The first hit went to a site called Raise the Minimum Wage which gave me the kind of graph I wanted to see:
How dumb do you need to be not to look at this graph and suspect that 1968 was chosen as the starting point because it was an upward spike? Here's another graph:
As you go upon your way this morning, watch out for propaganda.
Posts
230 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 230 of 230Blogger jimspice said...
'68 is pretty good starting point. Until that time, the minimum wage had been indexed to productivity, after, inflation. If we had continued to tie it to productivity, the minimum wage would now be between $16 and $21 per hour, depending on your measure of productivity.
Thread winner.
The disjoint between productivity growth and wages is the primary cause of the large increase in income inequality. As the article points out, when was it decided that we would no longer reward US workers for increases in productivity?
Encouraging to see that Althouse can still host a 200+ comment topic on economics and not gay marriage. This is what the political dialog should have been about in 2012. This what the political dialog should be in 2014.
As the article points out, when was it decided that we would no longer reward US workers for increases in productivity?
1968 was around the time when many women were entering the workforce for the first time. Later, immigrants kept the train rollin'. There was no need to reward productivity when unit labor cost were effectively decreasing as in unskilled labor competed against one another.
As the article points out, when was it decided that we would no longer reward US workers for increases in productivity?
US workers are rewarded for increases in their productivity. US workers with low productivity aren't rewarded for the productivity increases of others. And the left is desperate to obscure those truths.
====I agree with this but the financial overloads who bankroll the Repub party apparently do not agree (see Hannity 2013, Overnight reversal on immigration, for further details).
Hahahah. Just a Democrap talking point. Like the Democrats are solicitous of border security.
The Democratic-led U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected a Republican amendment that foes said would have undermined a key element of the White House-backed bill that aims to provide a pathway to citizenship …..
Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said the defeat of his amendment, 57-43, broke a promise by President Barack Obama's Democrats to permit an "open debate" on the landmark immigration legislation. Democrats forced a vote after little discussion…...
Grassley's amendment would have required the Obama administration to certify "effective control" of the entire southwestern border of the United States before any of the 11 million undocumented residents now here could begin applying for legal status…...But Grassley argued that his amendment would strengthen the immigration bill by ensuring there is "true border security before legalization (of the undocumented) and that's what the people of this country want."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/senate-border-security-grassley/2013/06/13/id/509755#ixzz2mklptq1C
What is really staggering is the leftist Unions that control the Democratic party embracing open borders…
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/apr/10/labor-unions-big-stake-immigration-reform/
@Saint Croix,
Liberal ideas have to be simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker and/or rhyme. anything more complicated than that........well, you see what happens in Obamacare
"The disjoint between productivity growth and wages is the primary cause of the large increase in income inequality. As the article points out, when was it decided that we would no longer reward US workers for increases in productivity?"
When many of those productivity gains came as a result of automation, such as automated-dedicated machinery and robotics.
=====The expulsion of all illegal immigrants from our land would not result in a plethora of good jobs for Americans.
Its fun to be a liberal and live in a theoretical world…..
Alabama Unemployment Drops 1.1% as Illegals Leave State
http://godfatherpolitics.com/2724/alabama-unemployment-drops-1-1-as-illegals-leave-state/#fIwG8mkOPJmzD0AI.99
Since putting its tough anti-illegal alien bill (H. B. 56) into effect last September Alabama has seen an overnight increase in the number of her citizens working and a drop in the percentage of Alabamians collecting unemployment benefits.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/after-kicking-out-illegal-aliens-alabama-is-putting-american-citizens-back-to-work/#uCizJu2XEjxZCTqT.99
RecChief said...
When many of those productivity gains came as a result of automation, such as automated-dedicated machinery and robotics.
Productivity gains were realized after the discovery of fire and the wheel, yet everyone benefited back then, why are digital-based productivity gains any different? Productivity gains were routinely brought about by advances in technology in the past. This is a political problem not a technological one.
