Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?

That is not a factual statement. I have read that propaganda.

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says​

The point I was trying to make is this: currently it is easier for capital to migrate from one country to another than it is for labor. NAFTA in Mexico is an example I see every day when I step outside my apartment. Do you see any possibility of capital controls being reimposed in the western economies?

 

[dnsmith35]

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place. Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.

Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then. Government spending is out of control. We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently. What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results. Well, think about it...

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?

When one wants to check on relative income from 1 year compared to another year the use an inflation calculator.Inflation Calculator 2014

The $1.60 per hour minimum wage in 1972 in 2014 $$$$s is $7.15; making today's minimum wage just a tiny bit better today than in 1972. Since most young married couples both work the $14.70 per hour times 40 hours is still only $2,548 per money before taxes or $30,576 annually. But, only a very small % of our labor force works at minimum wage. According to the BLS only .01% of our labor force work for minimum wage. Most people other than teenage students and totally unskilled labor earn more than minimum wage, in many cases not sufficiently productive to justify a larger income. Our educated and skilled workers earn much more per hour/week/month, which is almost double the poverty line for two in the US in 2014. http://http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/14poverty.cfm

 

[dnsmith35]

Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?

That is not a factual statement. I have read that propaganda.

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says​

The point I was trying to make is this: currently it is easier for capital to migrate from one country to another than it is for labor. NAFTA in Mexico is an example I see every day when I step outside my apartment. Do you see any possibility of capital controls being reimposed in the western economies?

In fact Capital has never been restrained from moving and is characteristically mobile with Tax incidence one of the major causes. Up to the last 30 to 40 years the costs of moving goods were too high to justify outsourcing. NAFTA may have costs SOME jobs, but just like all other outsourcing, for every job exported we created new and usually more complex labor jobs here in the US. There are variations in individual industries, but as an average off shoring has benefited US labor. The "migration" of labor is done by shifting the jobs, not the people. An exception to that rule is the importing people who have skills not readily available in the US for the relative wage that can be paid.

No company can survive paying a wage which makes the product too high for the majority of people to purchase. The most important divide in our wage structure is not the ultra rich who will buy what they want when they want, but the difference between the 12% elite labor force which drive the cost/price of the items they manufacture/service to a point the other 88% have difficulty buying new products from the companies for which they work. Thus the huge USED AUTOMOBILE market in the US.

There will always be extreme income disparity between the top .01% and the .99% and below, but that is not what hurts the average family survive comfortably. Income is not a zero sum game and it is not a finite quantity of money in our economy. There are ways and means for low wage earners to increase their income and the very top earners do not have an effect on the very low earners.

It turns out that wealth inequality isn't about the 1 percent v. the 99 percent at all. It's about the 0.1 percent v. the 99.9 percent (or, really, the 0.01 percent vs. the 99.99 percent, if you like). Long-story-short is that this group, comprised mostly of bankers and CEOs, is riding the stock market to pick up extraordinary investment income. And it's this investment income, rather than ordinary earned income, that's creating this extraordinary wealth gap.

The 0.1 percent isn't the same group of people every year. There's considerable churn at the tippy-top. For example, consider the "Fortunate 400," the IRS's annual list of the 400 richest tax returns in the country. Between 1992 and 2008, 3,672 different taxpayers appeared on the Fortunate 400 list. Just one percent of the Fortunate 400—four households—appeared on the list all 17 years. How You, I, and Everyone Got the Top 1 Percent All Wrong - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic​

Like I said before, the OWS crowd protested the wrong group.

AND ABSOLUTELY NO, there will never be a restriction on Capital mobility in any country which wants their economy to continue to be prosperous. Capital mobility either inter or intra country is one of the things that gives us the prosperity distributed over a larger % of the population. An example of that is the building of foreign automobiles here in the US. Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Mercedes and others are building here because to build overseas and ship here costs more money. They now compete very favorably with US companies and our labor force has more new high paying jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

Marxist talking points, nothing more

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

Can you explain why US average wages

You wouldn't be leaving non-wage benefits out of your calculation, would you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place. Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.

Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then. Government spending is out of control. We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently. What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results. Well, think about it...

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?

To support low skill American workers, deport 20 million illegals.

 

[Andylusion]

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

Marxist talking points, nothing more

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

I don't think that's even true.

For example, when you talk about 'non-supervisory' workers, what all is included in that, and how does one calculate labor productivity?

Because quite frankly, I know some people who flipped burgers back in the 1970s, and I worked at Wendy's flipping burgers. From what I have heard, the 'productivity' of flipping burgers hasn't changed much.

You think the average Whooper Flopper at Burger King, is Flopping twice as many Whoopers today as back in the 1970s?

Prove that.

 

[georgephillip]

Marxist talking points, nothing more

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

I don't think that's even true.

For example, when you talk about 'non-supervisory' workers, what all is included in that, and how does one calculate labor productivity?

Because quite frankly, I know some people who flipped burgers back in the 1970s, and I worked at Wendy's flipping burgers. From what I have heard, the 'productivity' of flipping burgers hasn't changed much.

You think the average Whooper Flopper at Burger King, is Flopping twice as many Whoopers today as back in the 1970s?

Prove that.

Flipping burgers is one menial job I somehow managed to miss, but I suspect the technology in Wendy's and elsewhere has improved productivity over that time. Whether that allows for a single worker to flip twice as many burgers, I couldn't say.

 

[georgephillip]

First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place. Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.

Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then. Government spending is out of control. We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently. What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results. Well, think about it...

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?

