce their shady Central Bank buddies to keep interest rates locked below the rate of inflation so they could cream hefty profits off gigantic asset bubbles."

Mission Accomplished?

If those producing are that damn good, perhaps they should start their own business.

A better question is why.

Why did wages and productivity diverge.

The left is real quick to blame "evil capitalists" and crap. The problem with that theory is, then why didn't it diverge much sooner? There have been "evil capitalists" run and profiting in this country, since before Washington crossed the Delaware. Why didn't wages and productivity diverge then?

Well it was because of replacing men with machines. Really? Because we've been doing that since the Cotton Gin in 1973, replaced the work of 50 men, with one Cotton Gin.

Well could it be the actually elimination of men, using computerized automation? Maybe.... perhaps. But there's little evidence of that. You might eliminate the need for a dozen low skilled workers, with automated systems, but you generally need several high-skilled high-paid workers to make the systems operate.

So here's my question....

Does the above graph showing wages and productive diverging... does that account for unemployment compensation? UI started in the 1970s. Does it account for the cost of regulations? OSHA started in the 1970s. Does it account for EPA costs? The EPA was started in the 1970s.

All of these regulations cost employers money, in order to follow them. Of course every dollar the employer is forced to spending meeting some arbitrary law, is one less dollar they can pay employees with.

 

[sealybobo]

If those producing are that damn good, perhaps they should start their own business.

Or maybe their own central bank.
What do you think it means for productive labor when the Fed keeps the interest rate locked below the rate of inflation?

dear
1)they keep interest rates low so people can borrow money easily to buy cars and homes etc etc.

2) now target inflation is 2% and home mortgages interest rates are 4.5%

you always can be counted on to know less than nothing which is typical of a liberal..

This is better then the Reagan and clinton years?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If those producing are that damn good, perhaps they should start their own business.

Or maybe their own central bank.
What do you think it means for productive labor when the Fed keeps the interest rate locked below the rate of inflation?

dear
1)they keep interest rates low so people can borrow money easily to buy cars and homes etc etc.

2) now target inflation is 2% and home mortgages interest rates are 4.5%

you always can be counted on to know less than nothing which is typical of a liberal..

This is better then the Reagan and clinton years?

this???? what is this?????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Productivity in the economy grew by 80.4 percent between 1973 and 2011 but the growth of real hourly compensation of the median worker grew by far less, just 10.7 percent….

"The pattern was very different from 1948 to 1973, when the hourly compensation of a typical worker grew in tandem with productivity.

"Reestablishing the link between productivity and pay of the typical worker is an essential component of any effort to provide shared prosperity and, in fact, may be necessary for obtaining robust growth without relying on asset bubbles and increased household debt."

40 Years of Economic Policy in One Chart CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

In the 1970s wages detached from productivity and the richest among us began using their newly acquired wealth to reduce taxes on capital, role back regulations, break unions, "and induce their shady Central Bank buddies to keep interest rates locked below the rate of inflation so they could cream hefty profits off gigantic asset bubbles."

Mission Accomplished?

If those producing are that damn good, perhaps they should start their own business.

A better question is why.

Why did wages and productivity diverge.

The left is real quick to blame "evil capitalists" and crap. The problem with that theory is, then why didn't it diverge much sooner? There have been "evil capitalists" run and profiting in this country, since before Washington crossed the Delaware. Why didn't wages and productivity diverge then?

Well it was because of replacing men with machines. Really? Because we've been doing that since the Cotton Gin in 1973, replaced the work of 50 men, with one Cotton Gin.

Well could it be the actually elimination of men, using computerized automation? Maybe.... perhaps. But there's little evidence of that. You might eliminate the need for a dozen low skilled workers, with automated systems, but you generally need several high-skilled high-paid workers to make the systems operate.

So here's my question....

Does the above graph showing wages and productive diverging... does that account for unemployment compensation? UI started in the 1970s. Does it account for the cost of regulations? OSHA started in the 1970s. Does it account for EPA costs? The EPA was started in the 1970s.

All of these regulations cost employers money, in order to follow them. Of course every dollar the employer is forced to spending meeting some arbitrary law, is one less dollar they can pay employees with.

also, wages and productivity are rising sharply in China but not in America because liberal taxes, unions, and deficits have driven 40 million American jobs there!!

