3 ms·
If you chart the first link against productivity and GDP, I don't think it supports his argument at all: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.
by badsock 11y ago
If you chart the first link against productivity and GDP, I don't think it supports his argument at all:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1o51 https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=...
They were tied together until the 1970s, and then they began to diverge. The economic success of the country has been reflected less and less in the total compensation of the average worker since then.
- rory096 11y agoWell sure it does, when you set 1973 Q4 as index on all three... Here's centered at 1950: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1o5D https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=... Here's 2009: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1o5E https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=...
- badsock 11y agoHoly crap, sorry, that was totally unintentional. You're absolutely correct - it lends a huge visual bias. That being said, if you look at the slope of the lines in all three views, it's still easy to see that they diverge. In the 1950s one, you can tell that the GDP takes off in the 80s without bringing compensation with it, and the productivity does the same in the mid-70s. This is directly contrary to the whole "rising tide raises all boats" arguments from that era.