7 ms·

Two points that keep coming up: "Real wages have gone down" Well, how high should they have risen? They can't rise indefinitely. Yet, the products you can buy

Two points that keep coming up: "Real wages have gone down" Well, how high should they have risen? They can't rise indefinitely. Yet, the products you can buy for the same money have vastly improved. What car could you buy for (the equivalent of) 10,000$ in 1979? Would you trade? All sorts of goods have become either cheaper or better, or have literally come into existence. Now, you will blame the rise of Chinese manufacturing on these improvements, but then please also consider how much wages have improved for the Chinese. The standard of living is rising across the board, across the globe. "It all goes in the pockets of a few super-rich" It's repeated like a mantra on the left, but when do they ever show you the actual numbers? Do yourself a favor and take all the wealth and all the income of the top 10% and distribute it across the other 90%. Now tell me, has the wealth and income gone up dramatically for those 90%? Wealth/Income inequality is a psychological problem more so than an economic one.

lawpoop 9y ago
> Well, how high should they have risen? They can't rise indefinitely. Why couldn't they be on par with the rise in productivity? As they did from 1950 to 1970: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6H3OQjdwq4w/T6Hs2Dz3X5I/AAAAAAAAD0M/ECUNkEkZlCk/s1600/productivity.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6H3OQjdwq4w/T6Hs2Dz3X5I/AAAAAAAAD0... > "It all goes in the pockets of a few super-rich" > It's repeated like a mantra on the left, but when do they ever show you the actual numbers? Yes, quite frequently. Here's an article with numbers and a graph: https://www.tcdailyplanet.net/graph-day-1-get-richer/ https://www.tcdailyplanet.net/graph-day-1-get-richer/
- galacticpony2 9y ago
  > Why couldn't they be on par with the rise in productivity? Because wages are tied to supply and demand, not productivity. Increased productivity will rather lower wages. > Yes, quite frequently. Here's an article with numbers and a graph Same fallacy with the percentages: The top 1% clearly got their wages raised (CEOs etc), but in broader terms it doesn't matter much, because it's only 1%. In absolute terms, the sums are not that large relative to the sum of the wages of everyone else. It's a psychological problem, because people don't like income inequality, but economically, it doesn't make much of a difference. This is where the left steps in to gain political capital from a non-issue.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    People are still using averages to talk about heavy tailed exponential - like distributions such as income distribution? Please... In fact the super rich getting richer will skew the average disproportionately. But not the median. So your point is as invalid as the use of the average for income in the first place.
    - galacticpony2 9y ago
      Well, those 1% could in theory have 99.99% of all income. So the justification that "because it's only 1%" (of people) is wrong. In fact, neither the median nor the average supports my point, but the share of the income total of those 1% relative to the sum of all incomes.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    "It's a psychological problem, because people don't like income inequality, but economically, it doesn't make much of a difference." Did you not notice the sharp inflation-adjusted increase in rents and house prices over the last 20 years? That was directly a result of rising income and wealth inequality.
    - galacticpony2 9y ago
      First of all, I'm talking about the inequality of income between the super-high-earners (1%) and the rest. Those people are not the ones pricing everyone else out of housing. Secondly, it's not true that rent/house prices increased sharply everywhere, nor is it entirely due to income inequality between high-earners and low-earners. For one, we had and have a lot of real estate speculation (a correction of which we experienced in 2007) but we also have policies and regulations in place that ensure the market can not provide for affordable housing. What prevents construction of an apartment highrise in the middle of San Francisco? It ain't neoliberalism, that's for sure...
      - crdoconnor 9y ago
        >First of all, I'm talking about the inequality of income between the super-high-earners (1%) and the rest. Those people are not the ones pricing everyone else out of housing. >For one, we had and have a lot of real estate speculation Who did you think was speculating?
grraaaaahhh 9y ago
