6 ms·

Exactly. Male real wages have been stagnant since 1973, and that's without considering the situation around health care, where costs have risen much faster than

Exactly. Male real wages have been stagnant since 1973, and that's without considering the situation around health care, where costs have risen much faster than general inflation. Counting health care, male real wages have declined noticeably since 1973. Meanwhile, returns to capital have grown dramatically. This is precisely what you would expect in a weak economy, where the workers necessarily lack bargaining power. In a strong economy, the percentage of national income going to workers would increase, as it did from 1935 to 1973.

jhoechtl 8y ago
This is one of the most brilliant and succinct put statements I have read in a while. However, do you have any pointers to underpin your statement?
- lkrubner 8y ago
  See this graph: http://www.smashcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Screen-Shot-2017-12-26-at-11.30.08-AM.png http://www.smashcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Scree... A few other graphs I collected on my weblog are here: http://www.smashcompany.com/business/is-it-useful-to-have-a-college-degree http://www.smashcompany.com/business/is-it-useful-to-have-a-... http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike-if-they-do-not-have-women http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike... http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/marriage-peaked-in-1958 http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/marriage-peaked-in-19...
merpnderp 8y ago
I've always wondered how much of the lack of wage growth can be explained by financial institutions investing in other countries. If the actual growth happens somewhere else, and some of the profits make it back to the US economy, also growing it, overall wages wouldn't really be affected, would they?
- rory096 8y ago
  The US is the world's largest recipient of foreign direct investment and maintains a substantial capital account surplus. Capital inflows finance our current account deficits. https://www.cfr.org/blog/mapping-capital-flows-us-over-last-thirty-years https://www.cfr.org/blog/mapping-capital-flows-us-over-last-...
CalRobert 8y ago
Additionally, in 1973, there was a good chance you had a partner who could stay at home to watch the kid(s). Now you have both people working whether you like it or not, because you're competing with two-income households for housing. Of course, not trapping women in domestic servitude is a good thing, but making it (on average) necessary for two people to work to afford a home when before it took one is a bad thing.
- antisthenes 8y ago
  > Of course, not trapping women in domestic servitude is a good thing Any reason you used the term servitude which implies a negative connotation, when many women were happy with that arrangement? It also implies none of the women received positive utility from staying at home with the kids and it was always a chore, which seems a little ridiculous. We should be embracing every opportunity for more personal involvement with our children and family, not calling it servitude. It does all families, past, present and future, a huge disservice.
  - rcxdude 8y ago
    the term presumably is used because at that point it was not a choice. Many women may have been happy with it, but there was scant alternative for those who were not.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      It depends on a lot on where you were, but there are places that literally fired women when they got married. https://www.irishcentral.com/news/how-things-have-changed-ten-things-that-irish-women-could-not-do-in-1970s-183526621-237593131 https://www.irishcentral.com/news/how-things-have-changed-te... This has changed, but it reveals a lot. It also might relate to why it's so hard to find teachers for the price government is accustomed to paying - if you were a well-educated woman in the 1950's you had far fewer options (aka bargaining power) than you do today, and teaching was likely to be one of the few options with a bit of prestige and mental stimulation available to you. It's true that women weren't FORCED to not work, but to suggest that they didn't face a strong disadvantage is disingenuous. Hell, it's still a rampant problem - how many tech bros get off an interview and then say "ah but she's 32, she'll want to take maternity soon". This is a good reason for making maternity and paternity leave equal, incidentally... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/podcasts/the-daily/pregnancy-discrimination.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/podcasts/the-daily/pregna... Though for all that, my wife stays home with our kid by choice. She went back to work when our daughter was 6 months old, and after six months of barely seeing her outside of the weekends she just couldn't bear it (I didn't much like it either). The only reason we can do that is because I have a good paying job in tech making something over the 90th percentile of incomes in my country. I wish other people had that choice. Hell, I wish I had that choice. But few do.
onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
This is a weak economy if you're a laborer and not a capitalist. Overall, it's still been a VERY strong economy since '73. The US has been either first or second in GDP growth EVERY YEAR FOR 40 years! China has been killing it recently, but over the given time period, the US is still by far the best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growth_1980%E2%80%932010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growt... A real weak economy would look like Japan, Ukraine, Russia, Zimbabwe, etc. Life for the laborer has been under systemic attack since Reagan, but the US economy as a whole has been doing swimmingly.
- rchaud 8y ago
  > This is a weak economy if you're a laborer and not a capitalist. Replace capitalist with monopolist and I'd agree. How many capitalists make losses for 20 years and not only stay in their job, but actually become the world's richest person? Where would Uber be if they couldn't use VC money to undercut taxi companies, and subsidize hundreds of millions in losses. And let's not even get started on the issue of offshore tax avoidance, something your local hardware store will never have access to.
- mbrodersen 8y ago
  GDP is a very bad target to aim for.
refurb 8y ago
Total compensation has almost doubled since 1970, adjusting for inflation. Looking at wages alone is only half the picture.
- lkrubner 8y ago
  You are thinking of average compensation. Most reasonable people avoid talking about average compensation, since income has concentrated into the hands of the top workers. The top 1% of Hollywood actors, sports athletes and Wall Street hedge fund traders make several million dollars a year, and therefore they grossly distort the average. Their income hides the reality. If we focus on median income, of all forms, total real compensation for men has declined since 1973.

