patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Of course. My point is that you are focusing on the wrong part of that equation. Instead of trying to reduce inflation (which has some bad side effects), you should be worrying about how to increase median wages.

Control point is correct too--the issues is distribution, not aggregate wage growth. Find a way to redistribute and all the problems go away.

I hear you, which is why I do support a minimum wage...I didn't used to, but I've come around on that issue and it makes sense to me. I also believe in having affordable healthcare so that people performing "lower level" jobs can at least live and have the basics.

Regarding distribution, I just have a hard time taking from one class and giving to another so blatantly. I think it creates a bad culture of class warfare, and it violates equal rights among individual citizens. Plus, I hate the income tax structure today because of all the deductions, loopholes, etc that make it so complicated and require a massive gov't division (IRS) to manage and audit it.

debyne says

There is definitely the issue of eventually running out of enough "lower-level" jobs to produce what we need for this country as a result of automation and technological advancement. That means we'll have more strategic jobs to drive all this, but what do we do with all the people left? Do we force people to have less kids so that we don't have this excess labor demand?

Bullshit, 100 years ago 95% of Americans were farmers today it is less than 5%. Where is the unemployment from that?

indigenous says

Bullshit, 100 years ago 95% of Americans were farmers today it is less than 5%. Where is the unemployment from that?

That's true...the problem I stated may be something that starts to occur after our lifetimes, but I have to imagine that automation and AI will eventually get us to that point.

Bellingham Bill says

shows per-worker GDP has gone up 8X since 1970 while wages have risen 6X.

now, GDP has become increasingly cooked perhaps, adding in imputed rents and stuff that probably don't belong

Besides, total productivity increases partly becasue of technology that is from capital investment. It's understandable that the plutocrats can argue that workers aren't doing more.

The thing is, under this new reality (automation and robots) we are going to have to learn that compensation isn't always going to be for productivity that leads directly to $$ profits. People do need to be productively engaged, sometimes in ways that don't increase GDP ($$), and they need a decent share of the $$ that does come from productive profitable enterprise so that they can contribute to the demand side of the economy.

In other words we are outgrowing much of our current economic thinking.

indigenous says

Bullshit, 100 years ago 95% of Americans were farmers today it is less than 5%. Where is the unemployment from that?

Farming share of GDP was about 20% in 1914. It fell to about 10% by 1929 and remained flat until the end of WW2.

Gradually fell from there to about 1% today.

Seriously, where do you get your facts?

http://faculty.apec.umn.edu/ppardey/documents/9781441906571-c1.pdf

Figure 2-1.

This decline, by the way, is not due to falling real farm income or productivity, but rather the growth of the US economy is other areas at a much greater rate.

Figure 2-4 shows farm share of population around 30% in 1914, falling to under 1% today. Aggregate farm population peaked prior to WW2, after which automation increased productivity greatly and eliminated farm jobs.

Luckily, plenty of other industrial demand for jobs afterwards (the war effort and all) picked up the slack.

control point says

Seriously, where do you get your facts?

Seriously how does that negate my point? 1% instead of 5%, who gives a fuck, the point is that new jobs were created that employed the farmers.

marcus says

In other words we are outgrowing much of our current economic thinking.

somebody disliked you, LOL, but this video was pretty good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU