>/pol/ will defend this

might makes right

>>127556719
immigration keep wages low...
stop immigratino wages will go up as demand for workers will go up..

fuking retard, low quality bait..

go lick clintons cunt you useless shill...

Nice slide attempt shill

Wages are not a human right. They are a compensation for labour offered according to supply and demand. These days, though, there are two issues that reduce the value of labour.

1. Automation. Machines, computers, robots, whatever - they get the simpler tasks done a lot faster and for a lot less money than unskilled workers. And this effect is only going to get stronger.
2. Mass immigration. An immigrant, generally, is someone who has little to no capital that he brings with him, so he has only his labour to offer. So with mass immigration the scarcity of capital goes up while the supply of labour also goes up.

Notice how it splits exactly when Nixon took you off the gold standard.

>>127556956
I'm thinking more of Hart-Celler.

>>127556863

Seconding this

>>127556719
Notice how it starts at the same time as massive third world migration and globalization? Pure coincidence, I'm sure

>>127556796
your point doesn't disprove the op's, i do hope you realize.
the point in the op's chart is that earnings haven't continued to increase though net productivity rarely stalled.
your post is pointing out that earnings have stagnated, much like in op's pic in the late 60's.

>>127556719
no one will defend this, what's your solution? We're open to ideas, there just hasn't been a good one.

>>127556719
So... we have been producing more with less... damn... you're right dude... that shit is fucked up

>>127557283
this is a slide thread.
i countered his gay argument with the reality that raising the minimum wage now will do nothing but devalue the buying power of the dollar

>>127557058
>>127556956

personal and industrialized computers

>>127557545
ill start sageing then, but i searched the archive and i see literally nothing special going on right now, why would one slide?

GAS THE BOURGEOIS, CLASS STRUGGLE NOW

>>127557794
>1 Post by this ID

Technoligical progress allows us to get much more work done in a regular work day. It is not economical to increase wages proportionally, as that would not allow any expansion of business and fewer people would be hired.

>>127557283
>the point in the op's chart is that earnings haven't continued to increase though net productivity rarely stalled.
that isnt even what the graph is showing. the graph shows ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE, not annual percent.

File: 072315worker2.jpg (103KB, 916x661px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 916x661px

That chart is disingenuous as fuck.

>Taxes grow
>Services by government are supposed to grow
>real wages are now lower

Specially when people using it advocate for more taxes (bigger disconnect between productivity and wages).

What could have possibly happened in 1972 that would cause inflationary spirals?

It couldn't be the ending of the gold standard could it? no, impossible.

>>127556863
This and outsourcing jobs to other countries. Fewer jobs means lower demand, and more workers means higher supply, both lower wages.

>>127557792
The question isn't why net productivity continued to advance, but why real hourly compensation stagnated.

>>127557794
>why would one slide?
its electric

>>127558531

I know what didn't cause it >>127558270

So count that out

>>127558153
CUMULATIVE PERCENT CHANGE, so yeah, it's a total.
if we saw 200+% increases in productivity annually none of us would be working by now, the work would be done. We'd all be with our waifus, blacks would all be relocated to welfare island, where the fountains flow with Old English, and air drops bring in a ton of grape swisher blunts like rain once a month. hundreds to nautical miles from any white person.

Even china didnt pull those numbers in the 90's.

>>127556719
Gold standard and globalization of the working class having to compete with slave labor abroad.

Not hard to figure out ya retards.

i dont think anyone would defend this, they probably just dont know.

>Wages stop growing around 1970
>Women start entering the workdforce around 1970

It's almost as if more than doubling the supply of Labor halved its value!

>>127559605
this
>>127558932
and this
Are the most likely reasons.

>>127559605
do you agree with ben carson that "poverty is a state of mind"

surely if someone works full time they deserve at least to be able to live on their wage

>>127559881
>surely if someone works full time they deserve at least to be able to live on their wage
Surely it depends what kind of work that person is doing.

>>127559881
You don't deserve shit, that's the bullshit entitled mentality of a boomer.

>>127559881
>deserve
there is no "deserve".

