4 ms·

You're talking about the freedom of a wheelchair-bound person to climb any set of stairs they like, whereas I'm talking about the existence of ramps. > What gi

You're talking about the freedom of a wheelchair-bound person to climb any set of stairs they like, whereas I'm talking about the existence of ramps. > What gives workers bargaining power is companies seeing their productivity and revenue rise So where is the bargaining power of Amazon's workers right now? > wages consistently rise in lockstep with per capita GDP. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The mean wage has risen for all, but that is skewed by the much higher rises for the highest paid. At the bottom, real wages have fallen. [1] As a result, purchasing power for 90% of USA population has stayed the same since the late 1970s, while for the top 10% it has significantly increased. [2] [1] - https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ [2] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

ChrisLomont 5y ago
>At the bottom, real wages have fallen. Wages are not the only form of remuneration. Total remuneration is the stat you should look at, since also since 1980 a lot of law changes have made it more costly to employ, and most jobs, even low wage ones, have received lots more benefits. Also, since 1980, wages at the low end have increased for women and minorities. Only white males at the low end have decreased. Finally, almost no one spends a career at the low end - entry wages to the workforce are just that - a start for a career. Look at lifetime earnings to see what the lowest lifetime earners make, and then you will see vast improvements in both wages and total remuneration. BLS tracks all of these variables. Wages, total remuneration, and total cost to employ are the relevant things to look through to get a better picture. Look through them sometime.
- blowski 5y ago
  Agreed, real wages are not the whole picture, but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like. For me, the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces of data to track over time, but that can can hide the difference between geographical areas, and how we calculate PPP is controversial. What to do? Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility - indicators that can't be moved directly and themselves have an impact on future change.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    >but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like That's nonsense. If you believe that, then there is no worth to using any metrics or numbers to try and understand the world. It's a common defense by people that don't get the result they want when looking at solid evidence. I gave you a place to find solid evidence. >the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces If that is eroded by legislation making it costlier to employ, then this is just as valuable, because then instead of spreading rage against employers, it's the people and the government that is causing wage decreases, not employers. Ignoring relevant factors makes "solutions" unusable because you're not solving the problems. >Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility Well, then you're in luck. Social mobility has not decreased in the past 50+ years [1]. This was done using all tax records from all Americans by a group that wanted to show social mobility had declined, but they could not do so once given all the data. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mob...
    - blowski 5y ago
      If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats, then I guess I’m done here.
      - ChrisLomont 5y ago
        >If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats That is a long way from your claim that all stat "can be manipulated to show whatever we like". The way to show some stat is false, or even manipulated, is to demonstrate that claim by using better evidence or stats. The way is not to simply hand wave that all stats can be manipulated to "to show whatever we like". If you want to claim BLS stats are not true (debating the veracity), then provide better sourced ones. I am unaware of any agency that does a wider, longer running, better sourced, better documented system for the relevant stats I mentioned. If you have one, provide it. If you cannot, then accept the BLS as the best available and create a belief based on that evidence. You claimed wages have fallen. I pointed out quite valid reasons for that using relevant factors that are counter to the narrative you want, and, that taking more factors into account, this is a not unreasonable outcome. Simply implying that I or others are manipulating facts to reach any conclusion we want, without perhaps providing yet more factors or evidence, is not debate.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>You're talking about the freedom of a wheelchair-bound person to climb any set of stairs they like, whereas I'm talking about the existence of ramps. But the analogy fails given the example I provided. As I demonstrated, even in the 19th century, when transportation options were far more limited, the typical worker in a company town possessed effective mobility, which gave them the power to reject the work being offered in the company town in favor of a better offer in a different locale. >>So where is the bargaining power of Amazon's workers right now? How does the situation of Amazon's workers contradict what I said about bargaining power for workers rising when companies see their productivity and revenue rise? The fact that they are paid more than minimum wage proves they have bargaining power. Amazon is forced, by virtue of the other opportunities offered to these workers by other employers, to pay more than minimum wage. If the US economy saw further productivity growth, and with it revenue growth for its companies, then wages would rise further as well. >>At the bottom, real wages have fallen. [1] As a result, purchasing power for 90% of USA population has stayed the same since the late 1970s, while for the top 10% it has significantly increased. [2] EPI is heavily funded by public sector unions, which are rent-seeking institutions who extract wealth through involuntary wealth transfers. The statistics they provide are based on using a different standard for inflation when measuring productivity, than when measuring labor compensation: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag... For years, I trotted out the same graph you're linking to, in debates on the internet, until I found out that the apparent divergence between wages and per capita GDP was actually just statistical manipulation. As you say: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

