>conservatives will defend this
>>71145049
you're barking up the wrong tree;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html
>>71145187
In a liberal soiety, Conservism equals Liberalism.
>>71145049
The answer your looking for is women's rights, they literally doubled the labor force and thus, lowered the wages for everyone
>>71145049
/pol/ isn't conservative
Most of the productivity gains since 1980 have been due to better machines (computation or otherwise), and those machines are not owned by the laborers. Pretty simple. Eventually this "disruption," as Silicon Valley likes to put it, will completely destroy the worldwide labor-based economy.
>>71147445
Luddite fallacy.
>>71147206
Doesn't compute m8. Women participation rose steadily in 60-79 without much of crisis. Shit really hit the fan in 1980 and after .
>>71147668
I don't blame you for thinking this, or at least, hoping it, but things actually can change in this world. Just because value is not derived from labor doesn't mean humanity ends and we all starve to death as peasants, either.
>>71145049
Where do you think that $32 Trillion hidden offshore came from? It came from us.
>>71145049
36 years. No trickle yet.
>>71147445
This applies in a sense that in a long run, technology is the only thing that will increase the productivity. Look up the law of diminishing returns.
However, that immediately doesn't mean that labor force shouldn't receive growing wages according to the rising overall prices. Naturally this isn't to the interests of the companies since it would increase their labor costs, which leads to offshoring, reducing the use of labor due to increasing productivity from more advanced tech (which requires investments) or trying to retain the status quo.
>>71147445
>specifcaly omitting outsourcing of jobs
>>71145049
Because with the invention of computers we are now able to be way more productive then typewriters and shuffling papers.
>>71145049
>I'll take automation for 500 Alex
>>71147206
This. Plus automatization.
>>71147445
Retard, that doesn't explain why wages rose before. Do you think your grandparents literally worked harder every year or something?
>>71147206
>>71145049
Because of outsourcing and globalism.
Considering the current crisis with H1B curries. There are literally millions of IT and programming jobs that are being outsourced to curries. Sure, you get more productivity (if you can call half-broken junk productive) for a lower cost, but in the long run you aren't giving Americans the work experience they need to grow their skill and become more productive. The result is a positive reinforcement cycle in which American productivity goes down because they don't get valuable experience will make them more productive. Globalism is for the most part a complete cancer and in the long run it has no value.
It's the same shit with illegals. Businesses should be hiring for entry-level jobs exclusively from the native US population.
>>71148448
90% of women between 25 and 54 are unmarried
your cohencidence does not compute
>>71148448
>Women participation starts increasing in 1960
>decoupling of GDP and labor compensation happens in 1980
>what is wrong?
>>71147445
No, in the next 15 years computing and machinery will not grow at the same levels it had for the last 30 years.
We will get self driving cars, and quantum computers might keep he train rolling for a little longer, but growth in computing will slow down.
Transhumanists and technological singularityfags are naiive for thinking this growth will last forever.
>>71147445
There weren't machines before 1980?
The reason is not women and not globalization.
It's Monetarism. They created unemployment with interest rates (red graph) that were higher than economic growth (blue graph).
>>71145187
Oy vey goyim there's nothing wrong with multi-billionaires getting taxed less than you.
>>71148638
>90% of women between 25 and 54 are unmarried
You're reading the graph wrong.
>>71148698
These idiots will come up with any cockamamie explanation to deflect from the failure that is Reaganomics.
>>71148966
That's exactly what I've tricked /pol/ into thinking.
Those idiots serve me now.
>>71147299
/thread
>not mentioning immigration act of 1965
kek
>>71149236
>killed two digit unemployment
>killed two digit inflation
Gee, I'm sure he got a second mandate out of sheer luck :^)
>>71149329
It's also exactly what Ted Cruz (the Canadian) wants
coincidence?
>>71149769
>Wall Street
>>71149641
Reagan was good only because he increased spending and (Volcker the last non jew to ever be appointed to the FED) increased interest rates
Everything else he did amnesty, wall street deregulation, etc sucked.
>>71145049
How much of the increase in production is due to automation?
>>71149851
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply
>>71145049
according to the graph, rates stopped rising around 71. there was a slight bubble then crash
>>71149641
>>killed two digit unemployment
You mean caused it.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/12/14/reagans-recession/
It was called the Reagan Recession after all.
>killed two digit inflation
Thanks to Paul Volcker. Jimmy Carter appointed him. Not Reagan.
>Gee, I'm sure he got a second mandate out of sheer luck :^)
Funny you mention it. The unemployment rate when Reagan entered office was only 0.2% lower on election day 1984.