>>127560061
improving the quality of life, what other purpose could humanity possibly serve?

>>127560035
>>127560061
>>127560121
thats ridiculous, if a person works full time then they should be able to afford to live.

remove the word deserve, which you are allergic to, how about if a person works hard full time then they should be able to afford to have their basic needs met

do you actually think that the top 1% just works harder than anyone else.

>>127556719
You're trying to say that
>The 1% today consume more than twice what the 99% consumed in 1972.

How is this even remotely possible?

>>127560308
If a person is working full time they can afford to meet their basic needs.

>>127560308
They do have their basic needs met though. They are able to eat and sleep under a roof.

>>127560402
you really should investigate that

>>127560308
I think that if a person works full time and can't afford their basic needs then they aren't valuable enough to humanity to be kept alive.

>>127557545
Nobody is talking about increasing the minimum wage faggot

>>127560437
afford medical treatment, afford to educate their children afford to have children in the first, afford to take some time off without having to budget any of the above.

bare subsistence is not the same as basic needs

>>127560518
You are making the assertion that a person working full time cannot afford to meet their basic needs, not me. Provide evidence.

>>127560617
Economic scarcity exists. Supply is limited. Capitalism leads to wealth creation and economic prosperity. You can not guarantee anything when supply is limited.

>>127560529
you are the perfect exemplar of your side of the debate... thank you , from the bottom of my heart thank you

>>127560529
how old are you?

>>127560788
Explain why useless people should continue to exist and use resources that could otherwise be used by productive, intelligent, creative or otherwise valuable people.
Explain why that isn't a waste.

>>127560888
21

>>127560677
19 g before tax a year isnt enough money.

>>127556719
What a half assed graph!!
You do realize that the increased productivity is because of more machines in factories. Offices using better computers and programs.
Thus, the company has to recover the expenditure for this capital and this is how it is done.

>>127556954
There has always been a problem with compensation unless both parties are on an equal playing field. This is why unions were started - workers worked all day and had no more than minimum living requirements.

>>127561168
Yes it is.

>>127556796
You moron,
the rise in productivity is because of more machines in factories and computers in offices. The companies don't get it for free and so they have to recover their expenditure into high tech equipment.
Meanwhile, the average worker has not done anything from his side to increase productivity so why would he get a higher compensation?

>>127556956
It splits because we get more machines in the workforce and computers start entering offices.
You dumbass,

>>127561168

I own a house and if my and my wife's income both suddenly dropped to $19k a year we would be fine.

File: 1493371269812.jpg (45KB, 488x352px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 488x352px

>>127556719
we gunz be rich now though

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

>>127558225
did people not pay taxes in 1970?

>>127557283
Dude, this rise in productivity is because of more high tech machines in factories.
Computers being used in the offices.
Both increased productivity, but due to the effort of the owner not because workers have become super efficient and super productive.
dumb fuck

File: 1464542761900.jpg (250KB, 736x527px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 736x527px

>>127556719
JEWS WILL HANG FOR THEIR CRIMES

>>127557457
Dumbass,
this higher productivity is because high quality machines are being used in factories and other sectors. and computers are now being used in offices.
both are the direct result of the owner's contribution to the production not the worker, so why should the worker be paid more?

>>127561294
That post was a joke.
It splits because the workforce greatly increased but the consumer base stayed the same size.

File: share of labour income of GDP.jpg (240KB, 1161x400px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1161x400px

>>127556719
OP's graphic is well-known, but is somewhat misleading. The gap did not open THAT much.

My screenshot shows OECD data on the share of national income that goes to those who work (the rest goes to those who own the capital).
It shows a different period, but it does show the same trend for the worse.

My graphic is more useful if you want to estimate how much more the workers should get paid for a fair share of the national income.

This share is roughly 60-70% in well-functioning, mostly sustainable developed economies. The U.S. had dropped to 50% by 2011.

So while OP's picture suggests workers should get more than twice as much pay, the true figure (after taking into account many complicated factors that did not play into OP's picture) is somewhere in the 20-40% area.

