5 ms·
A start would be wages matching productivity. World Economic Forum [1] "Between 1948-1979, the percent growth in productivity and wages were relatively similar
by GolfPopper 2y ago
A start would be wages matching productivity.
World Economic Forum [1]
"Between 1948-1979, the percent growth in productivity and wages were relatively similar, with an increase of 108 percent and 93 percent, respectively. The growth from 1979-2018, however, has been drastically different. While net productivity has continued to increase by an expected 70 percent, hourly compensation in the country is less than a fifth of that at just 12 percent."
1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/productivity-workforce-america-united-states-wages-stagnate/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/productivity-workforc...
- nradov 2y agoHourly compensation has increased significantly more than that when you account for employer contributions to employee health insurance. We should have never allowed health insurance coverage to be tied to employment; that was a terrible public policy error but it's so entrenched now that it has become politically impossible to unwind.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- listenallyall 2y agoSince 1979, foreign manufacturing has grown massively at the expense of domestic, second, enormous advances in technology. Are you, presumably a software programmer, more productive because you're inherently smarter, or a harder worker, than a colleague from the 60s-70s? Or do you have much, much, much better tools, languages, frameworks, graphics, etc to do your job? (You might even ask if you are, actually, more productive. Engineers in the 1960s created the 747 and put men on the moon. Not entirely sure either could be done today. GDP is not really the best way to measure "productivity.")