Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sorry dude but despite your attempts to argue with personal anecdotes and fond memories, the hard data proves you wrong every time.I don't know what country you live in, but where I live, basics like gasoline have quadrupled just since I entered the job market as a teenager. Even adjusting for inflation, I can only get about HALF as much gasoline to get me to and from a min wage job, for every hour worked.
Inflation adjusted gas is currently similar in price, min wage is higher, and avg mileage is double.
The fact that productivity has increased isn't in dispute. You using it to skew wages and purchasing power is dishonest.Productivity has increased by more than 400%. That is not dishonest, that is a fact. If the money from increased productivity is drained from the economy rather than being reinvested in it, you will seize-up the economy. Which is what is happening now.
For you to believe your article you must also believe that someone who one day improved productivity while working the same hours for same wage somehow magically lost purchasing power. That isn't true, and that is why your silly linked article falls short.
There are far more cars per worker, so your claim there are just more cars because more people need them to go to work makes no sense. If there used to be 0.8 cars per worker, and now there are 1.2 cars per worker then you cannot support a claim there are more cars just because there are more people who need to work.
Prove it.
One thing I've learned form interacting with you in this thread is you'll state whatever pops into your head as fact, and more often than not it is easily proven wrong with hard numbers that don't match with your fond recollections of the glory days.
Drained from the economy? Who is doing that - other than the government, of course?The article was bullshit, they used a productivity multiplier of 4.25 to generate the attention grabbing headline.They broke it down in the article which was the OP.
Fact = people make more money today (inflation adjusted) than in 1950. You claiming otherwise is both absurd and dishonest.
Productivity has increased by more than 400%. That is not dishonest, that is a fact. If the money from increased productivity is drained from the economy rather than being reinvested in it, you will seize-up the economy. Which is what is happening now.
The fact that productivity has increased isn't in dispute. You using it to skew wages and purchasing power is dishonest.Productivity has increased by more than 400%. That is not dishonest, that is a fact. If the money from increased productivity is drained from the economy rather than being reinvested in it, you will seize-up the economy. Which is what is happening now.
For you to believe your article you must also believe that someone who one day improved productivity while working the same hours for same wage somehow magically lost purchasing power. That isn't true, and that is why your silly linked article falls short.
The rich are taking a lot more of the pie that should be going to the worker. Would you agree?
Really? The 16 year old kid at the Subway near my house needs 36k per year to live with his parents and go to high school? I sure hope he buys a nice skate board.On the other hand, I do believe that employers have a responsibility to pay their workers enough to live on, without social subsidies of any kind. That figure was $17.47/hr x 40 in 2012..
Drained from the economy? Who is doing that - other than the government, of course?The article was bullshit, they used a productivity multiplier of 4.25 to generate the attention grabbing headline.They broke it down in the article which was the OP.
Fact = people make more money today (inflation adjusted) than in 1950. You claiming otherwise is both absurd and dishonest.
Productivity has increased by more than 400%. That is not dishonest, that is a fact. If the money from increased productivity is drained from the economy rather than being reinvested in it, you will seize-up the economy. Which is what is happening now.
You are basically babbling nonsensically at this point.Of course they are spending more, because purchasing power has declined drastically.
That graph shows percentage of income spent on necessities over time. It has been demonstrated that despite your claims to the contrary people earn more money now, own better things, and spend less of their money on the basics.
I don't know what country you live in, but where I live, basics like gasoline have quadrupled just since I entered the job market as a teenager. Even adjusting for inflation, I can only get about HALF as much gasoline to get me to and from a min wage job, for every hour worked.
The article was bullshit, they used a productivity multiplier of 4.25 to generate the attention grabbing headline.They broke it down in the article which was the OP.
Fact = people make more money today (inflation adjusted) than in 1950. You claiming otherwise is both absurd and dishonest.
Productivity has increased by more than 400%. That is not dishonest, that is a fact. If the money from increased productivity is drained from the economy rather than being reinvested in it, you will seize-up the economy. Which is what is happening now.
You are basically babbling nonsensically at this point.Of course they are spending more, because purchasing power has declined drastically.
That graph shows percentage of income spent on necessities over time. It has been demonstrated that despite your claims to the contrary people earn more money now, own better things, and spend less of their money on the basics.
I don't know what country you live in, but where I live, basics like gasoline have quadrupled just since I entered the job market as a teenager. Even adjusting for inflation, I can only get about HALF as much gasoline to get me to and from a min wage job, for every hour worked.
When I was a teenager, gas cost $0.30/gal- minimum wage was $0.75..
That means a gallon of gas cost me about 24 minutes of work.
Today, gas costs $3.00/gal - minimum wage is $8.25.
That means a gallon of gas costs about 21 minutes of work.
That would seem to be a bad example for your argument.
(Oh, by the way .... my 56 Chevy got 14 mpg .... most cars get >20/mpg today)
What's the impact of population on your computation? If the money is spread across more people, logic would say that the growth per worker would be less.
Seems like you've taken a statistic out of context, and used it to prove a false hypothesis.
Really? The 16 year old kid at the Subway near my house needs 36k per year to live with his parents and go to high school? I sure hope he buys a nice skate board.On the other hand, I do believe that employers have a responsibility to pay their workers enough to live on, without social subsidies of any kind. That figure was $17.47/hr x 40 in 2012..