BTW, you can blame several things for the turn for the worse post-1973
- business cycle of growth-driving industries flattened and new ones didn't pick up in time
# Republican war on labour unions
# lobbying by management boards and multimillionnaires against workers interests
# more women working = more supply of labour = lower price of labour
# same with less discriminated and often well-educated blacks and other minorities
# more competition with foreign companies (Europe and Japan had recovered)
# non-coordinated de facto propaganda campaigns about what constitutes good economy or good economic policy (= serving capital owner interests, such as fixation on Dow Jones)
# immigration only influenced rather manual labour jobs much, and mostly in cities, Florida and near Mexican border

>>127561065
So if all the burger-flippers and cleaning ladies die off because their wage ins't one you can survive on, who is going to clean and flip burgers?

>>127561328

Except nobody ever said that.

>>127561508
No, the wage adjusts when enough of them were removed.

>>127561393
Outsourcing also comes into play. You outsource all the jobs that a person can do with dirt pay, a lot cheaper than a machine can. The only jobs that stay are the ones that can't be done by unskilled labor. So you only get skilled labor+machines, normally it would go up

>>127560308
There are tasks that are very time-consuming but extremely simple, that can be done by virtually anyone. They are the jobs most at risk for automation. You can not expect to earn enough to live from a job when any other person or even a machine could replace you. So yeah, it depends on the kind of job you are doing, even if you are working full-time. The only reason someone is paying you for that task at all is because whoever is in charge did not take the step towards automation yet.

>>127561508
If half of the burger-flippers and cleaning ladies died off then the remaining half would actually be worth a living wage.

>>127561592
What a great societal model!

>>127558225
>>127558270
>>127558531
>>127559529
>>127558932
>>127559881
>>127560308
>>127560529
The increased productivity is because of high tech machines being used in factories in the manufacturing sector, better vehicles being used for transportation and less regulations over the transportation sector.
finally, personal computers drastically increased productivity in offices and for services.
All of the above expense are taken by the business owner and it is his contribution to the productivity of the business.
It is not the contribution of the worker, that is why worker compensation has not increased.
Now do you understand?

File: Slide_Sage.png (290KB, 1156x2031px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1156x2031px

>>127556719

Sage slide thread!

1 post by this ID. You newfags are the easiest to trick into bumping a slide thread.

<------- Read this you Autists! And cut it the fuck out!

>>127561470
You are missing out the biggest driving force in productivity.
Better machines being used in the manufacturing sector.
And computers enter into the service sector.
both are the root cause of increased productivity.
it is not that workers are doing more work. It is that business owners have invested in better equipment

>>127561755
Technology has been advancing since before the beginning of recorded history.

>>127561623
Minimum wage jobs have always been designed to be flexible, that's why noone builds their lifestyle on a minimum wage, but people having those jobs change all the time. That is however not the case with immigration, where they work minimum wages, subsist on virtually nothing and send the money back, to countries with very low living standarts

>>127561930
Yeah so what does that mean moron?
Should the business owner buy expensive equipment and not recover those expenses?
and should the worker benefit for increased productivity that is not because of his input.

>>127562052
You seem to be under the impression that it began in 1972, when the graph in the OP shows that wages split from productivity.

>>127561454
the owner allocates resources, he did not contribute to the improvements himself.

>>127561470
the beavers are getting scammed

>>127556719
Going off the gold standard was a mistake

>>127556719
What happened at the time wages stopped growing?
Mass immigration and women joined the workforce.
The more labour is available in the market, the lower wages are.
Women went with the retarded policies they voted for from "now I can have a job if I want to" to "now I must have a job, whether I like it or not"
Well, at least they now get the privilege to have their kids raised by strangers and even pay for it. Hahahaha

>>127561881
I didn't write about productivity.
I wrote about factors that drove down the labour share of national income in the U.S..

Your explanation doesn't work out. Labour share in % national income is roughly 70% in Germany, roughly 50% in the U.S.. The technology level is the same.

Besides, overhead efforts have grown very much. A factory that had no robots but 1,000 manufacturing workers in the 60's would now have like 300 manufacturing workers/engineers, but also hundreds of additional product management, marketing, project management, human resources, controlling staffs.