 

[Andylusion]

defend unions because they bring all our wages up..

too stupid does not know that the higher wages are paid by higher prices so no net benefit is possible

Bullshit. My dad saved a million bucks working 30 years at ford. He bought cars a second home and helped put 2 boys through college. Everyone wanted to work at ford. And the cost of living didn't...you know what? I'm not going to explain it to you. Just retire broke. I'm assuming you are the average american who's broke and in debt not saving a dime. And their parents won't be leaving them $1 mill

Unions didn't do that. Mass manufacturing did it. I know people making a million bucks working for non-union companies, and putting people through college, and all the same stuff.

Yes, if you want give the divine Saint Union your praise and worship, that's fine. But you are not correct. Ford didn't pay workers more because the Unions made him do it. He paid his workers more, because they produce a ton of automobiles, because they had a mass manufacturing plant. Higher productivity = higher pay rates.

The Unions have done absolutely nothing but ruin the employment of their members for the past 10 years. Toyota and Honda didn't declare bankruptcy, and lay of thousands of people. GM and Chrysler did, and they did explicitly because the Unions refused to cut expenses. So instead theya re unemployed.

Hostess was forced out of business by the Unions. It was bankrupted, sold off, bought out and reopened under a new company, completely non-union and how amazing... exact same product, same equipment, but non-union workers and the company is profitable. Shocking.

GST Steel (of Bain Capital fame), was driven out of business by the Union. Meanwhile non-union steel mills are buying up old formerly union plants, and they are profitable.... without the Unions.

Even GM itself.... is moving away from the Unions.
GM s Battery Plant Opens Non-Union Labor Notes

Avoiding rehiring Union labor (which they don't have to do because the "new GM" is a different company than the "old GM" which had binding Union contracts).

Why? Huh? Why? Because Unions have screwed over the companies their members work for, thus screwing over their members.

Unions served a purpose in the distant past. I agree with that. Today? Not so much. They do nothing but get into organized crime, scandals, and work to destroy people's jobs. That's the truth.

 

[georgephillip]

All of these regulations cost employers money, in order to follow them. Of course every dollar the employer is forced to spending meeting some arbitrary law, is one less dollar they can pay employees with.

Why should capitalists be rewarded for socializing the cost of dirty air and defective products on the US taxpayers? When capitalists start taking economic responsibility for their actions, government regulations will become unnecessary.

 

[georgephillip]

capitalism grew from love and gift giving. Before money people would exchange gifts. That was the origin of capitalism

Where's the love in child labor?
Chattel slavery?
The gift of genocide?
Capitalism came from war and private debt and those are the seeds of its own destruction. Are you ready?

 

[Mr Natural]

y
"Productivity in the economy grew by 80.4 percent between 1973 and 2011 but the growth of real hourly compensation of the median worker grew by far less, just 10.7 percent….

"The pattern was very different from 1948 to 1973, when the hourly com
pensation of a typical worker grew in tandem with productivity



"Reestablishing the link between productivity and pay of the typical worker is an essential component of any effort to provide shared prosperity and, in fact, may be necessary for obtaining robust growth without relying on asset bubbles and increased household debt."

40 Years of Economic Policy in One Chart CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

In the 1970s wages detached from productivity and the richest among us began using their newly acquired wealth to reduce taxes on capital, role back regulations, break unions, "and induce their shady Central Bank buddies to keep interest rates locked below the rate of inflation so they could cream hefty profits off gigantic asset bubbles."

Mission Accomplished?

If those producing are that damn good, perhaps they should start their own business.

A better question is why.

Why did wages and productivity diverge.

The left is real quick to blame "evil capitalists" and crap. The problem with that theory is, then why didn't it diverge much sooner? There have been "evil capitalists" run and profiting in this country, since before Washington crossed the Delaware. Why didn't wages and productivity diverge then?

Well it was because of replacing men with machines. Really? Because we've been doing that since the Cotton Gin in 1973, replaced the work of 50 men, with one Cotton Gin.

Well could it be the actually elimination of men, using computerized automation? Maybe.... perhaps. But there's little evidence of that. You might eliminate the need for a dozen low skilled workers, with automated systems, but you generally need several high-skilled high-paid workers to make the systems operate.

So here's my question....

Does the above graph showing wages and productive diverging... does that account for unemployment compensation? UI started in the 1970s. Does it account for the cost of regulations? OSHA started in the 1970s. Does it account for EPA costs? The EPA was started in the 1970s.

