Liberal non-news

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:

This is is of course ignoring that you're trying to shift your argument away from your point about job demand driving wage growth, which has been shown to be completely and utterly false.

YOU are the one changing subjects.

Your chart shows that wages haven't kept pace with productivity. That is proof of my point not evidence to the contrary.

No, it actually DISPROVES your point because the US was at full employment for a number of those years.

The US was at the natural rate of unemployment for much of the mid-2000s. Yet, wage growth did not exceed inflation. Explain this economic fact. The answer is not "there weren't enough workers to cause wages to rise."

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Full employment meaning everyone who really wants a job has one or is only without one for a short time? That does not equal a shortage of workers which would drive wages higher. With Millions of illegals soaking up any jobs that need filled ther is no need to raise wages. You still haven't given any reason for wages to be higher other than profits being higher. My farm profits were much higher the last couple years but I haven't seen the need to disperse them to the community. Demand for workers drives wages not corporate profitability.

This is not the answer. This is not the answer at all.

Full employment is defined as, functionally, everyone who really wants a job has one. This means that parts of the work force are generally in a shortage of workers, which should drive wage inflation.

Illegals are not a good explanation for low wage inflation. They might be a part of the answer were the US not at full employment at that time. But, we were there, so they didn't matter. Further, illegals really don't impact the wages and work prospects of a good percentage of Americans. They are basically a non-factor for the job prospects college-educated people, for instance, or for people who live in many parts of the country. Yet, if I look at wage inflation by region, illegals didn't hurt wages in places like California, Arizona, or Texas in the 2000s relative to the rest of America. In fact, the opposite was true - immigrants helped fuel the housing boom in those places, which actually increased wages in these areas.

Your last point is a red herring about profits; no one is saying high profits means people should be hired. You're just making that up. The point is the value of productivity gains is being captured as profits for the last 30-35 years in a way that did not manifest for prior generations. The core story of wage stagnation is that productivity gains no longer go to workers. You have to acknowledge this fact if you want to seriously talk about wage stagnation.

This is not just a US-based phenomenon; it is a global issue.

 

[wcowherd]

I thought about typing out a rebuttal, but then I thought better about it. It's quite obvious miller is wrong, and i don't have the stamina to write out rebuttal after rebuttal.

 

[Buck Commander]

Originally posted by wcowherd:
I thought about typing out a rebuttal, but then I thought better about it. It's quite obvious miller is wrong, and i don't have the stamina to write out rebuttal after rebuttal.

Wilson you need to take a break at least from this part of the site. Miller is an idiot, you know it, I know it, everyone with a functioning brain realizes Miller is among the most ignorant people in the state.

You'll feel better if you take a break, you're far too young to devote this much time to this crap.

 

[Buck Commander]

Re: BREAKING NEWS

Ag, how specifically is the country headed in the wrong direction?

How are these problems in any way different than they have been under the last 2 or 3 presidents?

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:
You're saying there hasn't been a strong demand for jobs at any point in the last 55 year? Stagnant wages of not about jobs, which is what you said.



Posted from Rivals Mobile



Find a chart that includes benefits and you won't see near the disparity. In the last 55 years the cost of benefits has grown substantially as has the number and quality of benefits given.




Your point about increased benefits is also completely wrong. With increased benefits, you should see an increase in real wages because your money has more purchasing power because you have more income to spend on things that were originally devoted to the benefits you now receive. Instead you see a flat line, which suggests that if you assume increased benefits, then then there must be a generally stagnant real income growth over the same period of time. And sure enough, except for the top 25% or so, incomes have have remained generally stagnant over time.

Wages and purchacing power are different things!
When a person doesn't have to buy health insurance because his employer is paying for it his purchacing power increased but his wages are still the same unless he gets a raise. THAT was my point not yours!
Profitability has increased ofer the years because of increased productivity. Wages have not because increased productivity reduces the need for workers....less demand.

You realize you said he's wrong and then said the exact same thing he said???

Profitability has increased for more than just "productivity." Workers used to reap the gains of productivity - that's how their real wages increased. Logically, how else do their wages increase (after adjusting for inflation) if the workers didn't become more productive? You can't pay people more and more for doing the same work in the long run (on an inflation adjusted basis); you'll be bankrupt.