>>127562132
You are making a straw man argument.
This graph is misleading because it uses the 1950's as the base line for wages and productivity.
The last technological revolution occured in the 19th century, before this graph was made.
even that period created enormous difference in productivity and wages.
In the 1970's we saw another technological revolution that created a difference between wages and productivity.
Hence, for this graph to give you an accurate idea,
you would need to examine productivity prior to the first industrial revolution compared to wages- then compare that to todays time.

>>127556719
>1970 saw passing of the workplace safety act, which over-regulated workplaces leading to an increase in employer/employee wedge
>1972 saw social security go up by $5.3 billion, 2.5% percentage point increase taxes since '68.
>1972 also saw medicare tax rate double.
so this was a massive period of increased government spending under nixon, and increase business regulation. all of these come out of costs, which eventually come out of the workers pocket.
the gap in productivity and wage there is almost identical to the size of the gap, the difference between what employers have to pay, and what the employee actually gets for their work (after taxes, regulations, social security etc)

so, long story short, socialism leads to inequality; it just get's around it by counting the government coffers as "the people's", which is obviously ridiculous because the people have exactly zero say over what a dictatorial government spend the money on.

Something something Jews...

>>127562505
These are figures you are pulling out of your ass.
don't waste our time with your estimates.

>>127561623
nope. nobody with IQ less than 87, or above 95. either not smart enough, or too smart and want to kill yourself.

>>127562281
The owner spends money on the machines and on the computers. So yes he does contribute to productivity. Duh!
If you don't think so, then next time you go to your office try to do work with out your owner's computers and tools. See how productive you are then!

File: C_wdEDLXYAAtaTW.jpg (27KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x420px

>>127562530
>so this was a massive period of increased government spending under nixon
big spending republican you say? Shocking!
>>127562530
I've not looked up stats but what about the fact that companies stopped paying pensions basically pushed it off on the government for cheaper

>>127562668
>The owner spends money on the machines and on the computers.

Money that he withheld from the workers before.

>If you don't think so, then next time you go to your office try to do work with out your owner's computers and tools. See how productive you are then!
The owner has leverage over the common worker. He uses this to his advantage.

>>127556719
Tell me again. About when did women start working and have more or less women started working every year since then and if more how would that affect the work force and wages?

>>127562513
If there was a massive jump in technology that occurred then we should see a massive jump in the cumulative percent change of productivity.

The minimum wage should be $0/h

>>127562737
where is your proof of that?
which time machine did you step out of that you know this is the case?

>>127556719
We have the same in the UK, I think you'll find in the late 70s mass immigration started taking hold

>>127562735
You are retarded

>>127562751
uh, are you blind- the graph clearly shows an increase in productivity.
and why would it have to be cumulative percent increase?
owners cannot expand their production indefinitely , there production is limited to demand.
Thus, even though there exists enormous potential for more productivity. It will not be accessed until demand rises enough to make it profitable to do so.
hence no cumulative percent growth.

>>127562505
Robots are certainly not the cause for this negative development.
Like I stated before, the more labour you have on the market available, the less is labour worth.
That's why we went from 1 male income is sufficient for a family to both male and female have to work full time in order to support a family.
We doubled the available labour in the market by having all women join the work force, now they MUST work, whether they like it or not.
Now they can't have many children, whether they like it or not
Now they MUST have their children raised by strangers (kindergarten, nannies etc), whether they like it or not.
Also continued immigration makes sure that we'll have pressure on wages in the future.
It's sad that both the left and the right/conservatives had lots of reasons to collude on doing this to all of us.
The left wants immigration and all women working for their utopia, the right wants to serve their friendly companies like Siemens, Audi and others.

If I'm right about this, then you'd expect that the only jobs remaining that still give males a sufficient income to have the wife stay at home would be jobs that women are excluded from.
And from what I see this is correct. Only stuff like STEM field work (which women aren't interested in) or highly dangerous and/or dirty work still brings in that kind of money.
Every other field where lots of women work in is a low wage field.

