4 ms·

Real compensation has increased dramatically. It's a great mistake to assume that a wage is the only cost of employing someone. The cost of labour has gone up s

Real compensation has increased dramatically. It's a great mistake to assume that a wage is the only cost of employing someone. The cost of labour has gone up significantly over the past few decades.

pmiller2 7y ago
“Compensation” doesn’t pay my rent. Wages do. I can’t exactly offer my landlord a part of my health insurance coverage I’m not using this month in lieu, can I? Speaking of rent, that has also gone up faster than real wages since the 70s — does an increase in productivity explain that as well? [0] Oh, and there are no company pensions anymore, either, so I have to somehow figure out how to fund my retirement, too. Tell me again how much better off we are? —- [0]: https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rent-growth-since-1960/ https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rent-growth-since-...
- core-questions 7y ago
  Well, where is all that excess wealth (in terms of real goods produced and real services performed, i.e. the labour time exchanged) actually going? Could it be that the idea of demanding each wealth-producer feed some number of non-wealth-producers has a scaling limitation?
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    What are you getting at? You are dangerously close to referring to human beings as “useless eaters.” [0] —- [0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/useless_eater https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/useless_eater
analog31 7y ago
Sure, workers are getting "paid" to "buy" health care that should be a public good, and is twice as expensive overall as anywhere else in the world. That's a transference of wealth from the wealthy to the wealthy -- possibly to themselves.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Exactly. As I said in a comment that was inexplicably flagged, "compensation" doesn't pay my rent. My paycheck does. Not only that, but I have to pay more in real terms for things like housing and education than people in the 70's did, and I have to fund my own retirement.

Real compensation has increased dramatically. It's a great mistake to assume that a wage is the only cost of employing someone. The cost of labour has gone up significantly over the past few decades.

pmiller2 7y ago

“Compensation” doesn’t pay my rent. Wages do. I can’t exactly offer my landlord a part of my health insurance coverage I’m not using this month in lieu, can I? Speaking of rent, that has also gone up faster than real wages since the 70s — does an increase in productivity explain that as well? [0] Oh, and there are no company pensions anymore, either, so I have to somehow figure out how to fund my retirement, too. Tell me again how much better off we are? —- [0]: https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rent-growth-since-1960/ https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rent-growth-since-...

core-questions 7y ago
Well, where is all that excess wealth (in terms of real goods produced and real services performed, i.e. the labour time exchanged) actually going? Could it be that the idea of demanding each wealth-producer feed some number of non-wealth-producers has a scaling limitation?
- pmiller2 7y ago
  What are you getting at? You are dangerously close to referring to human beings as “useless eaters.” [0] —- [0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/useless_eater https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/useless_eater

analog31 7y ago

Sure, workers are getting "paid" to "buy" health care that should be a public good, and is twice as expensive overall as anywhere else in the world. That's a transference of wealth from the wealthy to the wealthy -- possibly to themselves.

pmiller2 7y ago
Exactly. As I said in a comment that was inexplicably flagged, "compensation" doesn't pay my rent. My paycheck does. Not only that, but I have to pay more in real terms for things like housing and education than people in the 70's did, and I have to fund my own retirement.