According to this report (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51846 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51846) the average wealth for the top 10% in 2013 was ~$4 Million. Spread equally around everyone that represents a ~25% increase for families in the 50-90th percentile, and over a 1000% increase for families below that. Seems pretty significant to me.
- galacticpony2 9y ago
  Percentages are misleading. Going from 1$ to 10$ is a 1000% increase, yet it's not significant. Do the math again, this time with actual dollar amounts, then try again. Take all the money the top 10% have, then spread it among the rest. Also remember, you can only do that once.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    Productivity has been rising steadily pretty much since they started keeping track of it, while the median family income has stagnated over the past 40 years or so.[1] Productivity is defined as the ratio of the volume of outputs to inputs, or equivalently, the "money out to the money in." If the money is not going to the median families, where is it going? It certainly isn't going to the lower class. It is going to the upper class, and is seen as a "concentration of wealth" since the money is all going into more or less the same pockets (the fuzziness of the wording is due to the fact that sometimes people die and other people become richer to move into the upper class). To come to the challenge posed in your comment, let's examine some other indicators of inequality.[2] The top 1% holds around 42% of the wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% holds around 1% of the wealth. Doesn't that seem a bit ... unequal? Of course, to have valid concepts of "top 1%" inequality must of course exist on some level, but the disparity is staggering. There are 160 million people in the bottom 50%, and about 3 million in the top 1%. The average person in the top 1% holds about $2240 for every $1 belonging to the average person in the bottom 50%. The price of a $1m car to the top 1% is on par with the cost of a current-gen gaming console (~$450) to the bottom 50%, on average. Even without getting into the top 0.1% and their obscene amounts of money hoarding, this is a lot. We can go there too if you want. We could also just ask the people who arguably have the best access to such data: the Congressional Budget Office.[3] The graphic on the front cover is enough to illustrate the difference, but you can also go through the findings in the body if you need more convincing. All of this is freely available on the internet, and found with Google via "total wealth in the us". Either you didn't know this was possible, or you don't want to know the facts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_in_the_United_States.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Med... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._economic_variables_related_to_the_distribution_of_wealth_and_income.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._economic_variables_r... [3] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51846-familywealth.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...
cameldrv 9y ago
The CPI takes these quality factors into account. Not everything has increased in quality, either. For example cars are much more durable than they used to be, but appliances are much less durable. Your point about Chinese doing better is a good one, and it's the central issue. The American working class has taken it on the chin to lift the Chinese worker out of poverty. As a side effect, the American capitalist has done very well. On a global scale, this is probably a net good, but the world doesn't get to vote in American elections, and Americans are entitled to a government that prioritises American citizens' interests over Chinese citizens' interests. The Chinese certainly are prioritizing their own interests... If you want to see what this looks like globally, this is an interesting chart: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21707219-charting-globalisations-discontents-shooting-elephant http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21707219...
- galacticpony2 9y ago
  Planned obsolescence is an interesting topic, but suffice it to say that while I do own a handful of decades-old appliances that still work, they did cost much more at the time. It also depends on the brand. Some will offer warranties at a premium. You have the choice, as a consumer. Another question is: Do you really want to use the same appliance for decades? The problem of the low-end worker who is stuck with an ever-shrinking amount of jobs with no career-prospects is, of course, very real. However, neoliberalism itself isn't to blame and leftist policy isn't the cure.

