0
8

[–] fluffyunbound 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

If you look at the graph, although they would LIKE the issue to have begun in 1980 (so it can be connected to Reagan), the series lines make it clear that the problem actually began in 1972.

The US went off the gold standard in August of 1971.

0
4

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Guess what else happened around that time? February 12, 1972 - Nixon Visits China. That was the start of normalization and increased trade with China.

0
2

[–] CallASpadeASpade 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You cant pin it down to a year like that. To some degree, this graph is just fun with statistics. Its indexed to 1949, but if you're familiar with this stuff, you know that wages and productivity have tracked together since 1860 (when such records were first kept), and that during the 40s and 50s wages were actually abnormally high relative to productivity. I only being that up because given that, if you index to 1949 it makes the recent divergence more dramatic than it actually is, and also changes the date at which it occurs. That said, there has been a real divergence, even against the longer-term trend, and it occured sometime between 1970 and 1990. But putting an actual year to it is impossible.

0
1

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

I agree with you interpretation of the graph. Interesting point about the gold standard. Maybe inflation was the mechanism by which the masses could be fooled out of their usual share of the pie - which I think did pretty much happen.

0
1

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

I definitely think it has a lot to do with our monetary system. The debt based banking system instated by the federal reserve act is essentially what's robbing the country of tremendous wealth. End the fed and create debt free currency and America will be incredibly rich and prosperous.

0
2

[–] fluffyunbound 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think that ending the gold standard distributed wealth to the financial class even more than it destroyed wealth.

A fiat currency with an active central bank favors:

  1. The first recipients of money created by the central bank (i.e. other banks)
  2. Existing holders of financial and fixed assets (because the central bank will seek to avoid deflation at all costs, and this benefits leveraged asset holders)
  3. The first recipients of deficit funds spent by the government

The share of national income going to parties covered by these 3 has steadily increased since 1972. Nothing else tracks the curve as well.

0
6

[–] ObsidianSifaka 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

So productivity started to skyrocket about the time computers were becoming user friendly. Guess companies justified not increasing pay as much by saying the computer was doing the hard part and people weren't having to work as hard anymore.

5
5

[–] philjones85 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

The problem is automation. In a free market economy, when the workers were responsible for production, the graph on the right would be corrected by competitors coming in and either charging less or paying the workers more. Now that automation is responsible for the majority of production, there's no reason to pay the workforce more. Sure programmers and mechanical engineers will get paid (because they create the machines that are responsible for production), but the majority of the population is going to suffer.

If you go to college, get a STEM degree... or you're going to spend a lot of money, go into debt, and then enter an economy that isn't going to pay you anyway...

0
25

[–] Martel-Sobieski 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

Actually the problem was adding women to the workplace which no one wants to talk about. If i told you tomorrow we were adding 100 million immigrants to the workplace people would riot and wages would stagnate.

Instead they painted it as some "empowerment" bullshit so they were happy to fall for the con

1
4

[–] Mylon 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Women may have delayed the automation by suppressing wages sooner. But without automation, it would have been a temporary dip before wages rose once more.

0
2

[–] jackofdiamonds 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

We should have responded to women entering the workforce by dropping to a 30 how work week. When labor is scarce, wages go up.

0
0

[–] Super_Cooper 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Agreed, the late 70s and early 80s was when women fully entered the workforce. Automation was not a thing then. Computers were barely a thing and they were expensive toys and scientific instruments. It was definitely women entering the workforce that did it. There is no other explanation. I would also like to add that a debt based currency via the Federal Reserve isn't helping either. An economy that runs entirely on the expansion of credit eventually ends up eating it's own tail.

0
4

[–] CallASpadeASpade 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Automation has been increasing at a steady pace since the late 1800s. It makes no sense that wage growth would collapse in the mid-to-late 70s. You need to look at the dead-on correlation in this graph to see what's happening.

0
0

[–] Pessimist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, that looks fairly persuasive, really. And of course it makes sense in terms of supply and demand. Back then though, don't you think most of the immigrants were in agriculture?

0
0

[–] lyin4rmu 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

it's probably a mix of different factors. i think mid to late 70s is when personal computing took off. technology vastly increased the productivity of employees. as computing technology increases so does productivity and computing technology has been following moore's law.