What has happened is a shift in the economy where the value of increased productivity is being taken as profits instead of as increased wages. That's not caused by workers being more productive. Productivity has been steadily increasing for two centuries now. Workers took those gains for the first 170 years or so. It's a recent trend that wages have not kept up with productivity due to capture as corporate profits.

Wrong. He said I was proven wrong and said the same thing I had said. That is why I said he can't be that stupid.

The problem is that the increase in productivity is largely due to investments by the company in tech to make workers more efficient not worker training and effort. When I started working 35 years ago everything was done with a hammer and torch. How efficient I was determined company profits. Now we use computer programed waterjets and CNC machines that produce more, faster, and virtually on their own. That increase in productivity is not due to the worker. There are countless smaller examples I could cite just in my small corner of the world. Do you think that productivity increase should reward those not responsible? In that same 35 years my wages have increased 5 fold and top pay in my field has increased 3 fold.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:

This is is of course ignoring that you're trying to shift your argument away from your point about job demand driving wage growth, which has been shown to be completely and utterly false.

YOU are the one changing subjects.

Your chart shows that wages haven't kept pace with productivity. That is proof of my point not evidence to the contrary.

No, it actually DISPROVES your point because the US was at full employment for a number of those years.

The US was at the natural rate of unemployment for much of the mid-2000s. Yet, wage growth did not exceed inflation. Explain this economic fact. The answer is not "there weren't enough workers to cause wages to rise."

My point was that we had too many workers (low job demand) thus wages low not that we didn't have enough.

 

[wcowherd]

Miller never fails to give anecdotal evidence and declare it must be true for all situations.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[wcowherd]

It might also be helpful for miller to understand that real wages and purchasing power are the same thing.

The term real wages refers to wages that have been adjusted for inflation, or, equivalently, wages in terms of the amount of goods and services that can be bought.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Full employment meaning everyone who really wants a job has one or is only without one for a short time? That does not equal a shortage of workers which would drive wages higher. With Millions of illegals soaking up any jobs that need filled ther is no need to raise wages. You still haven't given any reason for wages to be higher other than profits being higher. My farm profits were much higher the last couple years but I haven't seen the need to disperse them to the community. Demand for workers drives wages not corporate profitability.

This is not the answer. This is not the answer at all.

Full employment is defined as, functionally, everyone who really wants a job has one. This means that parts of the work force are generally in a shortage of workers, which should drive wage inflation.

Illegals are not a good explanation for low wage inflation. They might be a part of the answer were the US not at full employment at that time. But, we were there, so they didn't matter. Further, illegals really don't impact the wages and work prospects of a good percentage of Americans. They are basically a non-factor for the job prospects college-educated people, for instance, or for people who live in many parts of the country. Yet, if I look at wage inflation by region, illegals didn't hurt wages in places like California, Arizona, or Texas in the 2000s relative to the rest of America. In fact, the opposite was true - immigrants helped fuel the housing boom in those places, which actually increased wages in these areas.

Your last point is a red herring about profits; no one is saying high profits means people should be hired. You're just making that up. The point is the value of productivity gains is being captured as profits for the last 30-35 years in a way that did not manifest for prior generations. The core story of wage stagnation is that productivity gains no longer go to workers. You have to acknowledge this fact if you want to seriously talk about wage stagnation.

This is not just a US-based phenomenon; it is a global issue.

1) "Full" employment does not equal a shortage of workers.
2) Saying illegals have no impact doesn't make it so.
3) Your arguement is that profits should be shared with workers at a greater percentage because productivity has increased whether the workers created that increased productivity or not. I am saying that profits should go to those responsible for the increased productivity and there is no reason to do otherwise when there isn't a shortage of workers. If a bobot replaces me should I still get paid?

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by wcowherd:
I thought about typing out a rebuttal, but then I thought better about it. It's quite obvious miller is wrong, and i don't have the stamina to write out rebuttal after rebuttal.

Weakling!
I acknowledge the trend of profits not being put into wages. I acknowledge the problems associated with the trend. Employers are doing nothing unethical to cause the trend though.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by wcowherd:
It might also be helpful for miller to understand that real wages and purchasing power are the same thing.

The term real wages refers to wages that have been adjusted for inflation, or, equivalently, wages in terms of the amount of goods and services that can be bought.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

You are once again stating my point! But, you are not counting benefits that increase purchacing power while not increasing wages. Purchacing power HAS increased while wages have not.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Buck Commander:

Originally posted by wcowherd:
I thought about typing out a rebuttal, but then I thought better about it. It's quite obvious miller is wrong, and i don't have the stamina to write out rebuttal after rebuttal.