All of these regulations cost employers money, in order to follow them. Of course every dollar the employer is forced to spending meeting some arbitrary law, is one less dollar they can pay employees with.

also, wages and productivity are rising sharply in China but not in America because liberal taxes, unions, and deficits have driven 40 million American jobs there!!

If only we could be more like China.

 

[georgephillip]

f only we could be more like China.

Give us time...

 

[Andylusion]

All of these regulations cost employers money, in order to follow them. Of course every dollar the employer is forced to spending meeting some arbitrary law, is one less dollar they can pay employees with.

Why should capitalists be rewarded for socializing the cost of dirty air and defective products on the US taxpayers? When capitalists start taking economic responsibility for their actions, government regulations will become unnecessary.

Have you read what the socialists did to their country?

It's amazing to me, how people scream and yell and complain and b!tch and moan about the pollution supposed Capitalists did, and yet, don't say a word about the horrific stuff that socialists have done. Why? Because socialists are darlings of the left, and if they screwed up half a country, it doesn't matter because no 'capitalist' was involved.

One of the 4 largest lakes on the entire planet, Aral Sea in Kazakhstan, over 26K sq miles.
BBC World Service - The Documentary Gone - The Sea that Disappeared

BBC just had a documentary on this. In the 1960s, the Soviets decided to build a massive irrigation project.

Aral Sea - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

They poured pesticides, and fertilizers into the water ways from their project. Killed all the fish. Diverted the waters, destroyed the entire sea.

Fishing boats that used to provide food for the entire nation, now rusted out husks, on poisonous sand dunes, where nothing can be grown.

All human activity, all of it, causes damage to the environment. The only way to not cause any damage, is for the human race to kill itself off.

But between the two fundamental economic systems, Socialism is a million times more destructive than Capitalism has ever been.

Look up Lake Karachay, or the Norilsk Nickel. The level of pollution in Non-Capitalist societies, is absolutely unbelievable, if it wasn't for BBC and CNN documenting it.

But you never hear people screaming about those places do you? You don't see the left-wing freaks feigning eco-support, yelling about the Russians.... why? Because it wasn't done by a Capitalist. None of you care if a Capitalist isn't involved. Hypocrites.

 

[Andylusion]

capitalism grew from love and gift giving. Before money people would exchange gifts. That was the origin of capitalism

Where's the love in child labor?
Chattel slavery?
The gift of genocide?
Capitalism came from war and private debt and those are the seeds of its own destruction. Are you ready?

Socialism came from war and debt and those are the seeds of it's own destruction. Are you ready?

 

[SwimExpert]

Whether you want to be in a union or not you should defend unions because they bring all our wages up.

I'm sure that many a CEO would disagree.

 

[sealybobo]

defend unions because they bring all our wages up..

too stupid does not know that the higher wages are paid by higher prices so no net benefit is possible

Bullshit. My dad saved a million bucks working 30 years at ford. He bought cars a second home and helped put 2 boys through college. Everyone wanted to work at ford. And the cost of living didn't...you know what? I'm not going to explain it to you. Just retire broke. I'm assuming you are the average american who's broke and in debt not saving a dime. And their parents won't be leaving them $1 mill

Unions didn't do that. Mass manufacturing did it. I know people making a million bucks working for non-union companies, and putting people through college, and all the same stuff.

Yes, if you want give the divine Saint Union your praise and worship, that's fine. But you are not correct. Ford didn't pay workers more because the Unions made him do it. He paid his workers more, because they produce a ton of automobiles, because they had a mass manufacturing plant. Higher productivity = higher pay rates.

The Unions have done absolutely nothing but ruin the employment of their members for the past 10 years. Toyota and Honda didn't declare bankruptcy, and lay of thousands of people. GM and Chrysler did, and they did explicitly because the Unions refused to cut expenses. So instead theya re unemployed.

Hostess was forced out of business by the Unions. It was bankrupted, sold off, bought out and reopened under a new company, completely non-union and how amazing... exact same product, same equipment, but non-union workers and the company is profitable. Shocking.

GST Steel (of Bain Capital fame), was driven out of business by the Union. Meanwhile non-union steel mills are buying up old formerly union plants, and they are profitable.... without the Unions.

