4 ms·

That doesn't contradict the actual article, whose full title is: > If Worker Pay Had Kept Pace With Productivity Gains Since 1968, Today's Minimum Wage Would B

by ardy42 6y ago

That doesn't contradict the actual article, whose full title is: > If Worker Pay Had Kept Pace With Productivity Gains Since 1968, Today's Minimum Wage Would Be $24 an Hour It looks like when it was shortened one of its most important words were dropped.

deegles 6y ago
Sorry, I was trying to make it fit the character limit :(
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Title-smithing is an art. Email the mods if you're stuck; hn@ycombinator.com (I have, with some shorter suggestions.)
dcolkitt 6y ago
That makes more sense. But keep in mind that only 2.3% of hourly workers make minimum wage.[1] It's not really fair to compare productivity (a mean) or even median output to wages at the second percentile. It's an interesting question in its own right. Do the very lowest paid people in the economy have it better or worse than 50 years ago. I don't know the full answer to that question, but I do know that in 1968 about 5% of American households didn't have full indoor plumbing.[2] Just based on that datum, I'd much rather trade places with a very poor American in 2020 than 1968. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm [2] https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2004/data/papers/SS04_Panel1_Paper17.pdf https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2004/data/papers/SS0...
- nroets 6y ago
  When I was in the US, I saw someone offering free phones to the unemployed (Obama phone). Food stamps being used. FEMA given new houses to people left homeless by hurricane Michael. I even met people whose diet consisted mainly of expired food. They had to fish it out of dumpsters, which wasn't nice. But they had free food!
refurb 6y ago
That makes sense, but why would productivity gains be equally applied across all wage levels? You'd naturally expect it to be unequal based on the productivity gains in specific job functions.

by ardy42 6y ago

deegles 6y ago

Sorry, I was trying to make it fit the character limit :(

dredmorbius 6y ago
Title-smithing is an art. Email the mods if you're stuck; hn@ycombinator.com (I have, with some shorter suggestions.)

dcolkitt 6y ago

That makes more sense. But keep in mind that only 2.3% of hourly workers make minimum wage.[1] It's not really fair to compare productivity (a mean) or even median output to wages at the second percentile. It's an interesting question in its own right. Do the very lowest paid people in the economy have it better or worse than 50 years ago. I don't know the full answer to that question, but I do know that in 1968 about 5% of American households didn't have full indoor plumbing.[2] Just based on that datum, I'd much rather trade places with a very poor American in 2020 than 1968. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm [2] https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2004/data/papers/SS04_Panel1_Paper17.pdf https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2004/data/papers/SS0...

nroets 6y ago
When I was in the US, I saw someone offering free phones to the unemployed (Obama phone). Food stamps being used. FEMA given new houses to people left homeless by hurricane Michael. I even met people whose diet consisted mainly of expired food. They had to fish it out of dumpsters, which wasn't nice. But they had free food!

refurb 6y ago

That makes sense, but why would productivity gains be equally applied across all wage levels? You'd naturally expect it to be unequal based on the productivity gains in specific job functions.