ChrisLomont 5y ago

>At the bottom, real wages have fallen. Wages are not the only form of remuneration. Total remuneration is the stat you should look at, since also since 1980 a lot of law changes have made it more costly to employ, and most jobs, even low wage ones, have received lots more benefits. Also, since 1980, wages at the low end have increased for women and minorities. Only white males at the low end have decreased. Finally, almost no one spends a career at the low end - entry wages to the workforce are just that - a start for a career. Look at lifetime earnings to see what the lowest lifetime earners make, and then you will see vast improvements in both wages and total remuneration. BLS tracks all of these variables. Wages, total remuneration, and total cost to employ are the relevant things to look through to get a better picture. Look through them sometime.

blowski 5y ago
Agreed, real wages are not the whole picture, but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like. For me, the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces of data to track over time, but that can can hide the difference between geographical areas, and how we calculate PPP is controversial. What to do? Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility - indicators that can't be moved directly and themselves have an impact on future change.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  >but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like That's nonsense. If you believe that, then there is no worth to using any metrics or numbers to try and understand the world. It's a common defense by people that don't get the result they want when looking at solid evidence. I gave you a place to find solid evidence. >the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces If that is eroded by legislation making it costlier to employ, then this is just as valuable, because then instead of spreading rage against employers, it's the people and the government that is causing wage decreases, not employers. Ignoring relevant factors makes "solutions" unusable because you're not solving the problems. >Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility Well, then you're in luck. Social mobility has not decreased in the past 50+ years [1]. This was done using all tax records from all Americans by a group that wanted to show social mobility had declined, but they could not do so once given all the data. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mob...
  - blowski 5y ago
    If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats, then I guess I’m done here.
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      >If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats That is a long way from your claim that all stat "can be manipulated to show whatever we like". The way to show some stat is false, or even manipulated, is to demonstrate that claim by using better evidence or stats. The way is not to simply hand wave that all stats can be manipulated to "to show whatever we like". If you want to claim BLS stats are not true (debating the veracity), then provide better sourced ones. I am unaware of any agency that does a wider, longer running, better sourced, better documented system for the relevant stats I mentioned. If you have one, provide it. If you cannot, then accept the BLS as the best available and create a belief based on that evidence. You claimed wages have fallen. I pointed out quite valid reasons for that using relevant factors that are counter to the narrative you want, and, that taking more factors into account, this is a not unreasonable outcome. Simply implying that I or others are manipulating facts to reach any conclusion we want, without perhaps providing yet more factors or evidence, is not debate.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>You're talking about the freedom of a wheelchair-bound person to climb any set of stairs they like, whereas I'm talking about the existence of ramps. But the analogy fails given the example I provided. As I demonstrated, even in the 19th century, when transportation options were far more limited, the typical worker in a company town possessed effective mobility, which gave them the power to reject the work being offered in the company town in favor of a better offer in a different locale. >>So where is the bargaining power of Amazon's workers right now? How does the situation of Amazon's workers contradict what I said about bargaining power for workers rising when companies see their productivity and revenue rise? The fact that they are paid more than minimum wage proves they have bargaining power. Amazon is forced, by virtue of the other opportunities offered to these workers by other employers, to pay more than minimum wage. If the US economy saw further productivity growth, and with it revenue growth for its companies, then wages would rise further as well. >>At the bottom, real wages have fallen. [1] As a result, purchasing power for 90% of USA population has stayed the same since the late 1970s, while for the top 10% it has significantly increased. [2] EPI is heavily funded by public sector unions, which are rent-seeking institutions who extract wealth through involuntary wealth transfers. The statistics they provide are based on using a different standard for inflation when measuring productivity, than when measuring labor compensation: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag... For years, I trotted out the same graph you're linking to, in debates on the internet, until I found out that the apparent divergence between wages and per capita GDP was actually just statistical manipulation. As you say: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."