Wilson you need to take a break at least from this part of the site. Buck is an idiot, you know it, I know it, everyone with a functioning brain realizes Buck is among the most ignorant people in the state.

You'll feel better if you take a break, you're far too young to devote this much time to this crap.

True.

 

[wcowherd]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:
It might also be helpful for miller to understand that real wages and purchasing power are the same thing.

The term real wages refers to wages that have been adjusted for inflation, or, equivalently, wages in terms of the amount of goods and services that can be bought.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

You are once again stating my point! But, you are not counting benefits that increase purchacing power while not increasing wages. Purchacing power HAS increased while wages have not.

Do you understand that real wages = purchasing power?

If benefits really increased purchasing power, then real wages would go up, because real wages measure purchasing power. Yet they have not increased for 55 years. Your point is just flat wrong.

 

[3Rfan]

Miller in what world have benefits gone up? Every contract for anybody I know the companies want to give LESS benefits and want the employees to pay more for it. Just since I left the RR employee contributions to their health care plan has more than tripled and their coverage got worse.

 

[vbsideout]

These type of arguments explain why the Pubs can stay relevant. People vote for them not realizing they are voting against their best interest.

 

[runyouover]

Why so diplomatic? Just say it. Republicans can count on their base of stupid people.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by wcowherd:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:
It might also be helpful for miller to understand that real wages and purchasing power are the same thing.

The term real wages refers to wages that have been adjusted for inflation, or, equivalently, wages in terms of the amount of goods and services that can be bought.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

You are once again stating my point! But, you are not counting benefits that increase purchacing power while not increasing wages. Purchacing power HAS increased while wages have not.

Do you understand that real wages = purchasing power?

If benefits really increased purchasing power, then real wages would go up, because real wages measure purchasing power. Yet they have not increased for 55 years. Your point is just flat wrong.

Wrong. Real WAGES are what your WAGES buy. Real WAGES does not include benefits which add to purchacing power on top of real wages. The wage purchacing power has not increased but total compensation purchacing power is different than real WAGES purchacing power.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Miller in what world have benefits gone up? Every contract for anybody I know the companies want to give LESS benefits and want the employees to pay more for it. Just since I left the RR employee contributions to their health care plan has more than tripled and their coverage got worse.

Cowherds chart is for the last 55 years. That is the timeframe I am addressing. If you want to talk the last 6 yrs......

 

[wcowherd]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:
It might also be helpful for miller to understand that real wages and purchasing power are the same thing.

The term real wages refers to wages that have been adjusted for inflation, or, equivalently, wages in terms of the amount of goods and services that can be bought.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

You are once again stating my point! But, you are not counting benefits that increase purchacing power while not increasing wages. Purchacing power HAS increased while wages have not.

Do you understand that real wages = purchasing power?

If benefits really increased purchasing power, then real wages would go up, because real wages measure purchasing power. Yet they have not increased for 55 years. Your point is just flat wrong.

Wrong. Real WAGES are what your WAGES buy. Real WAGES does not include benefits which add to purchacing power on top of real wages. The wage purchacing power has not increased but total compensation purchacing power is different than real WAGES purchacing power.

God, you are thick. You are just making up phrases now. "Total compensation purchasing power"? Not even a real thing.

Anyway, let me see if I can explain it any more clearly. If benefits really were increased in the last 55 years, then your wages should be able to buy more things because you're not purchasing things you used to, thereby increasing your real wages. However, that is clearly not the case. I really don't know how much clearer I can be.

 

[Buck Commander]

Clever

 

[Scout 4u]

Don't really get your point wc?

Education is the solution to low wages and unemployment ...
not ECON 101, Graphs, Unions or Barack Obama .

 

[Neutron Monster]

Decline in the power of american unions is a factor which has hurt middle class incomes, scout.

 

[wcowherd]

I'm not suggesting an answer for the problem of stagnant wages. Just pointing out miller is wrong.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by wcowherd:

God, you are thick. You are just making up phrases now. "Total compensation purchasing power"? Not even a real thing.

