What went wrong? Why was this allowed?

Nixon and Reagan.

>>1866636
>muh free shit

*argument blurted out in a few words because i want my argument to be at the top of the thread but explaining it in depth will take to long*

Not all industries saw the same gains in productivity.

>>1866636
The rest of the world couldn't keep up with the US and raising wages too much would just mean the work would go elsewhere.

File: 77b9ee8d058021e17e870a057c5bb450.jpg (15KB, 445x315px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 445x315px

>>1866791
>work hard
>get half what you're supposed to get

>>1866813
Not all industries saw the same gains in productivity.

>>1866804
but anon, all the work DID go elsewhere

>>1866636
It's what Marx predicted where capital investment would become increasingly more valuable than the labor component.

>>1866804
in fact we should lower the living standard to the world mean

that would be a good start

>>1866813

the problem with that picture is in a normal society, most people don't own the land or the pot or the water that's being poured onto the ground to water the seeds.

>>1866636
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHm7P4TA97U

>>1866799
t. Economically illiterate

>>1866818
(You)

If wages and productivity are grow at a constant rate, the total profits in the company will theoretically stay the same.

>>1866804
Not how it works.

>>1866636
Increased Training of poorfags hit diminishing returns, all that $$$ went into buying computers and shit instead.

File: Milton-Friedman.jpg (90KB, 802x1165px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 802x1165px

>>1866636
Because of this guy

Destructive regulation (like the minimum wage) strangled the labour market and the supply of employers. This will continue to be blamed on the market itself rather than the bureaucrats.

>>1867406
this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ntkmdF9Yk

>>1867414
Meme Chomsky should shut up and stick to linguistics, he's got a horrible grasp of history, ethics, economics and everything else he rambles about to get attention.

>>1866837
And op's image is proven wrong with this video. Surprised in only about 2 minutes.

>>1866636
Because it excludes 15-20% of the work force in the form of supervisory workers. These are much more well-paid than normal workers and have significantly grown as a percentage of the workforce in the past 40 years. They represent a significant portion of where the gains in wealth have gone. This chart is basically "look, if we only include the poorer 80%, it's less than if we also included the richest 20%!".

In other words, you fell for Bernie-tier memes.

>>1867245
> If wages and productivity are grow at a constant rate, the total profits in the company will theoretically stay the same.

Worker compensation & productivity going up at the same rate just means the same % of profit but a growing nominal profit and sales increase with the same rate of profit, as opposed to stagnating.

ie. If 1 worker goes from producing $10,000 worth of sold goods to $20,000 due to doubling productivity, and his compensation doubled, they still double their nominal profit per worker.

>>1866636
They fell for the "fiscal conservatism" meme.

>>1867425
Show me the chart with supervisory included.

>>1867417
Go back to sleep t.Harris.

>>1866837
rofl, is this video serious? Where the fuck does anyone recieve the benefits he listed employees get? I worked 6 years at a place and I didnt get any of that shit. fucking nu-males armchair theoriziing rofl

>>1866636
They realized there was ways they could increase productivity without having to raise pay.

>>1867406
I remember reading about this guy somewhere. I don't remember where, but I remember I hate his fucking guts.

File: benefits.gif (28KB, 500x527px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x527px

>>1867482
>rofl, is this video serious? Where the fuck does anyone recieve the benefits he listed employees get? I worked 6 years at a place and I didnt get any of that shit.

You had pretty worthless job skills, then.

>>1867482
by not working at your local food store, bank teller, Retail style, or pretty much a job where your replacement factor is pretty easy and working at a place like Nike (Outside of the retail), Apple (management or store supervisor and greater), a Financial Firm, Manufacturing, Engineering, Lumber, ect.

Hell, even UPS employees are given benefit at the bitch level. That package is better as you progress into different levels. Just because you (Also known as anecdotal evidence) cannot find them does not mean they (The benefits as a whole) do not exist.

Here is one example Lam Research CN Field Service Engineer I (Entry level position)

Starting pay is $18.50 per hour, this includes a company held 401k matching retirement program program, a healthcare package provided by Kaiser, a college tuition assistance package, a stock options program, paid vacation and sick leave program. More over you will have the opportunity to receive bonuses for efficient work.

If you work over 10 hours in the manufacturing area the next recorded hours will paid at OT pay.

My job at a local down town accounting firm.

Accounting Specialist 1 (This is before I hit payroll accountant side of my company)

Entry pay is $14.75 per hour. 401k Retirement program, healthcare plan brought to you by Moda Healthcare, paid sick days and vacation leave after working for 1 year, private parking, stock option plan, and free tax filing.

Hell I can even go into the benefits of the US Military if you wish.

Labor didn't buy the companies they worked for and reform it into a co-op. So that they could share in the profits gained from automation and protect their jobs from outsourcing.

Labor didn't lobby and vote to prevent outsourcing and regulations that made them noncompetitive with foreign labor.

The productivity increased because of globalization, but the wages stagnate because there is no manufacturing left in America to pay people for.

>>1867999
>these are benefits

Lol you really are cucked

You know people used to get pension not shitty 401ks right? Fuck off

>>1868091
>being this mad

https://20somethingfinance.com/pensions-vs-401ks-why-you-should-care-that-pensions-are-going-extinct/

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2013/05/15/6-reasons-a-401k-is-better-than-a-pension

1: Pension plans are dying as a retirement option. The only places you are going to find pensions from are Union jobs or Government jobs. Most of the private sector turned away from the "pension plan."

2: if a company goes tits up your pension is done. Even if the company is approved for both chapter 7 Bankruptcy

3: 401ks are based on how much you personally put instead of what your fellow employees put in (IE the actual version of "cuck")

4: at seven percent interest your 401k doubles every ten years. This is based on average growth, minus your contributions.

5: 401ks are plans that you personally monitor and have control over, you can be as risky or as safe as you wish to be with it.

Tell me again why I am "the cuck" when I can personally manage my retirement fund? IIRC the 2 main reasons why pensions are dying as a retirement is because a corporation can cuck you if they file for bankruptcy and null all of their debt, 2 base payments for pension are that similar to Social Security and are barely able to cover day to day expenses.

You are either under 18 and listen to your "Boomer" grand pappy for far too long or B are a Boomer and do not understand the current economy of scale and fail to realize that the retirement market is changing like how your dick is changing from active to having erectile dysfunction.

>>1866691
Fpbp

File: 1476693180772.jpg (53KB, 364x322px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 364x322px

>literally the entire economic and political world fell for 'the free market will fix it' meme

Women and third worlders( immigrants and globalized trade) are wage cucked too and that suppressed wages.

>>1866636
The petrodollar, financialization of western economies, the Chicago School, the "service based economies" meme and Neoliberalism happened.

File: 1457257556024.jpg (141KB, 601x583px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 601x583px

>>1869821
Stupid
>big gubmint controls economy
>big gubmint is controlled by bigger gubmint
>lmao free market

Just plain dumb
>we need more big gubmint
>"It will fix itself!"
>unlike the free market!

>>1869882
Not an argument.

>>1867425
>supervisors aren't paid wages

Hmmm

>>1867556
You need to show compensation/productivity.
Although it looks better than>>1866636
it still has about a 70-80% gap.

>>1867999
>Hell I can even go into the benefits of the US Military if you wish.

Dude you made your point no need to slaughter him. The military has crazy good benefits to make up it's lower then usual pay.

>>1866636
This was around the same time labor unions started getting beat down. Without union strength, the middle class disappears.

>>1870920
Still stupid

>>1866636
Mass immigration + automation

File: 1468811041503.png (309KB, 392x714px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 392x714px

>>1871668
but overkill is the best kind of kill

>>1866636
>please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago

>>1866691
A+

>>1868317
This reply is an island in a sea of shit desu

File: 1474799847093.gif (715KB, 250x196px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 250x196px

>>1872712
not an argument

>>1868317
Keep on investing in your 401K,it is a grand idea.

In fact, put all of your savings in it, nothing will happen, we swear!

>>1866636

Woman in the workforce + the 1965 immigration act.

Technology?

Should you be paid more if your typewriter is replaced with a computer?

Dunno.

>>1874489
I would say yes. A computer is inherently more complex to use than a typewriter.

>>1873065
Not an argument.

>>1874463
I never said it was risk free dingus

>>1875574
>This reply is an island in a sea of shit desu

is actually not an argument but an opinion. I cannot derive that anything from it but a response of the equivalent of "Nuh-uh." There is nothing to argue against especially when you do not put any debatable content on the field. So my original response kills your response because it has A: points and B: credible sources behind it.

You are on /his/, not /pol/ actually use your brain here and not "Nuh-uh" respond.

>>1875574
I should also add, I never said put all your eggs in one basket either.