>>127561393
by that standard we've been on a steady decline since the harnessing of fire and the wheel.

if you're more productive because you use a good set of tools, you're still more productive.

>>127563073
>the graph clearly shows an increase in productivity.
it shows a constant increase of productivity since 1948.
>and why would it have to be cumulative percent increase?
because it should be increasing faster than the previous years.

Thats why I'm anti-immigration and against hiring women for pretty much anything

>>127563100
Women dominate the service sector because they rather fill papers and documents all day than do anything hard. Problem is, in the west, all traditional male jobs are outsourced thus leading a surplus of labor. Automation is a 2 way street because it creates new jobs that don't nessecerily require STEM

>>127562862
i agree with this man

File: Screen shot 2012-04-10 at 3.52.56 PM.png (43KB, 476x302px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 476x302px

>>127563381
Yes. Their contribution is more valued where it matters rather than suppressing wages.

>>127563320
God why are you having such a hard time understanding this simple point.

Even though technology has created the potential for cumulative productivity increase. There has to be a demand for products.
Otherwise businesses will produce more than they can sell and go bankrupt.
(in fact this is the entire reason for boom and bust business cycle.)
Thus, productivity is rising to match demand.
which is caused by tax rates, income levels, interest rates on loans, etc.
do you understand?
productivity is rising to meet demand.
hence it is not meeting the potential for cumulative productivity by advanced technology.

>>127563656
should be valued*

>>127563436
I don't buy it that automation creates jobs that lowers required qualifications.
For one we already had multiple revolutions of that kind in the last centuries, for example the one that displaced 95% of all workers from their old jobs.
That would be industrialisation of farming. 100 years ago almost everyone was working in farming, today only a tiny fraction does. (in some countries less than 1%)
This didn't create more low skill jobs, to the contrary, it enabled us to do more high skill jobs than previously possible.
What automatisation does is really just giving each worker much more powerful tools to work with, thereby producing more stuff in the same amount of time.
You could have a guy digging with bare hands having a very low productivity, then you give him a shovel and he could theoretically work faster than 5 persons digging with bare hands.
And then you give him a excavator and now he's more efficient than 100 guys digging with bare hands.
This didn't make his job a lower skill job, to the contrary. The guy using the excavator is required to have more skills than the guy digging with bare hands.

>>127556719
>
Free market capitalism has no short term economic incentive to increase wages, it will seek the closest approximation to actual slavery that it can get away with. We have now outsourced slavery to China.

Only reforms like the New Deal and Trust Busting will bend the curve to rein in the tyranny of greed. But those in power will never do anything for the common welfare since they do not get in power unless they can demonstrate their servitude to the monopolists.

>>127563681
Based poo in loo
T. Economist

>>127563681
You're contradicting what you said here:
>>127561755
>The increased productivity is because of high tech machines being used in factories in the manufacturing sector
What caused the increase in productivity from 1948 and 1972? Technological advancement, right?
So why did workers see an increase in compensation despite the expenses that allowed for increased productivity being that of the business owner?

>>127556719
There's nothing to defend.
With automation,robotics, CNC machinery, etc, one man can do the work of 12, without even breaking a sweat.

>>127558531
>

the question is what are the mechanisms and incentives for wages to track productivity? such as - worker stock ownership, worker union bargaining power, worker health care independent of job, worker education without incurring crippling debt, etc.

obviously the owners will measure their success by how well they suppress wage growth, so it is up the government to set the rules to level the playing field for the workers. but we see that that is impossible in a managed democracy where corporations are people and money is speech and might makes right.

>>127564266
The rise in productivity was because owners would expand their production capabilities to meet increasing demands by hiring more workers.
Once the technological breakthrough occured in the 1970's.
Producers began increasing productivity by substituting workers with machines and computers.
Of course, everyone could not implement the change immediately because these machines were still expensive.
But with each passing year they got a little cheaper allowing more and more businesses to make the switch.
until you arrive at the present day.

>>127563436
Also, traditional male jobs aren't outsourced as much as you might believe.
There's plenty of infrastructure around to be maintained an new one to be built, which women certainly wont be doing.
Mass immigration of males attacks wages of males in these areas, although it is not sufficient yet to push wages low enough to be equal with traditional female jobs.
For the high skill male work I also don't see how it's outsourced, I work in the STEM field and from what I see most companies are horrified by the work that Indian software companies deliver.

