5 ms·

Didn't labour productivity already grow quite significantly? As I understand it, wages and productivity growth for the 99% tracked quite closely until the mid-7

by sirtaj 6y ago

Didn't labour productivity already grow quite significantly? As I understand it, wages and productivity growth for the 99% tracked quite closely until the mid-70s, after which productivity kept growing in leaps and bounds but wages stagnated. Am I incorrect?

maerF0x0 6y ago
You're not wrong, and globally poverty has been plummeting. Standard of living has been rising faster than income because all consumed goods have been vastly improved over time.
- sirtaj 6y ago
  Cost of education and healthcare has outpaced wage growth though, hasn't it? The 2-3 months you've calculated above represent 20-25% extra money to spend on those, much more if you hold the biggest expenditures (military and social security) at the same level. So it seems that the 1% could significantly fund the things you're hoping for.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    >The 2-3 months you've calculated above represent 20-25% extra That would be a one time boost and then it'd be gone forever (not a recurring revenue) . remember it would degrade wealth/asset base by 100%. Not to mention the issue that you cannot spend assets the way you can cash, you'd have to find a buyer for them (such as foreign countries or the federal reserve), but then you've basically either nationalized the whole economy or sold it off to a foreign entity.
    - sirtaj 6y ago
      > That would be a one time boost and then it'd be gone forever (not a recurring revenue) I'm not sure it has to be non-recurring. Right now the 1% (just the 1%, not all non-labour wagers) takes home around 20% of national income in the US. If this was in line with the historical 10%, that's a significant yearly sum.
      - maerF0x0 6y ago
        yeah, we're talking past each other. I was specifically talking about a wealth tax. Income tax has different characteristics and is a different discussion point
- xg15 6y ago
  > globally poverty has been plummeting. Yes, globally, if you take all countries and also average over all social classes. We indeed have more millionaires and billionaires and also more countries with millionaires and billionaires. If you take a look at different social classes, wealth inequality is rising. > Standard of living has been rising faster than income because all consumed goods have been vastly improved over time. The Rust belt, the obesity epidemic and the opioid crisis would like a word with you.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    > wealth inequality is rising. if you have compounding inflation then the absolute value of disparity between the rich and poor should be growing exponentially too, no?
opo 6y ago
That seems to be true only if you only look at wages and ignore benefits: >...The allocation of national Shares of National Income income between workers and the owners of capital is considered one of the more remarkably stable relationships in the U.S. economy. As a general rule of thumb, economists often cite labor’s share of income to be about two-thirds of national income—although the exact figure is sensitive to the specific data used to calculate the ratio. Over time, this ratio has shown no clear tendency to rise or fall. ... This measure clearly shows a declining trend in recent decades. Having reached a peak of 58 percent in 1970, wages and salaries have declined to only 52 per- cent of national income in 2003. However, if we consider total compensation—including employer social insurance contributions and benefits—labor’s share has shown very little variation.1 By this measure, labor’s share of national income has averaged 70.5 percent over the past 50 years and has remained within a narrow range of that average. https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/net/20040801/cover.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/net/2...
- xg15 6y ago
  And yet, the US healthcare system is largely seen as one of the most expensive and one where an average middle-class household is quickly at risk of paying enormous costs out-of-pocket. Did this increase in empolyer contributions lead to any actual increase in coverage or a better treatments for employees or were just prices rising overall?
- xg15 6y ago
  > Having reached a peak of 58 percent in 1970, wages and salaries have declined to only 52 per- cent of national income in 2003. How did this continue after 2003?
barbacoa 6y ago
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

by sirtaj 6y ago

maerF0x0 6y ago

You're not wrong, and globally poverty has been plummeting. Standard of living has been rising faster than income because all consumed goods have been vastly improved over time.

sirtaj 6y ago
Cost of education and healthcare has outpaced wage growth though, hasn't it? The 2-3 months you've calculated above represent 20-25% extra money to spend on those, much more if you hold the biggest expenditures (military and social security) at the same level. So it seems that the 1% could significantly fund the things you're hoping for.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  >The 2-3 months you've calculated above represent 20-25% extra That would be a one time boost and then it'd be gone forever (not a recurring revenue) . remember it would degrade wealth/asset base by 100%. Not to mention the issue that you cannot spend assets the way you can cash, you'd have to find a buyer for them (such as foreign countries or the federal reserve), but then you've basically either nationalized the whole economy or sold it off to a foreign entity.
  - sirtaj 6y ago
    > That would be a one time boost and then it'd be gone forever (not a recurring revenue) I'm not sure it has to be non-recurring. Right now the 1% (just the 1%, not all non-labour wagers) takes home around 20% of national income in the US. If this was in line with the historical 10%, that's a significant yearly sum.
    - maerF0x0 6y ago
      yeah, we're talking past each other. I was specifically talking about a wealth tax. Income tax has different characteristics and is a different discussion point
xg15 6y ago
> globally poverty has been plummeting. Yes, globally, if you take all countries and also average over all social classes. We indeed have more millionaires and billionaires and also more countries with millionaires and billionaires. If you take a look at different social classes, wealth inequality is rising. > Standard of living has been rising faster than income because all consumed goods have been vastly improved over time. The Rust belt, the obesity epidemic and the opioid crisis would like a word with you.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  > wealth inequality is rising. if you have compounding inflation then the absolute value of disparity between the rich and poor should be growing exponentially too, no?

opo 6y ago

That seems to be true only if you only look at wages and ignore benefits: >...The allocation of national Shares of National Income income between workers and the owners of capital is considered one of the more remarkably stable relationships in the U.S. economy. As a general rule of thumb, economists often cite labor’s share of income to be about two-thirds of national income—although the exact figure is sensitive to the specific data used to calculate the ratio. Over time, this ratio has shown no clear tendency to rise or fall. ... This measure clearly shows a declining trend in recent decades. Having reached a peak of 58 percent in 1970, wages and salaries have declined to only 52 per- cent of national income in 2003. However, if we consider total compensation—including employer social insurance contributions and benefits—labor’s share has shown very little variation.1 By this measure, labor’s share of national income has averaged 70.5 percent over the past 50 years and has remained within a narrow range of that average. https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/net/20040801/cover.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/net/2...

xg15 6y ago
And yet, the US healthcare system is largely seen as one of the most expensive and one where an average middle-class household is quickly at risk of paying enormous costs out-of-pocket. Did this increase in empolyer contributions lead to any actual increase in coverage or a better treatments for employees or were just prices rising overall?
xg15 6y ago
> Having reached a peak of 58 percent in 1970, wages and salaries have declined to only 52 per- cent of national income in 2003. How did this continue after 2003?

barbacoa 6y ago

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/