File: notdivergent.jpg (29KB, 641x359px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 641x359px

>>1871407
>You need to show compensation/productivity.

Done.

>>1871381
The chart specifically says "nonsupervisory workers".

>American reading comprehension

File: uspopbyrace.gif (7KB, 285x375px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 285x375px

Immigration

File: 1424913890878.png (319KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 803x688px

>>1866813
>supposed to get

File: 94521e0193fa662a952c1df7f74f9696.jpg (62KB, 800x621px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x621px

>>1866636

>>1866636
Jews

>>1867470
harris' take down of chomsky was amazing.

File: image.jpg (44KB, 600x272px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x272px

>>1866636
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

sure is young in here

>>1877107
Oh hi Mr. (((expert)))

>>1877107
A screenshot of a youtube video isn't proper evidence.

Also, that's not comparing what I asked for.

File: image.jpg (333KB, 1946x1476px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1946x1476px

>>1877107
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/09/08/inside-the-fight-over-productivity-and-wages/
>Who is the “typical worker”? Messrs. Bivens and Mishel have chosen “production and nonsupervisory workers” to represent the masses. Workers in this broad category account for about 80% of private-sector payroll employment.

>Critics call this cherry-picking. A better measure, suggest critics like Scott Winship, an economist at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, would be to include all workers, since productivity gains are presumably being driven by the entirety, and not just 80%, of the workforce. The new report also includes another chart that plots average hourly compensation for all workers. The gap, while narrower, is still significant.

Good try though anon

>>1877233
does not compensate with benefit packages. IE A false narrative as pointed out in video here >>1866837

>>1877528
Not an argument

>>1877789
is an argument guy. You're not on /pol/, this is /his/ we can be intellectually honest here.

Point 1: Productivity gains are not equal by sector.

Point 2: You have to adjust by total compensation not just hourly wages because total compensation (Benefit packages) also have an equivalent monetary value. This isn't calculated with CPI (Consumer Price Index) because CPI does not calculate consumer choice or substitution of goods

Point 3: The graph in OP's chart would be better reflected using Implicit Price Deflator because it does calculate what CPI misses, by doing so the gap between compensation and productivity is almost nill

Point 4: Because the graph doesn't calculate Productivity with Net GDP, it misses out on the productivity value of trade as well as depreciative value of products (like computers) that lose value over time compared to say a building.

So the graph in>>1877107 pic is actually accurate and destroys OP's pic graph.

>>1867413
>he bought the Koch brothers' billion-dollar meme

The federal minimum wage has been continuously established 1938, two decades before the beginning of OP'S graph.

Is there a version of this graph for whites only?

>>1877107
>real net gdp per hour

Not the same as labor productivity

>>1878011
K

Now post some more "evidence" from (((experts))) to support you weak "argument" lmao.

Wages have not kept pace with productivity gains. That is a fact. Doesn't matter how you slice it or pretend that's not an issue because of some ephemeral "benefits" which employers are under no obligation to grant and in fact most don't. You can not offer a valid justification for this.

>>1878101
>(((experts)))

Being an edgy neonazi fallacy. Not an argument.

>>1878115
I did it for your benefit, assuming you are the poster I think you are.

>>1866636
Obviously the problem was big government and the market was not free enough, we need more deregulation

>>1867417
Chomsky has a pretty horrible grasp of linguistics as well though.

>>1866691
Fpbp

America got cucked

>>1878101
Step one: Click on the Youtube link that this anon>>1867414
posted

Step Two: Scroll down to the Published date menue

Step Three: Click the Facebook link

Step Four: Read the essay and the sources provided. There are 14 sources.

I'd post the 14 sources but unfortunately 4chan believes I am posting spam. The group "We Are Capitalists" are a group of students and a PhD Professor from Chicago University in Economics. If you wish to challenge them they are more than happy to comply.

>Weak argument

I am sorry that you do not understand what a "weak argument" is.

You tried to state that "Wages have not kept pace with productivity gains" but yet there is a video and a link in said video with sources backing it up.

If you are going to challenge an argument you must sift through the reference material that the other person uses. OP's image is from the EPI (Economic Policy Institute) and even I was able to point out the flaws in its calculations based on anon's video here >>1866837 and even found the link to source material of supporting evidence as well. All it takes is for a little effort to research and look for sources.

OP's source is here http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

I have just started 300 lvl econ classes at PSU and when it comes to Economics research and understanding is paramount to any basis of theory and practice. Stop being a lazy bum because if you would have checked the video you would have found the source material.

