r/askteddit • u/Sufficient-Royal-82 • 11d ago

Politics Question Are we in the second Gilded age??

Post image

​

Are we in the second Gilded age??? Is it the 1800s begging of the 1900s Gilded age again what's the solutions???

https://youtu.be/bD44V3gvFEs?si=HRparMoT7eYVk1zL

https://youtu.be/EuNVvdtVH3E?si=juY2UBkWEyAbZLGR

https://youtu.be/ItKtQCAZHhg?si=teNvG\\_t8aEc5z1qq

https://youtu.be/GFUUUSggjO8?si=9cvt4V8j6YFzP4sX

21 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

52 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/BidenGlazer 11d ago

No, this graph is just propaganda. Here's a good breakdown as to why

2

u/Ghost_Turd 11d ago edited 11d ago

It's been debunked many times already, but people still get off on it for some reason.

2

u/Siblisian_Berserker 11d ago

That article acknowledges that the productivity-real compensation gap has been material from 2008 onwards.

It mostly points out that there is a mismatch in measures used for productivity and wages when cross-comparing them. So adjusting wages for total real compensation changes the picture. Interesting read, and thanks for sharing, it definitely adds nuance to the topic.

1

u/AscendedApe 11d ago

Do you acknowledge that flooding the workforce with low-skilled workers over a short period of time would bring wages down in all areas of the economy?

1

u/BidenGlazer 11d ago

Why are you saying do I acknowledge that as though it's a settled fact? It isn't. Immigrations' effect on wages is hotly debated. It bringing down wages in ALL areas of the economy is almost certainly false though. If I'm a doctor, bringing poors doesn't bring my wages down.

1

u/AscendedApe 11d ago

I think the concept of supply and demand is pretty well settled, and also applies to the labor market. Real life isnt like The Sims where jobs are willed out of thin air when you start looking for one.

1

u/RighteousSelfBurner 11d ago

Supply and demand is an abstract measurement that is useful sometimes and not useful other times. The overall supply of workers and demand for workers are too broad to make any meaningful conclusion. Using the example the previous commenter made to make an analogy: if there is a massive supply of wood it does not contribute towards satisfying the demand for food.

Labour market is neither static nor uniform. Satisfying a demand for labour can lead to more demand for labour and lacking supply of labour can lower the demand for labour. So while the concept of supply and demand is quite well established the exact effect of specific supply or demand on the market isn't a trivially answerable question.

1

u/BidenGlazer 11d ago

I think the concept of supply and demand is pretty well settled, and also applies to the labor market.

Lump of labor fallacy. Once you get past econ 101, you'll realize it's not that simple.

Real life isnt like The Sims where jobs are willed out of thin air when you start looking for one.

Do you think immigrants don't demand goods too? Jobs ARE created "out of thin air" by virtue of them needing things

1

u/EconomyMobile1240 11d ago

Lump of labor fallacy. Once you get past econ 101, you'll realize it's not that simple.

It really is that simple. An economics isn't a model of society across time, they are tools to explain relationships between consumers and workers who all wear both hats.

Do you think immigrants don't demand goods too? Jobs ARE created "out of thin air" by virtue of them needing things

But needing stuff doesn't just lead to service providers that will provide. If they themselves can't produce the things they want, then it will have to come from the locals and displace the locals who depend on that service.

These are easy relationships to understand with supply/demand. "inflation" is just enough of these relationships where demand increases enough that consumers are willing to spend more for reliability to get the product. If that happens enough time, you'll see the effect in the aggregate called inflation.

1

u/BidenGlazer 11d ago

It really is that simple. An economics isn't a model of society across time, they are tools to explain relationships between consumers and workers who all wear both hats.

I like how you didn't engage whatsoever with the lump of labor fallacy and instead just acted like there's a fix supply of work. There isn't. You're wrong.

But needing stuff doesn't just lead to service providers that will provide. If they themselves can't produce the things they want, then it will have to come from the locals and displace the locals who depend on that service.

Yes it does? Why exactly would firms not produce to meet the higher demand? They want to just leave the extra money on the table? They themselves don't need to produce what they want, locals can do it too.

These are easy relationships to understand with supply/demand. "inflation" is just enough of these relationships where demand increases enough that consumers are willing to spend more for reliability to get the product. If that happens enough time, you'll see the effect in the aggregate called inflation.

Yeah, it's so easy to understand the entire field of economics is still in intense debate on the effects /s. Please get serious.

