6 ms·

Productivity has risen 61% since 1979: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/. 40 hour work weeks have been the sta

Productivity has risen 61% since 1979: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/. 40 hour work weeks have been the standard. Wages only rose 17% in that same period. The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%. A 3-day work week (aka 40% less productivity if you assume a perfectly linear relationship between time working and productivity) would still mean a nice little gain for the capitalist compared to 1979 numbers. If you've worked, you've contributed to that 44% productivity gain. Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for? Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical? I get that pragmatically many aspects in life are a power struggle, but "throwing the question back" is really a way of putting the burden of fixing an unfair system back on the victim.

throwayyy479087 4y ago
The difference between producitivity and wage gap is fully explained by increasing healthcare costs: https://www.ajmc.com/view/healthcare-costs-increased-twice-as-fast--over-last-decade https://www.ajmc.com/view/healthcare-costs-increased-twice-a...
- topkai22 4y ago
  The difference between productivity and wages is not fully explained by increasing benefits/health care costs, but it is something like over half the difference. Benefits costs do a better job explaining increasing wage inequality, but again not all of it and doesn’t address what’s happening outside the US
- bowsamic 4y ago
  That would be very convenient for capitalists but it is false, though even if it were true for the US it is not true for European countries
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Healthcare costs are largely driven by metabolic syndrome: the main cause of diseases of major modern civilizations. Half of Americans are on track to be pre-diabetic or diabetic by 2050.
missedthecue 4y ago
Are workers getting more productive, or are tools and technology getting more productive? It used to take a room full of highly trained engineers using slide-rules, protractors, and graphing paper to design the newest car or plane. Now it's done in AutoCAD. But it's not obvious to me why the employee should collect the difference for the capital investment poured into technology. In other words, it's not as if humans have evolved since the 1970s to be more productive. Any gains are entirely the consequence of investments in tech and tools and modern managerial techniques.
- jen20 4y ago
  Modern managerial techniques if anything have regressed the situation. As for tech and tools, who do you think made those things if not humans?
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    The human inventors of computers, computer components, productivity improving software (like AutoCAD), robotics, and other systems are very wealthy.
- henryfjordan 4y ago
  I agree that it isn't obvious who should reap the benefits of productivity gains, but that means it is also not obvious to me that the capitalist should get it compared to the employee. We created a system that heavily favors the capitalist starting with the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that most of society was subsistence farming. Encouraging capital investment in new machines and factories through laws/policies made sense to help raise society (and thus the workers) out of that situation. We have made enough progress since then that there are now barely any subsistence farmers in the US. Why should we continue to embrace policies favoring the capitalist? Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists? Maybe they should only get those gains for a few years, or they should get half and half should go to the workers?
  - missedthecue 4y ago
_yb2s 4y ago
> Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical? How is this possible? Wouldn't capitalists willing to take a smaller share (higher wages, better product for lower price) out-compete those that don't? It seems to me that the major advantage of capitalism is protection from this type of situation?
- drinkzima 4y ago
  It's mostly false: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik
- henryfjordan 4y ago
  A ton of capitalist-favoring policies assume a perfect free market (all participants have equal knowledge, transactions are instant, etc). Not a single market like that actually exists in reality. We've created many capitalist policies which allow the exploitation of such imperfect markets. "Job Stability" being a factor in the labor market is a perfect example. People are afraid to leave a stable job for a less stable one even it pays more because they know it takes time and effort and luck to find another job (aka imperfections in the job market). If your unstable job disappears, that might mean there's no money for food or no health insurance. This puts a huge thumb on the scale in favor of the capitalist. If they can offer "stability" then they can also lower their wages considerably.
gertlex 4y ago
Honest question that came to mind with these numbers: While some fraction has gone to the corporations/shareholders ("capitalists"), what fraction of the productivity gains has turned into cheaper consumer goods, aka (can't point at the data, just many who comment on it) the populace owns a lot more 'stuff' like electronics than they did 43 years ago, aka QOL gains resulting from productivity. Or is it just silly of me to not assume that ~100% of gained productivity went straight into corporations'/shareholders' pockets?
WalterBright 4y ago
> The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%. Don't forget the massive growth at all levels of government. Also don't forget that wages are not the right measure - total compensation is. Total compensation is often 150% of wages (things like health insurance, retirement plans, 401k matching contributions, etc.). All those "employer-paid" benefits are actually coming out of your paycheck.
drinkzima 4y ago
We have metrics for these things ("Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year"), no need for hyperbole: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik
anigbrowl 4y ago
Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for? Because you won't get it otherwise. They're not going to give it back or forgo it in future because controlling a greater share of resources gives them more leverage.