>>1878262
>PhD Professor
Ask me how I know this is a /pol/tard that didn't get accepted into uni

>>1877233
I don't understand that's like literally the opposite of cherrypicking.

>>1878274
Having a PhD does not mean they are an active professor.

File: 3345537.png (99KB, 500x524px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x524px

>2016
>free market fundamentalists still exist

File: 1477398464179.jpg (320KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 750x1000px

it was not allowed it was made to happen.

>>1867414
Noam Chomsky isn't even an economist you absolute bellend

>>1867425
This

>>1878293
Ask me how I know this is a /pol/tard that didn't get accepted into uni

>>1878314
>cannot challenge the evidence presented forth
>must deflect must deflect MUST DEFLECT

you're cute

>>1878262
>chicago school (((experts)))

lol, you are the guy I was thinking of.

What you are doing is the equivalent of me linking an article published on a union's website and written by a pro-labor PhD professor. Stop drinking the ideological kool-aid and realize you are getting fucked by your corporate masters. Whether you acknowledge that or defend them is immaterial, you are still getting used and abused like everyone else.

>>1878321
I didn't even read this thread, I was just scrolling the front page and saw "PhD professor". I bet the closest you've ever gotten to a uni was community college.

>>1878325
There's a reason they call them cuckservatives. They've been cucked by the Jew into thinking they deserve to be exploited.

>>1866636
I blame the Jews.

>>1878325
>your corporate masters
>a person holding a PhD is not a credible source
>ideological kool-aid

Ok, sure. Net GDP isn't empirical evidence, Implicit Price Deflator isn't a measurement of empirical evidence, as both of them are just full of crap. So the wild tangent that you decide to go off on is a valid argument.

Buddy, you just got owned and now you are deflecting from the topic that was brought up by OP and you have no more evidence to support your position so now you have to go to an almost unmeasurable extreme to try and support your point. That my friend is a weak argument. You've lost your strain of evidence/information because it's been debunked and now you dive to a completely different topic that has very little to the issue at hand.

About as on par with "White privilege" and "muh patriarchy," or "insert-ambiguous-arbitrary-boogie-man-here" c'mon guy. You're on /his/ not /pol/ critical thinking and reason happens here.

>>1878347
You realize people with PhD's disagree with each other right? You can find many things contradicting each other written by people with PhD's.

>>1878355
yes this is why you check the empirical evidence that backs them up. This is why Austrians are never going to have a comeback at all in the economics field, because they lack empirical evidence.

This is why when OP's image is posted that it is important to note what tools was used to attain such information. Which was GDP and hourly compensation. This does not complete the picture as pointed out by the video and my recap of said video here >>1878262. Just hourly compensation is only part of a person paycheck worth. Other styles of compensation do exist, paid leave, healthcare packages, 401k, pensions, vacation, etc. Just compensating for hourly wage and GDP paints a very unfulfilled picture. Like having a painting by Doménikos Theotokópoulos but you are only given half of it instead of all of it.

The debates between Economists happen all the time. From Paul Krugman and Thomas Sowell to Slavoj Žižek and Ha-Joon Chang. What is important however is to see the empirical evidence to the field that they bring. So far from what I have presented, The EPI chart is flawd based on the fact that they've only calculated for GDP and Hourly wage. This leaves a very incomplete picture.

>>1878374
*flawed* fuck me

>>1869882
"Big" government literally caused the superiority of Europa/US over the rest of the world.

>>1869882
>"It will fix itself!"
>unlike the free market!
Have you heard of the weird thing called "democratic oversight"?

>>1866636
People got smart, only idiots pay taxes

>>1878403
True, Trump said the same thing and he's about to win the presidency.

>>1879850
no, he said it would be stupid for him to pay the taxes that he doesn't have to.

>>1878393
Incorrect.
Please go read "How the west grew rich" and Adam Smith

humanities are shimata desu nyan nyan

>>1877528
Except it does.

Compensation = wage + benefits

Once again, a youtube screenshot != legitimate evidence

>>1877107
1. This is not representing productivity growth.
2. This is a screenshot from youtube. Not legitimate evidence
>>1877528
3. Total Compensation (what I posted) = wages + benefits. You are wrong again.
>>1878011
4. You are ignoring clear evidence that total productivity gains by all workers has not matched total compensation gains by all workers. And no, total compensation != just wages.