jhoechtl 8y ago

This is one of the most brilliant and succinct put statements I have read in a while. However, do you have any pointers to underpin your statement?

lkrubner 8y ago
See this graph: http://www.smashcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Screen-Shot-2017-12-26-at-11.30.08-AM.png http://www.smashcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Scree... A few other graphs I collected on my weblog are here: http://www.smashcompany.com/business/is-it-useful-to-have-a-college-degree http://www.smashcompany.com/business/is-it-useful-to-have-a-... http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike-if-they-do-not-have-women http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike... http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/marriage-peaked-in-1958 http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/marriage-peaked-in-19...

merpnderp 8y ago

I've always wondered how much of the lack of wage growth can be explained by financial institutions investing in other countries. If the actual growth happens somewhere else, and some of the profits make it back to the US economy, also growing it, overall wages wouldn't really be affected, would they?

rory096 8y ago
The US is the world's largest recipient of foreign direct investment and maintains a substantial capital account surplus. Capital inflows finance our current account deficits. https://www.cfr.org/blog/mapping-capital-flows-us-over-last-thirty-years https://www.cfr.org/blog/mapping-capital-flows-us-over-last-...

CalRobert 8y ago

Additionally, in 1973, there was a good chance you had a partner who could stay at home to watch the kid(s). Now you have both people working whether you like it or not, because you're competing with two-income households for housing. Of course, not trapping women in domestic servitude is a good thing, but making it (on average) necessary for two people to work to afford a home when before it took one is a bad thing.

antisthenes 8y ago
> Of course, not trapping women in domestic servitude is a good thing Any reason you used the term servitude which implies a negative connotation, when many women were happy with that arrangement? It also implies none of the women received positive utility from staying at home with the kids and it was always a chore, which seems a little ridiculous. We should be embracing every opportunity for more personal involvement with our children and family, not calling it servitude. It does all families, past, present and future, a huge disservice.
- rcxdude 8y ago
  the term presumably is used because at that point it was not a choice. Many women may have been happy with it, but there was scant alternative for those who were not.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    It depends on a lot on where you were, but there are places that literally fired women when they got married. https://www.irishcentral.com/news/how-things-have-changed-ten-things-that-irish-women-could-not-do-in-1970s-183526621-237593131 https://www.irishcentral.com/news/how-things-have-changed-te... This has changed, but it reveals a lot. It also might relate to why it's so hard to find teachers for the price government is accustomed to paying - if you were a well-educated woman in the 1950's you had far fewer options (aka bargaining power) than you do today, and teaching was likely to be one of the few options with a bit of prestige and mental stimulation available to you. It's true that women weren't FORCED to not work, but to suggest that they didn't face a strong disadvantage is disingenuous. Hell, it's still a rampant problem - how many tech bros get off an interview and then say "ah but she's 32, she'll want to take maternity soon". This is a good reason for making maternity and paternity leave equal, incidentally... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/podcasts/the-daily/pregnancy-discrimination.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/podcasts/the-daily/pregna... Though for all that, my wife stays home with our kid by choice. She went back to work when our daughter was 6 months old, and after six months of barely seeing her outside of the weekends she just couldn't bear it (I didn't much like it either). The only reason we can do that is because I have a good paying job in tech making something over the 90th percentile of incomes in my country. I wish other people had that choice. Hell, I wish I had that choice. But few do.

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago

This is a weak economy if you're a laborer and not a capitalist. Overall, it's still been a VERY strong economy since '73. The US has been either first or second in GDP growth EVERY YEAR FOR 40 years! China has been killing it recently, but over the given time period, the US is still by far the best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growth_1980%E2%80%932010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growt... A real weak economy would look like Japan, Ukraine, Russia, Zimbabwe, etc. Life for the laborer has been under systemic attack since Reagan, but the US economy as a whole has been doing swimmingly.

rchaud 8y ago
> This is a weak economy if you're a laborer and not a capitalist. Replace capitalist with monopolist and I'd agree. How many capitalists make losses for 20 years and not only stay in their job, but actually become the world's richest person? Where would Uber be if they couldn't use VC money to undercut taxi companies, and subsidize hundreds of millions in losses. And let's not even get started on the issue of offshore tax avoidance, something your local hardware store will never have access to.
mbrodersen 8y ago
GDP is a very bad target to aim for.

refurb 8y ago

Total compensation has almost doubled since 1970, adjusting for inflation. Looking at wages alone is only half the picture.

lkrubner 8y ago
You are thinking of average compensation. Most reasonable people avoid talking about average compensation, since income has concentrated into the hands of the top workers. The top 1% of Hollywood actors, sports athletes and Wall Street hedge fund traders make several million dollars a year, and therefore they grossly distort the average. Their income hides the reality. If we focus on median income, of all forms, total real compensation for men has declined since 1973.