…sounds like he worked the system to his advantage. He did not pay taxes? Sounds liberterian to me. Saved his money? Very conservative of him. Smart guy, that fella (-:
Just as smart as drug dealers, thieves, pimps, and prostitutes that don’t don’t pay taxes. They must all be conservative as well.
…he’s just looking out for number one. You’re pissed he’s smarter than you. Besides, CEO’s who weasel out of paying taxes alltogether are on the same level criminals are? Well, at least we agree on something (-:[/quote]
I am not pissed and I don’t beleive he is smarter than me. Anyone who breaks the law is a criminal. What don’t you understand about that? Pretty simple.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
What about over the last 35? Average wages peaked in 1973 in the US.
And what has happened to productivity? Wages and productivity are strongly correlated.[/quote]
Another area where your economic theory holds no water in the real world and, strangely, no one seems to be bothered. Worker productivity has doubled in real terms since 1968, whereas wages have actually declined (again, in real terms).
Apparently you would have it that wages declined because Americans have become slothful and lazy. Wrong. Multiple jobholding rates have shot up, people work an average of 200 additional hours per year than in 1973, and there is really nothing much to show for it at all.
…sounds like he worked the system to his advantage. He did not pay taxes? Sounds liberterian to me. Saved his money? Very conservative of him. Smart guy, that fella (-:
Just as smart as drug dealers, thieves, pimps, and prostitutes that don’t don’t pay taxes. They must all be conservative as well.
…he’s just looking out for number one. You’re pissed he’s smarter than you. Besides, CEO’s who weasel out of paying taxes alltogether are on the same level criminals are? Well, at least we agree on something (-:
I am not pissed and I don’t beleive he is smarter than me. Anyone who breaks the law is a criminal. What don’t you understand about that? Pretty simple.[/quote]
That is a circular definition though and therefore meaningless.
[quote]Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
What about over the last 35? Average wages peaked in 1973 in the US.
And what has happened to productivity? Wages and productivity are strongly correlated.
Another area where your economic theory holds no water in the real world and, strangely, no one seems to be bothered. Worker productivity has doubled in real terms since 1968, whereas wages have actually declined (again, in real terms).
[/quote]
I´d like to see those numbers.
And remember that hedonic statistics and such neat tricks where part of US government reports since the early 80s-
Plus, you are comparing two different periods, because while real wages might have declined they are definitily not lower than in 1968 and yet you seem to count every productivity increase from 1968 onward.
You cannot have it both ways.
Also, you do not need to demonstrate that real wages have gone down, but that real wages per hour have declined without a loss of productivity.
[quote]orion wrote:
Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
What about over the last 35? Average wages peaked in 1973 in the US.
And what has happened to productivity? Wages and productivity are strongly correlated.
Another area where your economic theory holds no water in the real world and, strangely, no one seems to be bothered. Worker productivity has doubled in real terms since 1968, whereas wages have actually declined (again, in real terms).
I´d like to see those numbers.
And remember that hedonic statistics and such neat tricks where part of US government reports since the early 80s-
Plus, you are comparing two different periods, because while real wages might have declined they are definitily not lower than in 1968 and yet you seem to count every productivity increase from 1968 onward.
You cannot have it both ways.
Also, you do not need to demonstrate that real wages have gone down, but that real wages per hour have declined without a loss of productivity.
Then you have something to work with.
[/quote]
I largely agree with you. I think the actual “loss” in productivity occurs mostly through deadweight losses in excess government regulations and taxes. Unionization has no doubt contributed. My grandfather and father used to own and run a sheet metal plant in Los Angeles in the 1970s. My grandfather once remarked to me that, “The whites never wanted to work.” There has been a loss in worker productivity as well. I mean, look at me - I’m here typing on teh interwebz instead of working. Oh well. Back to work.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Apparently you would have it that wages declined because Americans have become slothful and lazy. Wrong. Multiple jobholding rates have shot up, people work an average of 200 additional hours per year than in 1973, and there is really nothing much to show for it at all.[/quote]
I never even tried to imply any such thing. There are a few things to consider:
Women work more now than ever before and can be considered less productive because they spend less time working especially since they prefer to take care of their family. If you don’t believe me, ask a professional women at the top of her industry how much time she spends with her family verses how much time she would like to. Ask an other woman in the lower tier how much time she takes off for family related events. I bet there is a huge disparity between the two. Since women nearly make up 50% of the work force this is not to be unexpected. This is not necessarily a bad thing except now we have to wonder why women in a family are forced to work in stead of working because they want to.
Holding multiple jobs is also an indicator that one is not productive. After all, all we need to do is look at the definition of the word productivity to determine this – the amount of income produced versus the time spent producing it. A person who cannot specialize in his career will not be as productive as someone who can. For example, someone who sweeps the floor of a factory (and then works a second job at McDonald’s) verses someone who fixes or operates machinery in that same factory is not as productive as the latter.
Just because more people or more people spend more time working does not mean there is inherently more productivity because productivity is measured as the rate of income; for example, producing 1 pair of shoe per hour verses 2 pairs of shoes per hour. We often get a very distorted view of productivity because we use money to measure income but then we have to take into account inflation. The individual producer knows whether he was more productive or not in terms of how many like goods he produces in the same amount of time.
You cannot bring value judgments into this discussion and expect that it means something in terms of economic law. Though I am sure there is good opportunity to get into a heated debate in a feminist studies class.