>>1878262
5. Post a legitimate source. A youtube video is not a legitimate source of academic information.
>>1878374
6. Total compensation, which is what was posted, includes wages and benefits.

In conclusion,
7. Total Compensation has not kept up with total productivity growth.

>>1867413

How can you scientifically prove this?

fuck knows, i'd always shrugged it off with the 'b-but overall compensation has gone up'

if that's not true then well shit

https://fsaraceno.wordpress.com/2016/10/25/a-piketty-moment/

File: image.jpg (44KB, 468x345px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 468x345px

As for that anon that disagrees with me, here is a chart comparing like for like between productivity and total compensation.

The top line is simply productivity growth adjusted for product depreciation.

The orange line is adjusted for
1. Total compensation. Not just wages.
2. All workers in the private sector economy instead of just some.
3. Adjusts inflation instead to IFD. Essentially the price growth of products that companies sell, not the price growth of what consumers buy.
4. And for some depreciatory effects.

This is as close to apples and apples as the comparison can get with current economic statistics.

It shows about a 30-40% total productivity growth/total compensation growth gap.
Most of this gap occured since the late 90's, which may have something to do with the two recessions and slow global growth.

>>1880490
and forgetting NET GDP congrats the video has already schooled you. This is why again I pointed out the steps to find the videos sources here >>1878262

You are wrong and haven't followed the evidence trail set by the video to where they "WeAreCapitalists" points to the 14 sources they use. I'd post them here but 4chan believes they are spam.

How hard is it to actually follow up on sources used?


You are not following up on the sources, you are just looking at face value. Stop being a faggot and actually take a couple of extra seconds and read over the sources and essay put forth. Like a reasonable person/academic scholar does.

>>1880727
>"WeAreCapitalists"

Sounds legit.

>>1880753
>and failing to do your due diligence as an academic

your pleb is showing

>>1880808
Academics don't tell other academics to watch a youtube video and then visit a facebook group called "WeAreCapitalists" and then look up the citations posted on said facebook group.

>>1880822
I already said "I cannot post the source material here because 4chan believes it's spam" so I did my best to point out where the information is. Mother of retardation are you an abortion child survivor?

>>1878307
Context behind this pic?

>>1880727
>and forgetting NET GDP congrats the video has already schooled you

This doesn't measure total productivity growth you fucking retard. You're making the same apple-to-oranges comparison mistake as EPI.

>>1880883
Actually no. Productivity can be overstated by cheaper imports from foreign trade used as inputs in domestic production and cheaper product due to trade does not equal increases in productivity so using Net GDP more accurately reflects this.The net domestic product (NDP) equals the gross domestic product (GDP) minus depreciation on a country's capital goods. Where GDP only calculates as stated gross domestic product. This failure in calculating for depreciation leads to an incomplete picture.

File: Trumpepe.png (96KB, 635x486px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 635x486px

>>1866636
Is it that hard to understand? Outsourcing business to China = Higher productivity and more capital to business owners but less jobs and more wage stagnation for people in the native country.

This is the nature of globalism.

Vote Trump.

>>1880905
>and cheaper product due to trade does not equal increases in productivity so using Net GDP more accurately reflects this.

But this is wrong.
Productivity growth (at a fundamental level) = more goods for the same price (value of resources).

Just because Chinese commodities (we use to assemble final products) are cheaper now in the US does not mean the US has become less productive. And vice versa.

>>1880934
It does not calculate for depreciation value. A product does not maintain its full value all of the time. Overtime and use it loses value, whether it is because of wear and tear or lack of proper maintenance. In accounting, Depreciation expense is the allocated portion of the cost of a company's fixed assets that is appropriate for the accounting period indicated on the company's income statement. This placed on a micro and macro scale has a significant economic impact. A computer's value purchased from 5 years ago does not hold the same value or productivity value as a computer purchase with the advances of today. That top of the line computer 5 years ago value has now been depreciated. This effects a company's GDP because that $1000 computer is now worth $450.

>>1881013
>does not account for depreciation
Hence my post from a very reputable moderate economic group>>1880490
It adjusts for product depreciation and shows a more accurate measure of "real" total productivity growth.

It took the 183% gain in productivity in OP to 115%. Which is far more aligned with common sense.

