3 ms·

Are you aware of the fact that if we had 1992's productivity, there would be full employment in the US right now? You know when your boss lays off 1/3 the team,

by gte910h 16y ago

Are you aware of the fact that if we had 1992's productivity, there would be full employment in the US right now? You know when your boss lays off 1/3 the team, then expects you to do the same work: That's productivity! Productivity is not god. Productivity does not trump the health of the people who work there. Programming jobs currently do horrible things to the health of IT's practitioners, especially ones with stupidly long hours, including game programming. Saner hours would employ more people (or the games would do less). No one can say "games are essential enough to damage people's health over" but guess what: their development largely damages their health of their programmers.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Are you aware of the fact that if we had 1992's productivity, we would all be 30% poorer (and living 2.8 years less) than we are today?
- gte910h 16y ago
  I don't see your numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distr... And productivity doesn't drive medical research, so: >(and living 2.8 years less) is unlikely
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+usa http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mk... You can do the inflation calculation yourself. Income is a poor measure since it excludes non-wage compensation (e.g., medical spending) which have gone up significantly relative to income. I'm not sure why you conclude life expectancy went up due to medical research. Wealth increases life expectancy, but not due to medical spending.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      Your graph doesn't show anything about actual wages, or wages with the excluded non-wage compensation you're speaking of. GDP growth is not related to income growth of normal people. For the last 20 years, something like 85% of the growth has gone to the very very rich. It was only really in the postwar period did the middle class ever really grow large (in that period of time we had the only factories in the world), and income growth has been pretty stagnant since the 80's. According to the US Census Bureau, the median is "considerably lower than the average, and provides a more accurate representation." "While the median household income has increased 30% since 1990, it has increased only slightly when considering inflation. In 1990, the median household income was $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars. " Sources: http://www.demographia.com/db-stateinc2000.htm http://www.demographia.com/db-stateinc2000.htm I bring you to the censuses conclusions about our largely stagnant american wages (which peaked in 1999): http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf Most of that GDP is going to very very rich people.

by gte910h 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Are you aware of the fact that if we had 1992's productivity, we would all be 30% poorer (and living 2.8 years less) than we are today?

gte910h 16y ago
I don't see your numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distr... And productivity doesn't drive medical research, so: >(and living 2.8 years less) is unlikely
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+usa http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mk... You can do the inflation calculation yourself. Income is a poor measure since it excludes non-wage compensation (e.g., medical spending) which have gone up significantly relative to income. I'm not sure why you conclude life expectancy went up due to medical research. Wealth increases life expectancy, but not due to medical spending.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    Your graph doesn't show anything about actual wages, or wages with the excluded non-wage compensation you're speaking of. GDP growth is not related to income growth of normal people. For the last 20 years, something like 85% of the growth has gone to the very very rich. It was only really in the postwar period did the middle class ever really grow large (in that period of time we had the only factories in the world), and income growth has been pretty stagnant since the 80's. According to the US Census Bureau, the median is "considerably lower than the average, and provides a more accurate representation." "While the median household income has increased 30% since 1990, it has increased only slightly when considering inflation. In 1990, the median household income was $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars. " Sources: http://www.demographia.com/db-stateinc2000.htm http://www.demographia.com/db-stateinc2000.htm I bring you to the censuses conclusions about our largely stagnant american wages (which peaked in 1999): http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf Most of that GDP is going to very very rich people.