If the left ever succeeded to equal out male wages with female wages, we'd see a collapse of all infrastructure, simply because no one in his right mind would voluntarily work a very dangerous job that ruins your health if you could make the same money doing a low skill female job.
Men would just refuse doing it.

>>127564605
Sorry, but you are plain wrong. The automatisation of farming (100 years ago more than 95% of our population worked in farming) did not result in low wage, low skill jobs.
To the contrary, more high skill and high pay jobs were created.

You completely ignore the fact that around the mid 60ties to the 70ties mass immigration started everywhere in the West.
Also females started joining the work force en masse.
If you double the work force you'll reduce wages significantly.
If you keep importing people you'll keep pressure on wages so they will never rise again.
The only solution is to build a wall, deport all foreigners and push a narrative that most (not all) women would be happier if they didn't work full time. (to which even most feminist would secretly agree)

>>127556719

> globalisation.jpg

>>127565281
That's why even Republicans fight Trump on the wall and on the deportations.
If he were to this successfully, you'd see a significant rise in wages, that couldn't be talked away.
It would collapse the lefts narrative in a catastrophic way and turn most people to the right.
The fucking Democrats and NeoCohen Republicans know this very well, they will not stop fighting Trump on this, no matter what.

>>127565633
>If he were to this successfully
If he were to implement this successfully

>>127565633
>what is the economy is a house of cards built on debt & population expansion with 2 consequtive quarters of shrinking GDP enough to destroy the party in power

deport all them brown's and america's gonna have the dirty "r" word

>>127565281
Dude,
don't shoot at friendlies! are you stupid.

You are anti- immigration, i am pointing out that the commie agenda of blaming low wages on greedy businesses and capitalism is total shit because manufacturing had a big part to play in it.
and of course so did immigration and feminism.
Everything combined had a part to play in it.
Seriously man, don't shoot at friendlies

File: image-1.jpg (27KB, 640x427px)

27KB, 640x427px

>>127565949
the globalist overlords have outsourced worker regressive propaganda to the pajeets now

Sad!

File: _91408619_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg (29KB, 660x574px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 660x574px

Those things are manipulated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJR0DYs70f8

>>127565856
Deport all the illegal immigrants and prevent new ones from coming in for a start.
But even considering this is racist, although we all have laws that require our government to do this.
I wonder why that is. Republicans want their corporate buddies to spend less on wages, Democrats want more welfare dependent voters.
That's how you reduce an empire to rubble.

>>127566082
Lolz
yeah we are getting paid 10 cents for the hour.
it is a thousand times more than my peers are making.
i am living it big!

>>127564605
Automation has been occurring in various productive industries for hundreds of years, and the rate at which workers are replaced by technology has not increased. Prove that it has.
1940-1970 is even considered to be a period of technological revolution.

File: 31ec86542d486e01e757b23e9b68a281.png (135KB, 773x435px)

135KB, 773x435px

>>127566114
A summary: That's the productivity for the total economy, which is due to industries using more advanced technology.

Wages have been actually outpacing worker productivity (pic related).

File: millennials are just fucking lazy.png (174KB, 4672x1800px)

174KB, 4672x1800px

>>127556719

>>127566242
dude, seriously.
you are not paying me to become your tuition teacher.

>>127556719
end of the bretton wood system

>>127566405
Praise Obongo!

>>127556719
So what am I looking at exactly?

>>127566413
And you are speculating bullshit about some rapid technological advancement that NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED

>>127565949
I didn't attack all of your arguments, only the one where you state that automatisation caused stagnant wages.
Of course commies blame everything on Capitalism in order to justify their authoritarian solutions.
I hold the common sense view that technological advancement (one that gives individuals more efficient and powerful tools to work with) improves the wealth of a nation.

It's actually a great trick commies played on us to convince so many, that technological advancement will make everyone poor and suffering. It's a literally insane idea.
And the green party commies now want to end all technology and have us return to living in mud huts, because of the carbon footprint and love for mother nature.

