3 ms·

"per capita GDP...the trend is positive" The thing is, this article leaves a lot out. Per capita GDP has been rising. What has been happening to the inflatio

"per capita GDP...the trend is positive" The thing is, this article leaves a lot out. Per capita GDP has been rising. What has been happening to the inflation-adjusted hourly wage? It is below what it was in the early 1970s. I look at the Forbes 400 and heirs like the Koch brothers, or the Waltons or the Mars family are doing well. Or entrepreneurs like Amway's Richard DeVos. Or upper middle class sons of lawyers and congressmen like Gates and Buffett, with rumored screwy mothers of the type that the sons don't kick back and relax once they hit $20 billion, they have to go on. The majority of people are worse off. I don't primarily look at it as a "moral" thing, I see it as a broken system which will eventually collapse in some manner due to its internal contradictions - just as feudalism did, just as slavery in the US south and ancient Rome. This article is an example of this. Why not just tell the truth, that according to the government, the real hourly wage was better in the early 1970s, that things have gotten worse since then? Stratification means the white, upper middle class, college educated Americans reading this have no idea what I mean. They are living in their own bubble of VC, congratulatory back-slapping etc. Born on third base and thinking they hit triples. The point is, why are lying articles like this necessary? Why can't they just tell the truth? The fact that lying and propaganda, which the average wage worker believes no less than Russians believe Pravda, shows the weakness of the system. People don't buy these lies any how. They know. The majority of people - not the SF bay white upper middle class bubble of people.

marknutter 14y ago
It's not some conspiracy perpetrated by the rich that our wages have been going down over time, it's simple economics. In this country, women are now just as likely to work as men, so the labor pool has roughly doubled. Wages decline accordingly. There are also more and more people in other countries willing and able to produce goods and services we desire but at a lower wage. I don't see what the problem is. I like the fact that women work as much as men do. I also like the fact that people in other countries are so productive. It means my family can buy better stuff than they could 40 years ago for a much cheaper price, and someone halfway across the world can put food on their table because of it.
- AdelsonVLandis 14y ago
  "It means my family can buy better stuff than they could 40 years ago for a much cheaper price..." This can mean one of two things. You may mean you are from one of the wealthier families who have benefited from the decline of US hourly wages. If so, you're in a minority. If you mean it in a more general sense, I don't think you understand the concept of the terms inflation-adjusted wages or real wages. The man in 2012 making less in inflation-adjusted hourly wages than his father did 40 years ago can not buy more with his wages. The amount of food, clothes etc. he can buy after eight hours work is less, not more. I don't think you understand what I mean by real wages or inflation-adjusted wages. The average American working 40 hours a week can not afford as much food, clothes etc. as he could 40 years ago. Because real hourly wages have fallen over the past 40 years.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    But goods are cheaper today than they were 40 years go, thanks in large part to globalization and manufacturing innovations. So if goods are cheaper, does it really matter if real wages have declined? And looking at the data, to me it looks like real wages are roughly at the same level they were 50 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gi...). If goods a cheaper and real wages are roughly the same, aren't we all better off?
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    The man in 2012 making less in inflation-adjusted hourly wages than his father did 40 years ago can not buy more with his wages. This is true. But the figures you cite adjust for Chained CPI, not inflation. Chained CPI is not the same thing as inflation because the basket of goods does not remain constant. Any purported inflation metric which doesn't come with a starting date is flawed. In fact, people today spend far less of their income on food, clothes, etc as they did 40 years ago.

marknutter 14y ago

It's not some conspiracy perpetrated by the rich that our wages have been going down over time, it's simple economics. In this country, women are now just as likely to work as men, so the labor pool has roughly doubled. Wages decline accordingly. There are also more and more people in other countries willing and able to produce goods and services we desire but at a lower wage. I don't see what the problem is. I like the fact that women work as much as men do. I also like the fact that people in other countries are so productive. It means my family can buy better stuff than they could 40 years ago for a much cheaper price, and someone halfway across the world can put food on their table because of it.

AdelsonVLandis 14y ago
"It means my family can buy better stuff than they could 40 years ago for a much cheaper price..." This can mean one of two things. You may mean you are from one of the wealthier families who have benefited from the decline of US hourly wages. If so, you're in a minority. If you mean it in a more general sense, I don't think you understand the concept of the terms inflation-adjusted wages or real wages. The man in 2012 making less in inflation-adjusted hourly wages than his father did 40 years ago can not buy more with his wages. The amount of food, clothes etc. he can buy after eight hours work is less, not more. I don't think you understand what I mean by real wages or inflation-adjusted wages. The average American working 40 hours a week can not afford as much food, clothes etc. as he could 40 years ago. Because real hourly wages have fallen over the past 40 years.
- marknutter 14y ago
  But goods are cheaper today than they were 40 years go, thanks in large part to globalization and manufacturing innovations. So if goods are cheaper, does it really matter if real wages have declined? And looking at the data, to me it looks like real wages are roughly at the same level they were 50 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gi...). If goods a cheaper and real wages are roughly the same, aren't we all better off?
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  The man in 2012 making less in inflation-adjusted hourly wages than his father did 40 years ago can not buy more with his wages. This is true. But the figures you cite adjust for Chained CPI, not inflation. Chained CPI is not the same thing as inflation because the basket of goods does not remain constant. Any purported inflation metric which doesn't come with a starting date is flawed. In fact, people today spend far less of their income on food, clothes, etc as they did 40 years ago.