The only reason why conservatives loved Reagan so much is because he TRIPLED the national debt.
Dick Cheney famously said: Reagan proved conservatives don't care about deficits.
>>71149922
Yes because there was NEVER any increase of production with the spinning jenny
I thought Brits weren't supposed to be retarded
>>71149895
Yeah I just BTFO that retard.
>>71150050
>>71150050
>deficit spending
>bad
I hate you austerity kikes so much
working women , immigration, automation, onesided free trade all influence the supply demand and cost of labor.
you can't have one income families (read Stay at home wife) and dump women in the workforce at the same time, that's why there will remain a wage gap.
>>71150082
A machine before 1980? Unpossible.
>>71150149
>>deficit spending
to cut taxes for the rich by 2/3.
Yes bad.
>>71145049
Need a line for company profits. Has that increased the same.
>>71149641
>Let's focus on the short run because in the long run we're all dead :^)
Short-sighted globalist bullshit in economics is going to pile up vertically until the entire shit tower topples over. The recession in 2008 was the little tremor before the big quake. Every Western nation is already based on services or tending in that direction. It's like no one understands the power over us that that gives to the countries whose economics actually still have manufacturing, like China. We can't all be fucking lawyers and doctors.
>>71150266
>people think defense and infrastructure spending are bad
>this is what Cruz cucks ACTUALLY believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im1QmtfHPb4
hmmm I wonder why
it couldn't possibly be all the wall street money he gets.
>>71150192
I always say they need to put an ad for their job on Craigslist and watch the applications flood in, they're no shortage of cheap workers.
>>71148069
Ah yes, Ronald Reagan, whose presidency ushered in the total downfall of the Republican party.
>there are people alive who UNIRONICALLY believe the free market meme
>>71150359
>people think defense and infrastructure spending are bad
Where did I say this?
>>71149977
It has no objective meaning, making your statistic objectively useless.
>>71145049
OP drew his break in the wrong place
>>71150510
when you pretended that running a deficit or monetizing the debt to pay for those things is wrong
>inb4 le governmnet can never do anything right maymay
>>71150685
>wall street banks don't exist
damn this is a new level of stupid
>>71147865
chart is a bit misleading...
by 1998 the female labor force doubled while the male labor force was reduced by 20%.
labor market increased in saturation.
>>71145049
I don't see the problem
>>71150050
>You mean caused it.
No, the oil crisis caused it and at no point does your article disproves it.
>Thanks to Paul Volcker
If you're trying to sell me demand-side economics, you're doing it wrong.
>he TRIPLED the national debt
Partially because of dems policies
The escalation of the cold war was expensive but has nothing to do with supply side economics
>>71150698
You do realize I'm a Bernie supporter right..
Reagan's deficits were because of tax cuts for the rich, not massive infrastructure projects.
>>71150696
Yeah Nixon started it. Reagan drove it into hyperdrive.
>>71145049
The Economic Policy Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit American think tank based in Washington, D.C.,[2] affiliated with the labor movement.[3] EPI presents a liberal[4] viewpoint on public policy issues. EPI has a sister organization, the EPI Policy Center, which is a 501(c)(4) organization.
>>71151042
Except you were bitching about the debt not about cutting top tax rates
Of course top tax rates should be high, but that's a right wing opinion (Georgism) that also states taxes should be next to nothing for the lower and middle classes.
Bernie is a fucking communist that wants to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes (see pic)
Bernie also wants to ban shoes and deodorant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8hAJ2IdNDE
supports bread lines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJBjjP8WSbc
and supports Castro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E14lsC4WLV0
>>71145049
>remove gold standard
>let millions of women and illegals work
>increase regulations so only larger buisnesses can thrive
>Expect things to not go to shit
>>71151042
>You do realize I'm a Bernie supporter right..
Well this explains that
>>71145049
>defend this
No we won't. 1980 is when the baby boomers took power.
I will happily defend killing them all though.
>>71150359
>Strategically putting Trump second from the left despite having lowest donations
>make all others have declining donations to emphasise Bernie's amount.
Somebody edit this, it's clearly intended to make Trump look bad at first glance-- a glance we all know too many people will make without inspecting closer.
>>71145049
>shill thread
We already had this thread, wherein there was a legit OP who (shit)posted to every serious reply, but now there's just this thread to slide others.
/pol/, I believe this 1-post OP/b8 thread that we've already had several times phenomenon can be explained by some memetics warfare unit trying to ruin discussion here. I know for a fact that it's gotten increasingly shittier here every day since 2014. This thread is why.
Also, the graph is misleading. polite sage
combined with >>71153131 , I would venture to say that compensation grew at least as much as productivity.