File: grqewtrsgd.png (20KB, 512x221px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 512x221px

>>127556719
Why not post compensation instead of wages?

(here before the recession, which of course hit the workers the hardest)

>>127556719
looks like free floating currency is good for some people.

>>127566592
maybe you should have taken a course in modern history instead of gender studies.

>>127566592
next you will be asking me to explain the bees and the flowers.

>>127566995
Maths actually.
The fact is that there was no increase in the rate of automation in the 1970s. Workers were being replaced by productive technologies at the same rate for the entire 20th century.

File: D0FB99F1-3E70-45E7-933A-81C4B6CCCB72-292-0000002EA74E4293.gif (175KB, 565x469px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 565x469px

>>127556719

why? this illustrates our point.

illegal, unchecked foreign invasion.
mommy state.
crowning of the welfare "queens".
rise of the degenerate single "mom".
not allowed to win wars.
marxist infestation.
"free" "trade".

>>127567228
Send me the money you gave your teachers.
The 60's and 70's saw the birth of programming code, dram and the first micro processor.
As well as the earliest LCDs which birthed the easy to use computer interface today. (earlier it took a fucking certified engineer to operate a computer)
this boom created the assimilation of computers into machines used in factories and in work places.
so yeah, fact is that it did happen.
and new zealand has a piss poor education system. I seriously have lost respect for your entire nation.
Good job!

File: 0887B6EB-E823-412F-82EE-FCB3664E961C-239-000000247BBCD6F9.jpg (94KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1280x720px

>>127567588

one more thing:

end of bretton-woods.
birth of absolute fiat dollar.

>>127567738
Which had no significant economical impact at the time whatsoever. Computers only started to catch on in the economy in the mid 80ties.

>>127567738
>There were improvements in technology in the 1970s
>Therefore there was an increase in THE RATE of improvement of productive technologies
Fuck logic and reading and shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

>>127568000
Dude, you are talking about personal computers owned by normal people
i am talking about computers used at factories and for in big businesses and corporations.
There is an enormous difference.
an yeah these computers revolutionized our entire economies of scale.
earlier machines had to be carefully timed, can you imagine the intricacy involved? like say for a newspaper printing machine?
Do you know how much waste those machines created. Or that artificial inhibitors had to be placed on these machines because human beings could not monitor their work past a certain speed?
with the arrival of computers- they started monitoring these machines and productivity improved.
Also, as i mentioned earlier.
These new machines were very expensive. And so everyone could not switch to them.
but with each year they grew cheaper, more companies bought it, and their economical impact multiplied.
hence- huge impact in the 80's.

>>127560308
No they should just be gassed if the work they perform isn't valuable enough.

>>127568094
you should not have fucked logic and reading. It is why you are a loser today.
It is okay anon. You only let your country down.

>>127568359
>Dude, you are talking about personal computers owned by normal people
No I'm not. I'm talking about the time it was adopted on an economically significant scale by Western industries.
That wasn't the case in the 60ties and 70ties, therefore it cannot be the cause for stagnant wages during that time.
>hence- huge impact in the 80's.
So you agree with me here? What's even the point you are trying to make?

File: IrelandFlag.png (15KB, 300x150px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x150px

>>127561065
Muh feelings.

>>127568616
I am making the point that they are the source of the divergence between pay and productivity.
As more of these computerized machines entered the manufacturing sector the more the productivity and wages diverged.

>>127561065
Also, eugenics is the best way to go about this.

>sterilize the ones currently alive
>let them live out their years as the last of the deficient
>genetically test fetuses for fitness (the genetic markers should be understood fairly soon)
>discard the ones who don't pass and the parents have another go
>breed increasingly intelligent and smaller generations of humans while automation supplants the unintellgent

>>127568754
If that was the case then we'd see stagnant wages beginning in the mid 80ties, when this automatisation actually revolutionised our industries.
What we see is instead wages going flat at the beginning of the 70ties, and this seems to have happened suddenly.
Therefore to me it is more likely to be caused by the immigration act of 65 and women joining the work force on a massive scale.
It's also the more logical explanation as more available labour causes prices for labour to drop.