>>1866636
It's literally technology + the fact they don't use an average increase instead of a median

>>1881031
yet the Heritage Foundation still used GDP not Net GDP. The youtube video that this anon posted >>1866837 even went over this. That is how they went from the numbers that the Heritage ended up with to >>1877107

The graph does not use Net GDP but regular GDP. It is using Implicit Price Deflator in comparison with GDP not Net GDP. That is the crux of my disagreement. It's using GDP not Net GDP which fully calculates depreciation. I am not sure or any other way I can explain this.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together

Throughout the Article it references using GDP not Net GDP. I don't know what else to day.

>>1880926
>This is the nature of globalism.

You've meant globalization?

File: decoupling.png (67KB, 644x504px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 644x504px

To answer this question we need a legit government source on the government spending - and after tax income of a median worker, or something with the same reasoning.

I found this, but it is for the UK.

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1246.pdf

This easily applies to the US and the rest of the world that inhabits a similar socioeconomic strata.

There has to be a certain level of "decoupling" since workers need to be thankful towards our good wholesome capitalists like George Soros for allocating resources efficiently and providing them with the economic opportunity in the first place. Regardless they still receive most of the increase in productivity.

So OP's chart is completely disproven. The plebs are just getting extra bennies.

>>1866636
Can you speak in anything other than memes?

I don't really understand the argument here.

It seems to me like what's happening is say you doubled your productivity, the owner pockets the extra profits, you ask for a raise, and they say, silly goyim, don't you see that those shekels you have buy more now, you don't need a raise silly goyim. And then the Jew convinces the cuck goyim to be happy with his dollar wage amount, while the Jew benefits from both the increased buying power of shekels and an actual increase in the proportion of shekels he allots to himself.

>>1881274
You will do anything to protect your kike overlords so they can exploit hard working blue collar folk won't you?

>>1881290
BASED

LOOOOL KIIIIKESSSS

SHLOMO XXXDDDDDD

DELETE THIS THREAD RABBBBBBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSS HWHWHWHWAAAAA

>>1881274
>>1881315
Someone hit a nerve?

>>1881326
loooooooooooool

TRIGERRED EPINNNNNNNNNNN

File: 1475690093736.jpg (15KB, 277x271px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 277x271px

>>1881344

Unless you have a substantive argument then shut your fucking mouth, bouguise scum.

>>1881353
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32230

confirm kikes behind the 2008 crash.

DEM KIKIES

>>1866691

Nixon was actually the last Roosevelt style progressive (EPA, Industrial regulations, car safety etc). It started with Ford and Carter with the Lewis powl memorandum.

>>1881031
After thinking on it for a bit maybe I am coming at this angle slightly wrong and need to explain the point and purpose of IPD in comparison with GDP and Net GDP.

In economics, the implicit price deflator is a measure of the level of prices of all new, domestically produced, final goods and services in an economy. This means that it measures the goods and services a company produces. This does not measure the depreciation value of the equipment and tools that help a company or groups produce said widgets.

The net domestic product (NDP) equals the gross domestic product (GDP) minus depreciation on a country's capital goods. Net domestic product accounts for capital that has been consumed over the year in the form of housing, vehicle, or machinery deterioration.

This does the part that IPD missed on the company's end. Think of it this way. Net GDP is the productivity of company X and IPD is the output that Company X does.

Race to the bottom for wages ushered by the entry of women, immigrants and third world nation into the domestic and global workforce. With working women the bourgeoisie extract two wage slaves from a family unit for the price of one, it doubles the tax base, workforce and depresses wages in one easy trick.

>>1881159

Wut? UK's economic system is rather different than the USA.

>>1882100
both are developed and mostly service sector and high tech manufacturing, there shouldn't be much difference

Nothing.

>>1885670
WHY did you bump this thread. it was literally the last thread on the last page

>>1866691

Spot on

>>1866636
Technological advances meant that more production was done by machines, rather than labour.

>>1866636
>more machines taking jobs
>more women entering the workforce lowing price of labor
>China becoming the worlds sweatshop in the 1970's lowing the price of labor

>>1885672
Why not? There are far worse threads that deserve to die on this board than this one.

>>1885672
there is actual legitimate discussion going on in this thread rather than the regular amount of autism that happens in most threads.

>>1878075
It was only the late 60s IIRC that it was pegged to catch up with inflation which had rendered the min. wage meaningless as most people earned far above it for entry level positions.

>>1866813
>do the same amount of work
>machines pick up the slack productivity-wise
>you're supposed to profit despite all of the increase in productivity coming from machines

>>1885684
China didn't really have an effect on US manufacturing until after it joined the WTO in 1999.

>>1885678
Not an argument.

>>1866831
Idk man, I think most people own their own flower pots