Jump to content

Obamanomics


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The income gap is one of the stupidest fake problems ever created. Whenever you ask anyone to explain why it's such an issue, the only response you'll get is that "It's been proven to be bad." (like global warming).

Yes, we should overhaul the tax code and entitlements because 1-2% of the people are way out of bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they picked the early 70s as their demark.

 

Anything else happening around that time period that may explain the spurt in productivity without a corresponding growth in wages?

 

Maybe something that removes human labor from the equation? Like integrated circuits and microprocessors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they picked the early 70s as their demark.

 

Anything else happening around that time period that may explain the spurt in productivity without a corresponding growth in wages?

 

Maybe something that removes human labor from the equation? Like integrated circuits and microprocessors?

The solution is to cap a company's use of computers. We have to mandate a person/robot hiring ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they picked the early 70s as their demark.

 

Anything else happening around that time period that may explain the spurt in productivity without a corresponding growth in wages?

 

Maybe something that removes human labor from the equation? Like integrated circuits and microprocessors?

You miss the point entirely. Productivity increases allow firms to increase wages without increasing costs, and for the some 25+ years labor shared in those gains which helped create a vibrant middle class.

 

By definition, increased productivity means producing more output per worker which occurs usually through technological progress (your microprocessors). That means firms can pay the remaining workers higher wages, but that stopped beginning in the mid-1970s, and the gains went to corporate profit. This is also when inequality began to rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You miss the point entirely. Productivity increases allow firms to increase wages without increasing costs, and for the some 25+ years labor shared in those gains which helped create a vibrant middle class.

 

By definition, increased productivity means producing more output per worker which occurs usually through technological progress (your microprocessors). That means firms can pay the remaining workers higher wages, but that stopped beginning in the mid-1970s, and the gains went to corporate profit. This is also when inequality began to rise.

What about the possibility that technology advances increased productivity to the extent that less humans were needed, thus making it a buyer's market and suppressing wages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also have to think about the robots splitting wages with humans. They require a larger upkeep cost than previous automation.

 

So the labor force consists of the human plus equipment along with increased safety, environmental protection, insurance costs. The pie was split so many ways.

 

This is what we mean when we say that the cost is passed on. Every new regulation cost gets pushed to either the consumer (occasionally) or the employee (mostly).

Edited by unbillievable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also have to think about the robots splitting wages with humans. They require a larger upkeep cost than previous automation.

 

So the labor force consists of the human plus equipment along with increased safety, environmental protection, insurance costs. The pie was split so many ways.

 

This is what we mean when we say that the cost is passed on. Every new regulation cost gets pushed to either the consumer (occasionally) or the employee (mostly).

With all that harsh regulation CEOs somehow managed to increase their compensation from around 40 times the average company's worker's wage to around 400 times the average company's worker's wage.

Edited by ....lybob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the possibility that technology advances increased productivity to the extent that less humans were needed, thus making it a buyer's market and suppressing wages?

it is related to that which is referred to as workers' bargaining power. The main driver that reduced bargaining power was the first phase of deindustrialization as US manufacturing firms shifted work to Mexico, what's known as the maquiladora industry.

Ah yes, my favorite Leftist rebuttal to point out a flaw in their argument. Well you just don't get it :)

i would've said "you're an idiot", but I'm not allowed to use that term here....😎
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is related to that which is referred to as workers' bargaining power. The main driver that reduced bargaining power was the first phase of deindustrialization as US manufacturing firms shifted work to Mexico, what's known as the maquiladora industry.

i would've said "you're an idiot", but I'm not allowed to use that term here....

Gee, you could have just said "you're right".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all that harsh regulation CEOs somehow managed to increase their compensation from around 40 times the average company's worker's wage to around 400 times the average company's worker's wage.

Which proves that we turned the labor force into worthless cogs while the demand for leaders (the decision makers) became more valuable. We handed a share of the wages to robots, but required more competent CEO's to juggle the increasingly faster paced, global, market.

 

The market did exactly what we expected it to do. Trying to manipulate the system creates predictable (and intentional) adjustments. IE; if you hand out welfare checks, companies can pay their employees less because more people are willing to accept the job as a supplement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which proves that we turned the labor force into worthless cogs while the demand for leaders (the decision makers) became more valuable. We handed a share of the wages to robots, but required more competent CEO's to juggle the increasingly faster paced, global, market.

 

The market did exactly what we expected it to do. Trying to manipulate the system creates predictable (and intentional) adjustments. IE; if you hand out welfare checks, companies can pay their employees less because more people are willing to accept the job as a supplement.

Who is this we you speak of ? and how have you turned our labor force into worthless cogs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what's up with that? Younger generation putting up their noses to jobs they feel are beneath them? Colleges not training for the right jobs?

Why would they? They get the same amount of $ for each degree. Just make it free (subsidized) and we can pump out art and philosophy majors by the score!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...