0
0

[–] kurtznnj ago 

Do any of these articles/studies ever address the fact that in 1974 you couldn't buy an iPhone/Android smartphone or have 300mb/sec fiber internet in your house/apartment? Simply put, I call this "historic divergence" bullshit until an economist corrects for the historical purchasing power of an individual.

0
0

[–] flyawayhigh [S] ago 

This study naturally holds your concerns constant. It's built right into the numbers. The worker may be getting less or more today than in the past but one thing is clear -- the producer is taking a greater share of the wealth created. You can call BS if you want, but the numbers here speak for themselves.

If this were a study of inflation, cost-of-living, or standard-of-living, your concerns would be legitimate.

0
0

[–] kurtznnj ago  (edited ago)

But a worker in 1983 was driving a car without airbags, ABS or modern collision frames. A worker in 1983 wouldn't instantly access information on a smart phone with an LTE connection nearly anywhere in the US. There have been significant medical advances that simply couldn't be purchased with any amount of money in 1983 that are available today. So I really don't buy this argument because today we have so much more than what we had, even just 10 years ago. This qualitative factor is not considered in these studies.

0
0

[–] EndDrugAndOtherWars ago 

I blame fascism and feminism, in that order.

0
1

[–] Cuilrunnings 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

IMO this is due to American workers having a historical monopoly on semi-skilled labor. Once globalization happened, global poverty dropped significantly, whereas semi-skilled labor "stalled." Healthcare and other non-monetary benefits have increased in value since that time though. The answer is very complicated.