5 ms·

> This memo neatly glosses over where the productivity gains in the last 100 years have gone, and makes it seem as if it's fair for wages of the American worker

> This memo neatly glosses over where the productivity gains in the last 100 years have gone, and makes it seem as if it's fair for wages of the American worker to stagnate while the megawealthy get all the profit. If a worker in 2016 can build a car in a-fourth the time it took a worker in 1935 to build a car, why is it implausible for them to work 35 hours a week with better benefits and more vacation time? Because you are both comparing oranges to oranges. France's problem (frankly) is their labor protections are too strong. America's problem (frankly) is their labor protections are too weak. The parallels to be drawn here are not what you or the OP would like them to be. The standard of living since 1916 has improved substantially and maintaining a modern level of living is expensive. If I want to live like a college student (2 to a room, no car, and only food I prepare myself) I could be retired in my late 30s. I don't live that way and that costs something. http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/timeline.html http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/timeline.html Similarly, the gains from 1916 -> now are mostly in things we take for granted. The 40 hour work week (it used to be 60 then it became 48 and then 40), the access to quality medical care wasn't common, people lived two to a room in smaller homes, people didn't have the mobility of a car but relied on their own muscles, etc. A good 50% of the productivity gains over the last 100 years went to moving things from 60 hour work weeks to 40. Modern conveniences represent the other half. The reality is we got screwed in the 1980s -> 2016 in the US but that is a separate problem and conflating the two doesn't help anyone. Labor needs to start acting like its the 1920s again and get organized and push back politically.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> Labor needs to start acting like its the 1920s again and get organized and push back politically. But it's not the 1920s again. Acting like it is isn't going to work in this climate. You want to demand higher wages? Great. Yet more jobs go overseas, priced out of the US by the higher labor costs. You want to protect against cheap imports (created by cheap workers) with tariffs? Well, you just made everything everyone buys from overseas more expensive, so the cost of living went up. You also just broke a bunch of trade agreements, and there will probably be retaliation from quite a few trade partners, resulting in fewer exports, which will cost jobs. The world is a much more complicated place than it was in the 1920s. Simple responses aren't likely to fix things. We need to fix things - I'm with you there, there's a lot that's broken from the point of view of the working person - but an antagonistic power struggle is unlikely to produce an improvement.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >You want to demand higher wages? Great. Yet more jobs go overseas The jobs that can go overseas are pushed overseas regardless. The jobs that can't be pushed overseas? Turns out fighting for higher wages works well, as the fight for 15 can testify to. >You want to protect against cheap imports (created by cheap workers) with tariffs? Well, you just made everything everyone buys from overseas more expensive When that's offset by rising wages, which, in the absence of underpriced competition it will - the people at the bottom end aren't bothered. They're happy, in fact. Besides, what eats up most people's paychecks these days? Not plastic crap from China - student loan repayments and rent/mortgage payment to keep a roof over your head. >The world is a much more complicated place than it was in the 1920s. Yet some things never change.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    >You want to demand higher wages? Great. Yet more jobs go overseas > The jobs that can go overseas are pushed overseas regardless. No. For every increase in the minimum wage, some incremental amount of jobs get pushed overseas. What is true, though, is that those jobs were pretty crummy jobs. You can make a case that we didn't want them anyway. And if we had better jobs to replace them with, I think I'd agree. We don't, though, at least not at the moment. > >You want to protect against cheap imports (created by cheap workers) with tariffs? Well, you just made everything everyone buys from overseas more expensive > When that's offset by rising wages, the people at the bottom end aren't bothered. They're happy, in fact. That's probably true. It probably hurts the middle class, though. Hurting the middle class to help the bottom isn't really the trade-off we want. We want the pain to go more to the upper- or upper-middle class.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      >No. For every increase in the minimum wage, some incremental amount of jobs get pushed overseas. ^^^ What gets threatened by lobbyists fighting minimum wage increases. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b9602ba0-3c91-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b9602ba0-3c91-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140... (Push for higher wages squeezes US corporate profits) ^^^ What actually happens in reality >That's probably true. It probably hurts the middle class, though. Hurting the middle class to help the bottom isn't really the trade-off we want ^^^ What politicians say when Bernie Sanders proposes raising taxes on people earning over 200k / year. There isn't much of a middle class left in America these days. The people who would be helped are in the majority.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> Labor needs to start acting like its the 1920s again and get organized and push back politically. But it's not the 1920s again. Acting like it is isn't going to work in this climate. You want to demand higher wages? Great. Yet more jobs go overseas, priced out of the US by the higher labor costs. You want to protect against cheap imports (created by cheap workers) with tariffs? Well, you just made everything everyone buys from overseas more expensive, so the cost of living went up. You also just broke a bunch of trade agreements, and there will probably be retaliation from quite a few trade partners, resulting in fewer exports, which will cost jobs. The world is a much more complicated place than it was in the 1920s. Simple responses aren't likely to fix things. We need to fix things - I'm with you there, there's a lot that's broken from the point of view of the working person - but an antagonistic power struggle is unlikely to produce an improvement.

crdoconnor 10y ago
>You want to demand higher wages? Great. Yet more jobs go overseas The jobs that can go overseas are pushed overseas regardless. The jobs that can't be pushed overseas? Turns out fighting for higher wages works well, as the fight for 15 can testify to. >You want to protect against cheap imports (created by cheap workers) with tariffs? Well, you just made everything everyone buys from overseas more expensive When that's offset by rising wages, which, in the absence of underpriced competition it will - the people at the bottom end aren't bothered. They're happy, in fact. Besides, what eats up most people's paychecks these days? Not plastic crap from China - student loan repayments and rent/mortgage payment to keep a roof over your head. >The world is a much more complicated place than it was in the 1920s. Yet some things never change.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  >You want to demand higher wages? Great. Yet more jobs go overseas > The jobs that can go overseas are pushed overseas regardless. No. For every increase in the minimum wage, some incremental amount of jobs get pushed overseas. What is true, though, is that those jobs were pretty crummy jobs. You can make a case that we didn't want them anyway. And if we had better jobs to replace them with, I think I'd agree. We don't, though, at least not at the moment. > >You want to protect against cheap imports (created by cheap workers) with tariffs? Well, you just made everything everyone buys from overseas more expensive > When that's offset by rising wages, the people at the bottom end aren't bothered. They're happy, in fact. That's probably true. It probably hurts the middle class, though. Hurting the middle class to help the bottom isn't really the trade-off we want. We want the pain to go more to the upper- or upper-middle class.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >No. For every increase in the minimum wage, some incremental amount of jobs get pushed overseas. ^^^ What gets threatened by lobbyists fighting minimum wage increases. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b9602ba0-3c91-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b9602ba0-3c91-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140... (Push for higher wages squeezes US corporate profits) ^^^ What actually happens in reality >That's probably true. It probably hurts the middle class, though. Hurting the middle class to help the bottom isn't really the trade-off we want ^^^ What politicians say when Bernie Sanders proposes raising taxes on people earning over 200k / year. There isn't much of a middle class left in America these days. The people who would be helped are in the majority.