lawpoop 9y ago

> Well, how high should they have risen? They can't rise indefinitely. Why couldn't they be on par with the rise in productivity? As they did from 1950 to 1970: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6H3OQjdwq4w/T6Hs2Dz3X5I/AAAAAAAAD0M/ECUNkEkZlCk/s1600/productivity.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6H3OQjdwq4w/T6Hs2Dz3X5I/AAAAAAAAD0... > "It all goes in the pockets of a few super-rich" > It's repeated like a mantra on the left, but when do they ever show you the actual numbers? Yes, quite frequently. Here's an article with numbers and a graph: https://www.tcdailyplanet.net/graph-day-1-get-richer/ https://www.tcdailyplanet.net/graph-day-1-get-richer/

galacticpony2 9y ago
> Why couldn't they be on par with the rise in productivity? Because wages are tied to supply and demand, not productivity. Increased productivity will rather lower wages. > Yes, quite frequently. Here's an article with numbers and a graph Same fallacy with the percentages: The top 1% clearly got their wages raised (CEOs etc), but in broader terms it doesn't matter much, because it's only 1%. In absolute terms, the sums are not that large relative to the sum of the wages of everyone else. It's a psychological problem, because people don't like income inequality, but economically, it doesn't make much of a difference. This is where the left steps in to gain political capital from a non-issue.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  People are still using averages to talk about heavy tailed exponential - like distributions such as income distribution? Please... In fact the super rich getting richer will skew the average disproportionately. But not the median. So your point is as invalid as the use of the average for income in the first place.
  - galacticpony2 9y ago
    Well, those 1% could in theory have 99.99% of all income. So the justification that "because it's only 1%" (of people) is wrong. In fact, neither the median nor the average supports my point, but the share of the income total of those 1% relative to the sum of all incomes.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  "It's a psychological problem, because people don't like income inequality, but economically, it doesn't make much of a difference." Did you not notice the sharp inflation-adjusted increase in rents and house prices over the last 20 years? That was directly a result of rising income and wealth inequality.
  - galacticpony2 9y ago
    First of all, I'm talking about the inequality of income between the super-high-earners (1%) and the rest. Those people are not the ones pricing everyone else out of housing. Secondly, it's not true that rent/house prices increased sharply everywhere, nor is it entirely due to income inequality between high-earners and low-earners. For one, we had and have a lot of real estate speculation (a correction of which we experienced in 2007) but we also have policies and regulations in place that ensure the market can not provide for affordable housing. What prevents construction of an apartment highrise in the middle of San Francisco? It ain't neoliberalism, that's for sure...
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >First of all, I'm talking about the inequality of income between the super-high-earners (1%) and the rest. Those people are not the ones pricing everyone else out of housing. >For one, we had and have a lot of real estate speculation Who did you think was speculating?

grraaaaahhh 9y ago

According to this report (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51846 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51846) the average wealth for the top 10% in 2013 was ~$4 Million. Spread equally around everyone that represents a ~25% increase for families in the 50-90th percentile, and over a 1000% increase for families below that. Seems pretty significant to me.

galacticpony2 9y ago
Percentages are misleading. Going from 1$ to 10$ is a 1000% increase, yet it's not significant. Do the math again, this time with actual dollar amounts, then try again. Take all the money the top 10% have, then spread it among the rest. Also remember, you can only do that once.
- uoaei 9y ago
  Productivity has been rising steadily pretty much since they started keeping track of it, while the median family income has stagnated over the past 40 years or so.[1] Productivity is defined as the ratio of the volume of outputs to inputs, or equivalently, the "money out to the money in." If the money is not going to the median families, where is it going? It certainly isn't going to the lower class. It is going to the upper class, and is seen as a "concentration of wealth" since the money is all going into more or less the same pockets (the fuzziness of the wording is due to the fact that sometimes people die and other people become richer to move into the upper class). To come to the challenge posed in your comment, let's examine some other indicators of inequality.[2] The top 1% holds around 42% of the wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% holds around 1% of the wealth. Doesn't that seem a bit ... unequal? Of course, to have valid concepts of "top 1%" inequality must of course exist on some level, but the disparity is staggering. There are 160 million people in the bottom 50%, and about 3 million in the top 1%. The average person in the top 1% holds about $2240 for every $1 belonging to the average person in the bottom 50%. The price of a $1m car to the top 1% is on par with the cost of a current-gen gaming console (~$450) to the bottom 50%, on average. Even without getting into the top 0.1% and their obscene amounts of money hoarding, this is a lot. We can go there too if you want. We could also just ask the people who arguably have the best access to such data: the Congressional Budget Office.[3] The graphic on the front cover is enough to illustrate the difference, but you can also go through the findings in the body if you need more convincing. All of this is freely available on the internet, and found with Google via "total wealth in the us". Either you didn't know this was possible, or you don't want to know the facts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_in_the_United_States.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Med... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._economic_variables_related_to_the_distribution_of_wealth_and_income.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._economic_variables_r... [3] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51846-familywealth.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...

cameldrv 9y ago

The CPI takes these quality factors into account. Not everything has increased in quality, either. For example cars are much more durable than they used to be, but appliances are much less durable. Your point about Chinese doing better is a good one, and it's the central issue. The American working class has taken it on the chin to lift the Chinese worker out of poverty. As a side effect, the American capitalist has done very well. On a global scale, this is probably a net good, but the world doesn't get to vote in American elections, and Americans are entitled to a government that prioritises American citizens' interests over Chinese citizens' interests. The Chinese certainly are prioritizing their own interests... If you want to see what this looks like globally, this is an interesting chart: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21707219-charting-globalisations-discontents-shooting-elephant http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21707219...

galacticpony2 9y ago
Planned obsolescence is an interesting topic, but suffice it to say that while I do own a handful of decades-old appliances that still work, they did cost much more at the time. It also depends on the brand. Some will offer warranties at a premium. You have the choice, as a consumer. Another question is: Do you really want to use the same appliance for decades? The problem of the low-end worker who is stuck with an ever-shrinking amount of jobs with no career-prospects is, of course, very real. However, neoliberalism itself isn't to blame and leftist policy isn't the cure.