Marshal said...
US workers are rewarded for increases in their productivity. US workers with low productivity aren't rewarded for the productivity increases of others. And the left is desperate to obscure those truths.
Production line workers have shown dramatic increases in productivity thanks to increasing automation. In contrast lawyers show no discernible change in productivity and any increase would probably be detrimental to the overall well-being of the economy. How is it that lawyers salaries have kept pace with overall productivity gains whereas workers who actually do productive work show no gains?
gosh, you're right, technology has nothing to do with increases in productivity since the invention of fire.
how do you make it through a day being so purposely obtuse. Go back to your mom's basement
ARM,
you're one of those that Mark Twain warned about, so I will bid adieu
ARM: "Productivity gains were realized after the discovery of fire and the wheel, yet everyone benefited back then, why are digital-based productivity gains any different?"
Beyond stupid.
Hey, remember that scene in 2001: Space Odyssey, right after the ape picked up the bone and smote the other ape, how the winning apes ruling council voted an increase in the woolly mammoth protein allotment for each community member?
Good times, good times.
ARM: "Production line workers have shown dramatic increases in productivity thanks to increasing automation."
The automation led to decrease in the demand for labor (overall) with partition of those remaining into the more skilled and even less skilled (since the automation does the "thinking" for them).
ARM: "In contrast lawyers show no discernible change in productivity and any increase would probably be detrimental to the overall well-being of the economy. How is it that lawyers salaries have kept pace with overall productivity gains whereas workers who actually do productive work show no gains?"
Because dems have made it easier and easier for frivolous lawsuits to suck the lifeblood out of the economy and enriching the second (after unions) contributors to the dem party: The Trial Lawyers.
Who can forget the sound of John Edwards dulcet and silky voice channeling the words of the young girl in one of his "make me wealthy" lawsuits?
Yeah ARM, that "hey lawyers still seem to have lots of dough...how?" question is really difficult to unpack and answer.
Really.
I mean, really.
Not sure you guys are really getting the point here. Productivity gains have always been driven by improvements in technology, since time immemorial. Why now do workers no longer benefit from these gains?
The answer is political, a small subset of the population is capturing a greater and greater percentage of the benefits of increased productivity.
ARM: "Not sure you guys are really getting the point here."
Sure we are.
You are still going thru withdrawal from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the very concept of the "new Soviet Man".
If even 1% of what you were saying was true, the unions which have a boatload of cash, could simply start their own companies, implement their (insane and hilarious)economic ideas and reap ALL the rewards!!!
Wahooooo!
Yet they don't.
Care to venture a guess as to why?
Why don't workers reap any productivity gains rewards? Well, first of all, many do.
But they are skilled workers.
Skilled.
Skilled.
(repeated to allow it to penetrate your marxist skull)
Unskilled workers do not generally partake in productivity gains since it's their productivity which is not being improved.
Go ahead and crank up your minimum wage regs and requirements.
Go ahead.
And then get ready for increased under the table cash payments for off the book work and a big drop in official employment.
And before you crank up the "but...but...no study shows any decrease in employment when the minimum wage is increased" crap, let me remind you of this:
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period"
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period."
Even the LIV's are starting to catch on to your game.
AReasonableMan said...
Not sure you guys are really getting the point here.
ARM just can't figure out that no one else cares about his point as much as he does.
The answer is political, a small subset of the population is capturing a greater and greater percentage of the benefits of increased productivity.
Actually it's two subsets. You have to suspect he's omitting apparatchiks out of in-group loyalty.
The Clinton's are worth $100 million, and Huma lives in a $6 million penthouse. Daschle made 2.5 million his first year after being voted out of the Senate, I suspect it's been much more since. Obama's a millionaire having accomplished nothing, and his wife had a 300k job that was so critical they didn't even bother replacing her when she left. Reid is a multi-millionaire having never worked outside government.