>>71152612
It's not that bad. The "29" breaks up the flow from 21mil to 12mil and forces many people to check. Still, I agree it should be edited.
>>71149769
>Rick Perry
>>71145049
Wasnt that around the time you ditched gold backed dollar to, what oil?
How is US dollar even backed up, I dont remember.
>>71153131
quit using a LOG index you fucking moron
>>71150685
some teency number/10
>>71153687
I didn't make the graph.
Anyway, what's your fucking problem? Can't you read LOG graphs? LOG graphs are more useful in economics because they show growth rates more smoothly.
>>71150192
So wait!!!
Putting the wall will actually improve the minimal wage??
Because that's what I am getting here
>>71154104
if by "putting the wall" you mean, the coincidental choice of most women to suddenly drop out of the labor force, then yes.
However, the "minimal wage" or average hourly wage is not a very good indicator of economic health.
>>71153687
>I don't understand the usefulness of LOG graphs!
>>71150050
>Paul Volcker deserves credit for ending the recession
>Reagan deserves blame for starting it
It was a policy induced recession. High interest rates created by the central bank were necessary to combat the stagflation of the 1970's. The central bank manufactured the recession to smooth out inflation and unemployment.
>>71154277
I meant more of:
Stopping the influx of illegal mexicans that are willing to work for pennies
>>71145049
Reagon nomics and globalization is to blame simple as that
>>71145049
>conservatives would defend the fiat currency system
Note: Many libertarians consider themselves conservative.
>>71154390
oh, kek.
I thought you were using some literally translated Polish euphemism for gender segregation
>>71145049
>implying this was from conservatives
Fucking hell, Democrats have had far more power in the US than Republicans for the last decade. Explain yourselves.
>>71154461
>>71154553
to blame for what? reasonable wage and productivity growth?
>>71154011
>>71153131
>>71153447
>>71154390
in part but not entirely, you have to punish employers cheats and have it as part of system
>>71155068
On a large scale it's a slippery slope, you need to back the corporate favouritism without a doubt, but if you cut it too much, they will just leave US and go to some Tax Havens.
It needs to be still favourable for them to stay in the US, but without allowing them to practically steal from their own, lowest level workers.
Also making it illegal for any organizations or corporations to donate money to any political cause would be a good idea, but unless you elect Trump its not even mildly possible.
>>71145187
They forgot to mention something else, which is that "old-school free-market ideas [gained] traction" because all the economic evidence we have indicates that these "ideas" are in fact the best option we have.
>>71145049
THE MISLEADING CLAIM: Incomes have not kept pace with productivity.
The Reality: This is arguably true, but even if accepted as true, it remains entirely misleading if not set in the proper context. Allow us to explain via thought experiment:
Imagine "Joe" could have a product simply by wishing it into existence. Perhaps a large winter jacket because it's been quite cold lately.
Now, this may sound like a silly question with an obvious answer, but in this scenario, had Joe previously not owned a winter jacket, did his quality-of-lifeincrease once obtaining the jacket? The obvious answer should be, "yes, of course."
Now consider all the hours he worked that week and all the goods he's acquired that week. His weekly labor numbers would not have changed from the prior week. It would still be 40 hours of labor and 40 hours of income. However, the number of "goods acquired" increased by the magical production of that one additional item; his new winter jacket.
On paper, what just happened?
What happened was that his income did not improve at pace with productivity increases. Regardless of this fact, however, that additionally produced item improved the quality of his life.
At this point of the thought experiment, one might be questioning the absurdity of suggesting that products can manifest magically. While true that this is hyperbolic, the point remains that labor and income did not increase in order for quality of life to increase. Now, remembering this specific point, let's demonstrate how this concept actually occurs in the real world.
>part II soon
>>71155839
Consider the introduction of computerized automation in a factory. Workmen who once produced only 1 automobile a day could instead produce 10. If one were to add up the hours worked by each employee, little would have changed in terms of time, and yet additional products were created, almost like magic.
Again, on paper, what happened?
What happened was that incomes did not improve at pace with productivity increases. And again, regardless of this fact, the additionally produced items still improved the quality of people's lives.
The term to learn here is "Total-Factor Productivity." "Total-factor productivity captures the contribution to output of everything EXCEPT labor and capital: innovation, managerial skill, organization, even luck." [a] Increases in this type of productivity have, in the long run, benefited society greatly.
We mustn't look at productivity increases via automation and forget that they couldn't continue to be viable business options unless the products were actually being purchased. It can't be denied, then, that the population IS experiencing these additional goods, DESPITE the fact that wages have not increased at the same rate as production.