To support low skill American workers, deport 20 million illegals.

Where are you planning to deport them to, Chicago

 

[Andylusion]

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place. Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.

Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then. Government spending is out of control. We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently. What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results. Well, think about it...

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?

1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month. Average rent in 1972 was $165.

Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?

But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct. Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?

How about the difference in the size of the apartment? The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s. How about Air Conditioning?

On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?

I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.

 

[Andylusion]

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

I don't think that's even true.

For example, when you talk about 'non-supervisory' workers, what all is included in that, and how does one calculate labor productivity?

Because quite frankly, I know some people who flipped burgers back in the 1970s, and I worked at Wendy's flipping burgers. From what I have heard, the 'productivity' of flipping burgers hasn't changed much.

You think the average Whooper Flopper at Burger King, is Flopping twice as many Whoopers today as back in the 1970s?

Prove that.

Flipping burgers is one menial job I somehow managed to miss, but I suspect the technology in Wendy's and elsewhere has improved productivity over that time. Whether that allows for a single worker to flip twice as many burgers, I couldn't say.

One of the rather boring requirements of being a McDonald's employee, was watching corporate videos of the history of McDonald's. In those videos, they show guys back in the 1960s flipping burgers on the grill. The grill is nearly identical to the grills currently used, and flipping them over is of the exact same skill requirement as before.

Now there are advancements in technology, namely in the invention of robots that can cook food.

Currently they are not used, because the cost of labor is still low enough that human employees, are still of higher value. When that changes, when leftist idiots drive up the price of labor high enough, robots will replace the people.... just as McDonald's has replaced all their cashiers with Kiosks in Europe.

 

[georgephillip]

First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place. Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.

Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then. Government spending is out of control. We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently. What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results. Well, think about it...

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?

1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month. Average rent in 1972 was $165.

Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?

But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct. Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?

How about the difference in the size of the apartment? The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s. How about Air Conditioning?

On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?

I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?

To support low skill American workers, deport 20 million illegals.

Where are you planning to deport them to, Chicago

LA. They'll fit right in.

 

[dnsmith35]

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?

1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month. Average rent in 1972 was $165.

Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?

But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct. Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?

How about the difference in the size of the apartment? The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s. How about Air Conditioning?

On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?

I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

It is not the 1% running that up, it is the .01% and they are not having any effect on the income of the less wealthy as wages are not a zero sum game.

$900+ for an efficiency? High cost area for sure. Unless you make big bucks you should move.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?

1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month. Average rent in 1972 was $165.

Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?

But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct. Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?

How about the difference in the size of the apartment? The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s. How about Air Conditioning?

On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?

I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.

Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.

We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.

 

[georgephillip]

1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month. Average rent in 1972 was $165.

Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?

But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct. Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?

How about the difference in the size of the apartment? The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s. How about Air Conditioning?

On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?

I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

It is not the 1% running that up, it is the .01% and they are not having any effect on the income of the less wealthy as wages are not a zero sum game.

$900+ for an efficiency? High cost area for sure. Unless you make big bucks you should move.

Is it accurate to say that someone earning $360,000 a year is in the same tax bracket as someone earning $36,000,000 or even $360,000,000 a year?

 

[dnsmith35]

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

It is not the 1% running that up, it is the .01% and they are not having any effect on the income of the less wealthy as wages are not a zero sum game.

$900+ for an efficiency? High cost area for sure. Unless you make big bucks you should move.

Is it accurate to say that someone earning $360,000 a year is in the same tax bracket as someone earning $36,000,000 or even $360,000,000 a year?

No, it is not. The top marginal rate of 39.6% Bracket is shown below:
$406,751 single
$457,601 married filing joint
$432,201 head of houshold

All income above those thresholds based on the type of filing pay the same % over the amounts shown.

 

[georgephillip]

1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month. Average rent in 1972 was $165.

Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?

But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct. Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?

How about the difference in the size of the apartment? The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s. How about Air Conditioning?

On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?

I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.

Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.

We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

 

[dnsmith35]

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.

Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.

We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that the increase in productivity was not necessarily an issue of the labor, but rather the machines now doing the work better and faster. So by your standards we should put more money in the machines account. What you and your left wing extremists will never accept is, labor is not responsible for the increase in productivity and the extra profits are put into better machines. Many like you object to machines and want people to do the work instead. Maybe you would prefer that we revert to our agrarian roots where capital was the excess production of the individual. The problem with that is, the majority of us want more prosperity than that, and capitalism as regulated has improved the lot of 99% of the people.

As a liberal, not a left wing extremist, I want what is best FOR ALL PEOPLE not just an elitist work force.

How is productivity measured by BLS?

Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.

What is the most commonly used productivity measure?

Output per hour of all persons—labor productivity—is the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. In the U.S. nonfarm business sector, labor cost represents more than sixty percent of the value of output produced. Output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is the productivity statistic most often cited by the press.
​

When will the left wing recognize it is not the individual worker, but rather the COMBINATION OF THE WORKER AND THE MACHINES HE USES to produce the goods manufactured (or services) proportionately.

 

[kaz]

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeoisie. Workers of the world unite!

The workers had nothing to do with the productivity gains, BTW. The people who create value should be compensated for it. And that extends far beyond the "CEO."

 

[georgephillip]

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeoisie. Workers of the world unite!

The workers had nothing to do with the productivity gains, BTW. The people who create value should be compensated for it. And that extends far beyond the "CEO."

All workers have everything to do with productivity gains, and not just parasites earning 354 times what the average worker does even if the parasites toss table scraps to loyal stooges like you.