Anyway, let me see if I can explain it any more clearly. If benefits really were increased in the last 55 years, then your wages should be able to buy more things because you're not purchasing things you used to, thereby increasing your real wages. However, that is clearly not the case. I really don't know how much clearer I can be.

Thick? You are the one who can't understand the definition of words!
Real wages is the inflation adjusted wages. THAT does not include benefits!!!!!

The purchacing power that is increased because you have benefits provided by your employer, instead of purchacing them from your wages, is an increase in purchacing power but not an increase in real WAGES.
An increase in real WAGES would allow you to purchace more benefits for your dollar but since your employer is now providing the benefit you have an additional increase in purchacing power but not in real WAGES.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Decline in the power of american unions is a factor which has hurt middle class incomes, scout.

Not if you are excelling in what you do. Unions just make everyone equal in pay.

 

[wcowherd]

Eh, forget it. Not worth it.

This post was edited on 1/3 9:44 PM by wcowherd

 

[Neutron Monster]

Yes but equal at a higher level improves median incomes in many cases.

I'm not mr Union (I have no urge to ever be a member) but they can and do improve pay for groups of employees whose ability to ask for raises is higher as a collective than as an individual. The downside is, as you note, that means pay is standardized, which hurts high performers.

The decline in unionization is heavily correlated with a decline in middle class wages.

Decline in manufacturing is another cause.

 

[3Rfan]

Miller if you think union wages have had no affect on wages of non union workers then I'll bet you think trains are going the way of the horse and buggy too.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Nice one.

 

[Scout 4u]

Not to change the topic totally but...Unions ?

I was a member of two of the largest unions in the country for almost a decade and would never go back. Yes I made higher wages, benefits were great and hours amazing but....

As soon as the company found a new work force willing to work for nothing in Washington State they closed the plant and moved. Those who were to old to start over were left out in the cold "under"- educated with no hope for the future.

What is the union answer to this?

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Miller if you think union wages have had no affect on wages of non union workers then I'll bet you think trains are going the way of the horse and buggy too.

90% of the people I work with have been in a union in the same sector as they currently work. Not 10 percent would go back to the lower wages and less personal relationship to their employer. Those 10% are useful employees but not prized.

I know, just anecdotal evidence. Funny how no one else can have a good outcome when the deck is "stacked".

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Yes but equal at a higher level improves median incomes in many cases.

I'm not mr Union (I have no urge to ever be a member) but they can and do improve pay for groups of employees whose ability to ask for raises is higher as a collective than as an individual. The downside is, as you note, that means pay is standardized, which hurts high performers.

The decline in unionization is heavily correlated with a decline in middle class wages.

Decline in manufacturing is another cause.

I just believe if you are more concerned with the median you dont inspire the excellent and thus drag all to a higher level. Eventually the median drags everyone lower. If the Excellent were bolder in demanding correct compensation they would also drag the median higher.

 

[3Rfan]

If you're not inspired/excellent you don't get promotions and higher wages/easier jobs. I held several different positions on the RR. Trackman(laborer),machine operator, welder helper, foreman and relief track inspector. At times I gave up a higher paying job to get a headquartered job close to home. Most of the time that was my choice, sometimes the higher paying job got cutoff so I went back to a trackman job whether that could be at home or on the road.

 

[millerbleach]

I've seen way too many promotions based on seniority in the union. The only time i've seen a promotion to someone low in seniority is if they moved to management out from under the union umbrella.

 

[3Rfan]

I mostly know about RR jobs since that's almost the only experience I had on the job or with a union. I did work a couple of years at my brother's service station and a couple more at a Rowe Furniture factory here in town then started on the RR a month before I turned 20. At any of them length of service was considered for raises or promotion but if you couldn't do the job it wasn't long before you were sent back to your previous position or sent home.

 

[Neutron Monster]

No, median measures the middle class best, which is why it is cited in discussions of income. Average is distorted by pay of the top 1-5% (which is heavily influenced by the stock market)

 

[Black&Gold82]

Originally posted by Duck_walk:
The biggest growth is part-time jobs with no benefits.
Duh.

I thought teachers got benefits?

 

[3Rfan]

Is there a lot of growth in the teaching profession?

 

[Neutron Monster]

No. State and local government employment has been one of the worst performing sectors for employment over the past 3-5 years.

Things are thawing a bit based on the overall data but it suggests it's been a tough time to graduate from college with a teaching degree.