Even GM itself.... is moving away from the Unions.
GM s Battery Plant Opens Non-Union Labor Notes

Avoiding rehiring Union labor (which they don't have to do because the "new GM" is a different company than the "old GM" which had binding Union contracts).

Why? Huh? Why? Because Unions have screwed over the companies their members work for, thus screwing over their members.

Unions served a purpose in the distant past. I agree with that. Today? Not so much. They do nothing but get into organized crime, scandals, and work to destroy people's jobs. That's the truth.

Just look at the big profit sharing checks ford union workers got the last two years.

Non union workers dont get profit sharing or even raises when productivity is up. They are told just to be grateful they have jobs. Oh then they have to pay more for their healthcare.

Where are these companies high school grads can go get a job that pays as well? IN FACT college grads arent even finding jobs that pay as well. Americans have taken a huge step backwards. You dont know it? Then you're dumb.

 

[sealybobo]

capitalism grew from love and gift giving. Before money people would exchange gifts. That was the origin of capitalism

Where's the love in child labor?
Chattel slavery?
The gift of genocide?
Capitalism came from war and private debt and those are the seeds of its own destruction. Are you ready?

Socialism came from war and debt and those are the seeds of it's own destruction. Are you ready?

Yea Greece went socialism because capitalism failed them. We could be next if we keep fucking the next generation. You can't tell them capitalism rules you have to show them.

 

[sealybobo]

Whether you want to be in a union or not you should defend unions because they bring all our wages up.

I'm sure that many a CEO would disagree.

Yea because if he doesnt have to give 30 people a $1000 then he gets the $30,000

 

[sealybobo]

defend unions because they bring all our wages up..

too stupid does not know that the higher wages are paid by higher prices so no net benefit is possible

Bullshit. My dad saved a million bucks working 30 years at ford. He bought cars a second home and helped put 2 boys through college. Everyone wanted to work at ford. And the cost of living didn't...you know what? I'm not going to explain it to you. Just retire broke. I'm assuming you are the average american who's broke and in debt not saving a dime. And their parents won't be leaving them $1 mill

Unions didn't do that. Mass manufacturing did it. I know people making a million bucks working for non-union companies, and putting people through college, and all the same stuff.

Yes, if you want give the divine Saint Union your praise and worship, that's fine. But you are not correct. Ford didn't pay workers more because the Unions made him do it. He paid his workers more, because they produce a ton of automobiles, because they had a mass manufacturing plant. Higher productivity = higher pay rates.

The Unions have done absolutely nothing but ruin the employment of their members for the past 10 years. Toyota and Honda didn't declare bankruptcy, and lay of thousands of people. GM and Chrysler did, and they did explicitly because the Unions refused to cut expenses. So instead theya re unemployed.

Hostess was forced out of business by the Unions. It was bankrupted, sold off, bought out and reopened under a new company, completely non-union and how amazing... exact same product, same equipment, but non-union workers and the company is profitable. Shocking.

GST Steel (of Bain Capital fame), was driven out of business by the Union. Meanwhile non-union steel mills are buying up old formerly union plants, and they are profitable.... without the Unions.

Even GM itself.... is moving away from the Unions.
GM s Battery Plant Opens Non-Union Labor Notes

Avoiding rehiring Union labor (which they don't have to do because the "new GM" is a different company than the "old GM" which had binding Union contracts).

Why? Huh? Why? Because Unions have screwed over the companies their members work for, thus screwing over their members.

Unions served a purpose in the distant past. I agree with that. Today? Not so much. They do nothing but get into organized crime, scandals, and work to destroy people's jobs. That's the truth.

How much do hostess employees make now?

 

[sealybobo]

defend unions because they bring all our wages up..

too stupid does not know that the higher wages are paid by higher prices so no net benefit is possible

Bullshit. My dad saved a million bucks working 30 years at ford. He bought cars a second home and helped put 2 boys through college. Everyone wanted to work at ford. And the cost of living didn't...you know what? I'm not going to explain it to you. Just retire broke. I'm assuming you are the average american who's broke and in debt not saving a dime. And their parents won't be leaving them $1 mill

Unions didn't do that. Mass manufacturing did it. I know people making a million bucks working for non-union companies, and putting people through college, and all the same stuff.