The last question to ponder is whether the loss of jobs that comes with increased automation is a net detriment or not. Luckily, empirical evidence indicates this is not the case. Based on a formula by Gilles Saint-Paul, an economist at Toulouse 1 University, the demand for unskilled human capital DECLINES at a slower rate than the demand for skilled human capital INCREASES. [b] This means, as time passes, we drift upwards into more luxurious positions which rely less on unskilled labor.
>Conclusion and Sources next
>>71155603
America isn't nationalist enough and that subtext lets them get shorted, it's why corporation pick and choose what is good for them above the nation because that is what we accept as the place of a nation in globalism/multinationalism
>>71155904
CONCLUSION:
The end result of increases in total-factor productivity is that our goods grow in quality and abundance while our jobs grow less strenuous and more luxurious. There's some truth in the claim that wages have partially stagnated since the 70's. What's more appropriate, however, is to remember that this doesn't really matter, since WEALTH (income + assets) has improved. As many economists have proven time and time again, PRODUCTION is the fundamental source of wealth creation, rendering all other variables less pertinent. So when automation results in more products from less manual labor, yes, it's increasing our wealth, despite our incomes not increasing at the same rate.
-----------------------
Sources:
[a]
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Productivity.html
[b]
https://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8659.pdf (this is the copyright info and introduction only. Complete book must be purchased.)
>>71155928
can you post basically that in my bread?
>>71155259
>>71148933
Very few of them were automated. They were not that different from what we have now but before they required more people to operate because computers were not widely used in industry.
>>71145049
The median value of labor has dropped, it's that simple. Even without free trade agreements this would have happened and it's only getting worse.
Most liberals have no solution either, they are neo-liberal at heart economically. They think that if they just give all the unemployed computer programming lessons everything will be solved.
>>71147865
>lol wat is axis
This makes me so angry. RayGun raised taxes more than 10 times. Increased debt and deficits. Made the mujahideen. And is worshipped like a fucking god
>>71156599
You do realize that when a human becomes more productive because they use an Excel spreadsheet program, for example, the human is still doing the work.
>>71147299
HAHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
Ok.
>>71157138
Only by conservatives. For the reasons you just listed.
>>71157290
Yeah. Tide is and MUST be turning. But not fags like Falsedope and Shillary. But REAL anti zio anti terror social dems
>>71157165
And said humans with those skills are as expendable as tires. The oligarchy wants cheap labor forever an this race to bottom hasn't started.
>>71155904
But this has only been possible due to massive increases in redistribution. Mostly paid for by debt rather than taxes ... which wouldn't be a huge problem if people didn't keep pretending government debt is a meaningful number, but they do so it is.
>>71145049
Neoconservatism is cancer, its a shame it has completely smothered regular conservatism
>>71149769
Sanders isn't even on the list.
VOTE SANDERS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT ISN'T SUCKING JEWISH DICK!
HE HAS JEWISH IMMUNITY HE WILL BE THE BEST LEADER FOR THE US.
Russia: We are going into Syria again!
Sanders: HOLOCAUST, HITLER, JEWS, REPRESSION.
Russia: We are not going to Syria ever again in honor of those lost in the holocaust.
Sanders = US Global Hegemony restored.
>>71157232
Sure they totally aren't.
>>71148975
>leaf education
>>71157387
You on crack m8
>>71155603
>they will just leave US and go to some Tax Havens.
This has been invented by big business over the years.
The truth is no company want to move to a different country, They may outsource the labor of a company, but many times this results in a net loss of profit due to shoddiness of work or shipping and assembly costs, paying people to find and set up a place which would offer the best alterantive, then there is the cost of people hearing that you are outsourcing jobs which means a PR hit (unless you blame the government apparently). The value of the property in the US will go down because you are not actively using it for profit and will over time incur massive costs in upkeep and trying to sell those assets.
To actually move a business to a different country would require MASSIVE transition costs, construction and international paperwork literally miles long.
This is a topic of focus for business, to influence the system within which you operate, and find every available tool and legal argument to alter this system to your own advantage.
They have done that over the last 200 years, very well.
>>71147865
Ever heard of lag? Economies don't change over night, retard
>>71151232
it was just 60's policies - the US underwent a revolution in the 60's where a new aristocracy supported by international jewry took over
this affected all things. also look when the jews took over the fed: 1970
arthur burns took over in 1970 and jews have ruled the fed directly ever since
>>71157863
Nope. Hi Rob Ford
>>71153131
OP's pic explicitly uses wages of non-supervisory workers (= the average joe) to show they got left behind you fucking moron.
So women entering the workforce, immigrants flooding the workforce and automation.