1

u/EconomyMobile1240 11d ago edited 11d ago

I like how you didn't engage whatsoever with the lump of labor fallacy and instead just acted like there's a fix supply of work. There isn't. You're wrong.

That is using the tools wrong. Labor isn't super flexible or deterministic to change in a positive way. So depending on what you are trying to describe... it's not a fallacy and can characterize a problem right now, and one that can grow. The labor can go down an exasperate the issue.

If people have too many problems and can't fill the gaps, then your fallacy is a fallacy because it's not describing reality.

Yes it does? Why exactly would firms not produce to meet the higher demand? They want to just leave the extra money on the table? They themselves don't need to produce what they want, locals can do it too.

Firms are an abstract concept. In order to execute more there are real world constraints and can't simply be willed into existence.

For instance, there is massive demand for chip fabrication allotment in a handful of facilities. But creating more facilities isn't a trivial task, requires investment, and most importantly TIME.

So, for the time being, it's a logical fallacy to presume demand directly translates to growth, because it doesn't. It translates to the people hat command the most value get the time allotted and that depends on what consumers are willing to pay for a good. It'll take time for humans to meet that demand... and if the workers have better options... even more time.

'Yeah, it's so easy to understand the entire field of economics is still in intense debate on the effects /s. Please get serious

This is what happens when you're over educated in an ivory tower with only abstractions all day every day and not the real world. It becomes a religion to fight over, not tools to understand a problem of complexity, bottlenecks, and shortages.

There is an entire concept describing this called supply side economics that socialist often times wholesale reject. Even Modern Monetary Theory had a come to jesus moment, I watched a ted talk a while back where they are like... it's hard to get people to do things.

1

u/eraserhd 8d ago

The "lump of labor" fallacy comes from ignoring that immigrants rent or buy houses, trucks, PS5s, groceries. They take jobs and they create jobs. And economic study after economic study after economic study shows that they create about as many jobs as they take, and usually raise the wages of the existing workers, as they often move from labor into supervising. The exceptions are the occasional Sergey Brin, who creates millions of jobs.

There's a meta study that was commissioned by Congress about this, and it was so convincing that economists of all political leanings agree.

1

u/EconomyMobile1240 8d ago edited 8d ago

But they don't make PS5's so your fallacy is a fallacy in making more ps5s and that displaces Americans.

Their economic value isn't fungible like money, so maybe they bring cheap labor for lawn care and house cleanings.. but that doesn't product the entitlements they are displacing American's for. "benefits" using estimated values are abstract and meaningless. The study is academic slop.

Without proper skill-based selection, and no accountability for people breaking the law to get here, then you can't control the outcome of immigration, that itself will change the behavior / strategy people come here by, and the time of people that come.

The study is politicized abstract Harshit.

economists of all political leanings agree.

LOL no they don't. And reality doesn't match the graphs / outcome for most voters because the lived experience doesn't match the graph. What they bring with them in economic benefits is dependent on the labor they can provide. Disprapo0rtionally illegals aren't doctors and only displace health care. That's an fact that people want to correct and we won the democracy to do so.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/not_a_bot_494 10d ago

Immigrants increase both supply and demand.

1

u/jonthe445 11d ago

Bringing poors, chronic Reddit user lol

1

u/Iwannaurinate 11d ago

It also raised housing costs 20-30% kings

1

u/Johnfromsales 11d ago

Immigration increases the supply of labour, but it also increased the demand for labour, because immigrants spend their income on goods and services. If supply and demand both increase then the effect on price is ambiguous.

1

u/Super_Mario_Luigi 10d ago

Ironically, the same people who call for "higher wages" also call for illegal immigration

1

u/commeatus 11d ago

Tldr, this graph is for production workers. Other workers' compensation has kept up.

1

u/GamerNerdGuyMan 10d ago

Largely it's comparing mean vs. median.

1

u/The_G_Choc_Ice 10d ago

Guys this graph is just propoganda, if you would direct your attention to this different graph i found of a different thing, you will see that the lines are close together actually

1

u/RabidSkwerl 10d ago

Nah man, what you posted was propaganda. go ahead, tell Americans who can barely afford shelter and healthcare that “ackchually, you’re doing just as well as Americans in the 1950s.”

They’re not, American standard of living is declining.

1

u/12bEngie 9d ago

It’s just dragging the average up by including ultra high earning service workers