0
2

[–] wuzizname 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is the correct answer. 1980 marked the beginning of the Information Age where a great majority of tasks became a lot easier because of automation. And not just assembly lines, but in offices with word processors and desktop publishing. A lot of jobs that required very specific and highly trained talents were no longer needed.

I work in marketing and advertising and like to talk with the old folks about where all the illustrators, typesetters, layout board artists, and pressmen are doing today while I hack like me can spin out an ad in Illustrator in an hour and send it to press myself - something that would've taken a dozen people weeks to do in the 80s.

0
1

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

But if you look at the graph and just ignore that arbitrary vertical line, you see that the divergence actually started earlier than that. Looks more like the early 70's. And there really wasn't much by the way of automation in manufacturing at that time. That stuff came a little later.

0
0

[–] senpaithatignoresyou 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

They offshore a lot of that stuff too. They even offshore paralegal research to india now.

0
1

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

The problem is automation outsourcing, women in the work force, and immigrant labor.

There, fixed that for you. Weird how people keep repeating this 'automation' myth.

0
3

[–] Mr_Quagmire 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

0
0

[–] UKD 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Agreed. I think that graph is showing inflation of the currency the wages are paid in.

1
3

[–] spookybm 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Your lack of metrics disturbs me.
1952 invention of the compiler.
1959 invention of the MOSFET.
1972 invention of the C language.

I wonder what happens then?
Oh yeah, automation.

0
0

[–] Bigdeal 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Interest in robotics increased in the late 1970s and many US companies entered the field, including large firms like General Electric, and General Motors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_robot Programming is just one piece of the automation. The robots are the real workers and that takes time to create and replace human workers.

0
0

[–] spookybm 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That dream is being coming a reality because these low skill idiots want an unreasonable pay

0
2

[–] Tallest_Skil 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

End the federal reserve or fuck off, commie.

0
2

[–] Super_Cooper 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Exactly right. Robert Reich is a little Jew commie who sucked Bill Clinton's dick. His solution is higher taxes on the wealthy and mo' money fo' dem programs. This will not work. This will make America more like Venezuela and less like Singapore. The true solution is to end the Fed and establish a debt free fiat currency, the issuance thereof is controlled by Congress, not the unelected federal reserve board.

0
1

[–] bonhomme2012 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Only sane response so far.

0
2

[–] derram 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

0
2

[–] Kannibal [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

What Changed?

I'll concede this as evidence that MAGA is necessary.

So what is the solution, and what is the president doing to address this?

0
3

[–] Naught405 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

conglomeration and multi nationals along with investment banking and new financial instruments the solution is the dissolution of conglomerates multi nationals and the separation of financial banking from banking.

An institution should be dissolved as long as it is not the organ of a single will. That is to say, under the direction of a single mind an institution is an extension of that person and works towards that person's interests. When that person is no longer in control it changes completely to self preservation. It tries as hard as it can to maintain the status quo that generates its revenue and very quickly begins working exactly counter to humanity and society in general. It wants to concentrate wealth but it doesn't do anything productive with that, it just tries to use it to further concentrate wealth or protect its existence and the status quo that preserves it. This is the essential problem here and now. This institutions are counter productive, counter progressive and literally anti human. The institution becomes an entity unto itself, it employs and enriches many people and can become extraordinarily powerful with no purpose or direction other than self preservation and the accumulation of resources.

To the extant institution innovation is dangerous, change is risk.

Also think of economies of scale vis a vis conglomeration. If you have 10,000 employed at 1 company there will be many fewer high paying high skill jobs than 100 companies each employing 100 people. Also in 1970 the Boomers entered the economy, one which now employed women and for the first time was exposed to a full generation of available labor.

0
0

[–] Kannibal [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Also in 1970 the Boomers entered the economy,

actually there was more of a transition period, and the graph shows the tilt point as being a decade later

0
1

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

muh 'He doesnt know how to work with the system REEE'

this fucking system? The one that t yielded the great regression? Fuck you fucking corrupt government fuckers

0
1

[–] White-Supremacist 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

How can he? He can't even end illegals invading, get the 35+ million illegals out, or end white discrimination.

Being able to address this is about as likely as setting the minimum wage to $30/hour.

load more comments ▼ (8 remaining)