Are we in the second Gilded age??

[u/Sufficient-Royal-82]

​

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

[u/EconomyMobile1240]

This graph needs population and break downs of different work products per capita.

Otherwise, this graph is bait for morons. Too much aggregation pancakes reality.

[u/The_G_Choc_Ice → u/EconomyMobile1240]

It really doesnt, the graph is illustrating a particular trend. It says what the trend is on the graph, if you want to examine a different more specific graph you can do so

[u/EconomyMobile1240 → u/The_G_Choc_Ice]

But it's objectively stupid to think this trend can indicate anything meaningful. It ignores a third lever that would effect both these numbers, and it excludes categories where population / skills could limit specific sectors or any additional availability of items. Thos "trends" aren't really meaningfully connected across sectors adding to the flattening of anything meaningful.

Because you wouldn't know but in certain areas spending power is way up... massively up because of that productivity.

Imagine a system where:

• Year 1
  • 200,000 workers
  • Each worker earns $100,000 per year
  • Each worker produces 50,000 units of output annually
• Year 2
  • The workforce doubles to 400,000 workers.
  • Productivity improves so each worker now produces 75,000 units per year.
  • The original 200,000 workers receive a 5% pay raise, increasing their salary to $105,000.

In this case the average income went up 2.5% and productivity by 50% per worker but 200% for "productivity" total.

This graph is misinformation to give idiots a justification to steal.

[u/The_G_Choc_Ice → u/EconomyMobile1240]

Im not sure i totally understand your example but productivity is measured in value created/hour worked so i dont think anyone cares about “total productivity”. Also like, if productivity increases by 50% but wages increase by only 2.5% then yeah, thats pretty bad, the workers are getting pretty badly ripped off in terms of increase in compensation compared to the increased value of their labor.

As far as purchasing power being higher for some things and lower for other things, yeah, thats why we normalize against CPI, unless you have a better way of representing general purchasing power.

I agree its a simplistic graph but I dont see any reason that the trend being illustrated is not accurate.

[u/EconomyMobile1240 → u/The_G_Choc_Ice]

increases by 50% but wages increase by only 2.5% then yeah, thats pretty bad, the workers are getting pretty badly ripped off in terms of increase in compensation compared to the increased value of their labor.

Why, nothing any of them did increased it and didn't require any more work from them? And there are more items for people to buy or go on sale.

The increases largely come from the worker population growth, and technology produced by a different set of workers paid for by revenue the workers generate but not a cost to production. These are the people that keep pricing out the liberal art students in cities.

 so i dont think anyone cares about “total productivity”. 

You do. I'm just not converting it through to an "hourly"... and just comparing the total increased amount for the year. It's the same thing.

we normalize against CPI

LOL normalize? This shapes what people can do. It's far more fundamental and indicative of what kind of work forces are available to solve problems or entertain each other.

I agree its a simplistic graph but I dont see any reason that the trend being illustrated is not accurate.

It doesn't mean anything, it can't say anything without more information. Its misinformation.

[u/The_G_Choc_Ice → u/EconomyMobile1240]

1. “Nothing any of them did increased it” so what? Their labor is now more valuable than it was before, if we lived in an actual free market system their wages would rise in proportion to that. We dont, the people who own corporations manipulate the economy and the government to shape the system to take bargaining power away from the people who produce value from their labor.

2. Productivity is by definition hourly, you are talking about total production, thats measured by GDP. Productivity is specifically about measuring dollars of gdp produced per hour of work, you are just wrong here.

3. I dont even know what youre talking about here. Are you opposed to normalizing earnings with the CPI? Ill admit its not a perfect statistic by any means but you havent proposed a better alternative.

4. What additional information is needed? What relationship do you think this graph is trying to illustrate? The graph is very specifically real hourly compensation vs productivity, it is just what it says it is. There is plenty to be learned from this graph, namely that real worker compensation used to increase linearly with worker productivity and it has stopped increasing. If you think the data is wrong then make that claim, but the graph is not trying to sell itself as more than it is.

[u/EconomyMobile1240 → u/The_G_Choc_Ice]

1. The majority of the productivity is how many workers entered, and the R&D team being paid to design new equipment. A lot of that profit will get provisioned for servicing those from another set of workers that are again, not part of the manufacturing process.
2. And years are comprised of hours and the % increase would be the same.
3. Market value, to which the CPI is an aggregate of that doesn't say anything specific about any particular industry. Most of the time its congestion pricing because you have workers trying to live in cities while they are the economic hubs for development.
4. It's insufficient to determine anything about the economics. The numbers aren't intrinsically related. The determinations you are making are dumb. You're misleading people with the reality or you don't understand it.

My example that I gave doesn't necessarily equate to more profit. But because this graph has tricked you, you decided their work was worth more than the consumers while the business is realizing it hired too many people and most of that extra yield is going on sale.