ARMs desperate to focus attention away by claiming the aristocracy is really looking after the peasants, when in fact they're looking after themselves.
Excellent points, Marshall. Ones which ARM cannot counter.
As usual Marshall has everything wrong. Like the Clintons, Marshall is a lawyer, parasitizing on the productive members of society.
You really have no idea what you're talking about here, but it's a lovely illustration of how prior ideological commitment can make people so stupid about simple and obvious things.
It's what endears him to us.
like Joe Biden.
AReasonableMan said...
As usual Marshall has everything wrong. Like the Clintons, Marshall is a lawyer, parasitizing on the productive members of society.
No. really. Put the shovel down.
Alabama Unemployment
Following a couple of those links got me to this statement:
"Alabama’s unemployment rate continues to drop amid state-wide enforcement of a new immigration law, despite Democratic efforts to block and stigmatize the popular reform.
December’s unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent, down from 8.7 percent in November and 9.8 percent in September.
“In the last three months alone, we’ve seen an unprecedented drop of 1.7 percentage points,” noted Alabama Republican Gov. Robert Bentley in a Jan. 20 [2012] statement.""
Not an unbiased source, but some actual figures at least.
Rusty said...
You really have no idea what you're talking about here,
Demonstrate this. Show that there has not been a fundamental change in how productivity gains are distributed in our society. Demonstrate how this change has improved our society.
Until that time, the minimum wage had been indexed to productivity, after, inflation.
That's interesting. Of course, a source for the statement would be even more interesting.
AReasonableMan said...
Marshall is a lawyer, parasitizing on the productive members of society.
ARM's streak of never making sense continues. In this case it's both irrelevant and wrong, a twofer.
He did get a point for using complete sentences, but lost it for bastardizing words. So unfortunately his insult is a zero out of 100, which I think ties his personal best.
ARM, it's not your fault if these very stupid people, Marshal being the stupidest by far, cannot grasp your meaning.
Increasing the minimum wage gives employers a greater incentive to invest in technology and mechanized labor reduction. Imagine a large store or school with floors to be mopped and cleaned everyday. Obama's plan increases the cost of a minimum wage employee by about $4,000 per year. An automated floor machine can be purchased through the Althouse Amazon portal for $4200.
http://amzn.com/B00CIBLRTC This machine will let one person do the work of at least two (probably more like 4). Which would you do? Save $20,000 to $40,000 per year forever by eliminating employees? Avoid the risk of mandated employee benefits like obamacare that could have unknown future costs? We don't have to point fingers and call names over this issue. The unintended consequences of an increase in the minimum wage obvious.
AReasonableMan,
So employers were entirely blameless in this situation? Such a one-sided analysis cannot be taken seriously.
Of course employers using illegal workers aren't "blameless." Who argued otherwise? I've been stressing enforcement against employers. Not "securing the borders" (well, OK, it would be nice if we could do that, sure), but going after the people doing the hiring.
The thing is that immigration activists are all for going after employers until it looks as though it might actually work. Then they "pivot" to the plight of poor, desperate people who are, after all, only in pursuit of the American Dream. Shut down their employers and you're trashing the Dream, man!
These are the same jobs that are denounced as exploitative, dirty, humiliating work so long as there's no chance they will disappear. Threaten to save the workers from these conditions by punishing the employers who create and sustain them, and suddenly the terrible, degrading, dangerous work is valuable, and withdrawing it is evil.
You know what immigration activists really, really hate about E-Verify? Not that it's full of typos (which is true), but that if you got rid of the typos, it might actually work. So that employers might actually be held accountable for hiring illegal labor, having no excuse not to know the immigration status of their employees.
MDT, I favor E-verify. If nothing else it evens the playing field ensuring that honest employers are not penalized relative to their competition.
The disjoint between productivity growth and wages is the primary cause of the large increase in income inequality.
WOW!
Post a Comment