It is often argued that low wage jobs are "meant" for students or folks who are somehow disqualified from making a living wage simple because of age or social status.
Forgetting, for a moment, that today even high school students are forced to quit school in order to support their families, lets have a look at the facts.
Read more: Minimum Wage Workers Union of America
You are basically babbling nonsensically at this point.Of course they are spending more, because purchasing power has declined drastically.
That graph shows percentage of income spent on necessities over time. It has been demonstrated that despite your claims to the contrary people earn more money now, own better things, and spend less of their money on the basics.
I don't know what country you live in, but where I live, basics like gasoline have quadrupled just since I entered the job market as a teenager. Even adjusting for inflation, I can only get about HALF as much gasoline to get me to and from a min wage job, for every hour worked.
When I was a teenager, gas cost $0.30/gal- minimum wage was $0.75..
That means a gallon of gas cost me about 24 minutes of work.
Today, gas costs $3.00/gal - minimum wage is $8.25.
That means a gallon of gas costs about 21 minutes of work.
That would seem to be a bad example for your argument.
(Oh, by the way .... my 56 Chevy got 14 mpg .... most cars get >20/mpg today)
And yet back in the heydey of big American steel, right up through the 1990's, driving and road trips were a national pastime. It wasn't until the gas crunch of the 1970's that Americans even thought about better fuel efficiency. And once that crisis was over, it was back to roaming the highways for leisure. This mobility was a big part of the explosion of suburban growth. So clearly there is something missing from your equation.
Really? The 16 year old kid at the Subway near my house needs 36k per year to live with his parents and go to high school? I sure hope he buys a nice skate board.On the other hand, I do believe that employers have a responsibility to pay their workers enough to live on, without social subsidies of any kind. That figure was $17.47/hr x 40 in 2012..
It is often argued that low wage jobs are "meant" for students or folks who are somehow disqualified from making a living wage simple because of age or social status.
Forgetting, for a moment, that today even high school students are forced to quit school in order to support their families, lets have a look at the facts.
Read more: Minimum Wage Workers Union of America
The charts are pretty, but they don't seem to be accurate. The 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics clearly cites a different set of statistics Current Population Survey CPS minwage2013.pdf
I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but it appears that your interim reference is using old/invalid data.
For example, the Bureau says 2% of those earning minimum wage have a college degree. Your charts show 7%.
Your charts say about 14% are teenagers. The Bureau says about half.
Please resolve the dichotomy.
Nothing missing from my equation. You used a gallon of gas relative to minimum hourly wage as a reference of how much worse off the current laborer is ... when, in fact, it appears they are actually better off (using that parameter).
The cost of a gallon of gas/minimum hourly wage rate seems to have held pretty steady. You need to find a different measurement.
What's the impact of population on your computation? If the money is spread across more people, logic would say that the growth per worker would be less.
Seems like you've taken a statistic out of context, and used it to prove a false hypothesis.
Population is not part of the computation at all. You can't say growth per worker would be less, when growth per worker has increased by over 400%, while wages have stagnated and DECREASED, and in no way kept up with productivity. Population has no bearing on that computation. You are trying to ADD a context, where there is none. Red herring.
Really? The 16 year old kid at the Subway near my house needs 36k per year to live with his parents and go to high school? I sure hope he buys a nice skate board.On the other hand, I do believe that employers have a responsibility to pay their workers enough to live on, without social subsidies of any kind. That figure was $17.47/hr x 40 in 2012..
It is often argued that low wage jobs are "meant" for students or folks who are somehow disqualified from making a living wage simple because of age or social status.
Forgetting, for a moment, that today even high school students are forced to quit school in order to support their families, lets have a look at the facts.
Read more: Minimum Wage Workers Union of America
The charts are pretty, but they don't seem to be accurate. The 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics clearly cites a different set of statistics Current Population Survey CPS minwage2013.pdf
I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but it appears that your interim reference is using old/invalid data.
For example, the Bureau says 2% of those earning minimum wage have a college degree. Your charts show 7%.
Your charts say about 14% are teenagers. The Bureau says about half.
Please resolve the dichotomy.
Different year maybe?
It's been widely reported though that there are fewer teenagers in the workplace than ever before. Besides, I don't support age discrimination anyway, and I don't think you should need a college degree to work at a minimum wage job.
Nothing missing from my equation. You used a gallon of gas relative to minimum hourly wage as a reference of how much worse off the current laborer is ... when, in fact, it appears they are actually better off (using that parameter).
The cost of a gallon of gas/minimum hourly wage rate seems to have held pretty steady. You need to find a different measurement.
I was using my own experience, in my own lifetime, where the worker has lost ground on share of income expenditure on a necessity. But clearly there is something missing from your equation when you look at the social impact of the automobile.
Sorry --- YOU said productivity was up 400% (nothing about per worker). I merely said that if you spread productivity across more workers, you get a more accurate parameter. The original article cited said that worker productivity has increased 400%. No proof of that was provided - it simply said it.
But, listen to what is said ... it does not say that each worker is 400% more productive ... it says that the worker community productivity has increased 400%. That's a hell of a lot different. By treating the worker community as a monolith - with no allowance for variance in the size of the worker community (to be sure, the word 'community' is mine) - presents a distorted picture.