throwayyy479087 4y ago

The difference between producitivity and wage gap is fully explained by increasing healthcare costs: https://www.ajmc.com/view/healthcare-costs-increased-twice-as-fast--over-last-decade https://www.ajmc.com/view/healthcare-costs-increased-twice-a...

topkai22 4y ago
The difference between productivity and wages is not fully explained by increasing benefits/health care costs, but it is something like over half the difference. Benefits costs do a better job explaining increasing wage inequality, but again not all of it and doesn’t address what’s happening outside the US
bowsamic 4y ago
That would be very convenient for capitalists but it is false, though even if it were true for the US it is not true for European countries
orangepurple 4y ago
Healthcare costs are largely driven by metabolic syndrome: the main cause of diseases of major modern civilizations. Half of Americans are on track to be pre-diabetic or diabetic by 2050.

missedthecue 4y ago

Are workers getting more productive, or are tools and technology getting more productive? It used to take a room full of highly trained engineers using slide-rules, protractors, and graphing paper to design the newest car or plane. Now it's done in AutoCAD. But it's not obvious to me why the employee should collect the difference for the capital investment poured into technology. In other words, it's not as if humans have evolved since the 1970s to be more productive. Any gains are entirely the consequence of investments in tech and tools and modern managerial techniques.

jen20 4y ago
Modern managerial techniques if anything have regressed the situation. As for tech and tools, who do you think made those things if not humans?
- missedthecue 4y ago
  The human inventors of computers, computer components, productivity improving software (like AutoCAD), robotics, and other systems are very wealthy.
henryfjordan 4y ago
I agree that it isn't obvious who should reap the benefits of productivity gains, but that means it is also not obvious to me that the capitalist should get it compared to the employee. We created a system that heavily favors the capitalist starting with the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that most of society was subsistence farming. Encouraging capital investment in new machines and factories through laws/policies made sense to help raise society (and thus the workers) out of that situation. We have made enough progress since then that there are now barely any subsistence farmers in the US. Why should we continue to embrace policies favoring the capitalist? Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists? Maybe they should only get those gains for a few years, or they should get half and half should go to the workers?
- missedthecue 4y ago

_yb2s 4y ago

> Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical? How is this possible? Wouldn't capitalists willing to take a smaller share (higher wages, better product for lower price) out-compete those that don't? It seems to me that the major advantage of capitalism is protection from this type of situation?

drinkzima 4y ago
It's mostly false: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik
henryfjordan 4y ago
A ton of capitalist-favoring policies assume a perfect free market (all participants have equal knowledge, transactions are instant, etc). Not a single market like that actually exists in reality. We've created many capitalist policies which allow the exploitation of such imperfect markets. "Job Stability" being a factor in the labor market is a perfect example. People are afraid to leave a stable job for a less stable one even it pays more because they know it takes time and effort and luck to find another job (aka imperfections in the job market). If your unstable job disappears, that might mean there's no money for food or no health insurance. This puts a huge thumb on the scale in favor of the capitalist. If they can offer "stability" then they can also lower their wages considerably.

gertlex 4y ago

Honest question that came to mind with these numbers: While some fraction has gone to the corporations/shareholders ("capitalists"), what fraction of the productivity gains has turned into cheaper consumer goods, aka (can't point at the data, just many who comment on it) the populace owns a lot more 'stuff' like electronics than they did 43 years ago, aka QOL gains resulting from productivity. Or is it just silly of me to not assume that ~100% of gained productivity went straight into corporations'/shareholders' pockets?

WalterBright 4y ago

> The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%. Don't forget the massive growth at all levels of government. Also don't forget that wages are not the right measure - total compensation is. Total compensation is often 150% of wages (things like health insurance, retirement plans, 401k matching contributions, etc.). All those "employer-paid" benefits are actually coming out of your paycheck.

drinkzima 4y ago

We have metrics for these things ("Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year"), no need for hyperbole: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik

anigbrowl 4y ago

Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for? Because you won't get it otherwise. They're not going to give it back or forgo it in future because controlling a greater share of resources gives them more leverage.