Yes, if you want give the divine Saint Union your praise and worship, that's fine. But you are not correct. Ford didn't pay workers more because the Unions made him do it. He paid his workers more, because they produce a ton of automobiles, because they had a mass manufacturing plant. Higher productivity = higher pay rates.

The Unions have done absolutely nothing but ruin the employment of their members for the past 10 years. Toyota and Honda didn't declare bankruptcy, and lay of thousands of people. GM and Chrysler did, and they did explicitly because the Unions refused to cut expenses. So instead theya re unemployed.

Hostess was forced out of business by the Unions. It was bankrupted, sold off, bought out and reopened under a new company, completely non-union and how amazing... exact same product, same equipment, but non-union workers and the company is profitable. Shocking.

GST Steel (of Bain Capital fame), was driven out of business by the Union. Meanwhile non-union steel mills are buying up old formerly union plants, and they are profitable.... without the Unions.

Even GM itself.... is moving away from the Unions.
GM s Battery Plant Opens Non-Union Labor Notes

Avoiding rehiring Union labor (which they don't have to do because the "new GM" is a different company than the "old GM" which had binding Union contracts).

Why? Huh? Why? Because Unions have screwed over the companies their members work for, thus screwing over their members.

Unions served a purpose in the distant past. I agree with that. Today? Not so much. They do nothing but get into organized crime, scandals, and work to destroy people's jobs. That's the truth.

Yes all those formerly union companies are more profitable now that they cut their labor costs.

It wasnt the unions that made them go bankrupt it was the George bush recession that did it. I think it was on purpose for the goal of breaking unions.

Romney bankrupted Gain not unions. Gain is the perfect example of the war on middle class america.

I'm glad you know a handful of successful people. I use to know thousands. Their kids now make $10 hr. Welcome to the new america.

 

[sealybobo]

defend unions because they bring all our wages up..

too stupid does not know that the higher wages are paid by higher prices so no net benefit is possible

Bullshit. My dad saved a million bucks working 30 years at ford. He bought cars a second home and helped put 2 boys through college. Everyone wanted to work at ford. And the cost of living didn't...you know what? I'm not going to explain it to you. Just retire broke. I'm assuming you are the average american who's broke and in debt not saving a dime. And their parents won't be leaving them $1 mill

Unions didn't do that. Mass manufacturing did it. I know people making a million bucks working for non-union companies, and putting people through college, and all the same stuff.

Yes, if you want give the divine Saint Union your praise and worship, that's fine. But you are not correct. Ford didn't pay workers more because the Unions made him do it. He paid his workers more, because they produce a ton of automobiles, because they had a mass manufacturing plant. Higher productivity = higher pay rates.

The Unions have done absolutely nothing but ruin the employment of their members for the past 10 years. Toyota and Honda didn't declare bankruptcy, and lay of thousands of people. GM and Chrysler did, and they did explicitly because the Unions refused to cut expenses. So instead theya re unemployed.

Hostess was forced out of business by the Unions. It was bankrupted, sold off, bought out and reopened under a new company, completely non-union and how amazing... exact same product, same equipment, but non-union workers and the company is profitable. Shocking.

GST Steel (of Bain Capital fame), was driven out of business by the Union. Meanwhile non-union steel mills are buying up old formerly union plants, and they are profitable.... without the Unions.

Even GM itself.... is moving away from the Unions.
GM s Battery Plant Opens Non-Union Labor Notes

Avoiding rehiring Union labor (which they don't have to do because the "new GM" is a different company than the "old GM" which had binding Union contracts).

Why? Huh? Why? Because Unions have screwed over the companies their members work for, thus screwing over their members.

Unions served a purpose in the distant past. I agree with that. Today? Not so much. They do nothing but get into organized crime, scandals, and work to destroy people's jobs. That's the truth.

You dont see that as union membership has declined so has our pay? No coincidence. Ford had record profits last two years. Why? We're getting out of the bush recession that caused all the companies to go bankrupt. Before bushanomics those union companies were doing fine.

 

[georgephillip]

Have you read what the socialists did to their country?

How has capitalism affected suicide rates in the former "socialist" states of eastern Europe?

 

[SwimExpert]

Whether you want to be in a union or not you should defend unions because they bring all our wages up.

I'm sure that many a CEO would disagree.

Yea because if he doesnt have to give 30 people a $1000 then he gets the $30,000

Probably more like $15,000. But I'm glad to you admit you were wrong.