And, technological advancement has never in our history lead to poverty. It has always made us richer.

>>127569138
Not literally smaller humans, I mean in terms of population.

File: makesyouthink.jpg (114KB, 1199x1172px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1199x1172px

>>127556719
>>127556719
1972 the graphs start to diverge, I wonder what happened in the US around this time? Hmm

>>127569160
who said anything about us being poor?
just because wages has not increased does not mean there is poverty.
How so you ask??
Our standards of living today are far superior to what they were decades past and that is because of technological improvements.
just because there is income inequality does not mean people are suffering.
what matters is "quality of life" and that has improved drastically.

>>127566995
>>127567166
>tfw you're SO mad and btfo that you need to make two replies both of which are just desperate attempts at insults because you've completely failed to address or supply actual arguments
kid...weeeeew

>>127569431
>Our standards of living today are far superior to what they were decades past
No it is not, women are forced to work full time, thereby being unable to have children and if they can, they are forced to let strangers raise their children.
This is objectively so much worse than back then, it actually threatens the existence of our societies.

Having an iPhone or a MacBook is not an improvement that makes up for this poverty we have now. The poverty that only 5-10% of our people can afford to have their wives taking care of the family full time.
Back then this was a middle class thing, now it's only for the rich.

File: 1984_still4-1240x675.jpg (60KB, 1240x675px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1240x675px

>>127561755
>>127561881
>>127562052
>>127562513
>>127562596
>>127562668
>>127563073
>>127563681
Are these the bullshit memes they teach you in economics class?
Inequality and falling labour share of profits are the result of POLICY, globalisation, financialisation, outsourcing and reduced investment in manufacturing.

Technology has nothing to do with it. You think the world didn't see massive relative technology gains in the 1800s, during rhe 20th century. From the War to the 1970s, humanity witnessed the greatest technological surge before or since. And labour's share of profits rose.

You think computers make people more productive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox

You know nothing. You are like all economists. You come on here and bullshit out a few buzzwords and expect anons to eat it up. You are as useless as your theories.

Explain which technology made Wall Street CEOs worth 500 times more per years than their floor employees, and which made British Airway's IT staff disposable last year? I'll wait while you spout prattle about supply and demand and markets while we both know perfectly well that employer sponsored and government supported outsourcing and capital transfer laws have enabled all the dysfunction we see round us.

>>127569431
We're working harder, for longer, for less money. Now you might think that's a good thing but to me it sounds like we're all being cucked by the bosses.

I dunno, maybe you enjoy that sort of thing?

>>127569431
>india ranting about technology improving quality of life
>but can they see the quality of life improvement from the technology of putting poo in loo?
the world may never know!

File: EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg (23KB, 279x356px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 279x356px

>>127561065
>Explain why that isn't a waste.

>>127569794
And you know what, if we collectively can't have families like we are supposed to as human (social) beings, then we'll happily push society to civil war or even to a new world war and burn everything to the ground.

File: productivitygains.gif (121KB, 540x305px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 540x305px

>>127561258
>the rise in productivity is because of more machines in factories and computers in offices.

>>127569914
oy vey, your bosses deserves an ever increasing proportion of the profits for getting you to work harder for longer hours with less time off for proportionally less pay, you stupid goyim!

>>127569160
The lines diverge right where Nixon ended the gold standard, automation didn't help either.

>>127570557
I'm not flat out denying the that this had an impact (it probably played a part), but first you've got to explain how this would lead to stagnant wages.

Where on the other hand it is absolutely logical that wages stagnate if you significantly increase the available labour through mass immigration and women joining the work force.

File: The End as I see it.jpg (50KB, 662x786px)

50KB, 662x786px

>>127570199

File: mall.jpg (87KB, 634x460px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 634x460px

>>127569431
>Our standards of living today are far superior to what they were decades past and that is because of technological improvements.

>>127556719

But Ceo Chaim Goldberg needs his his 5th yacht.

As a libertarian I see nothing wrong with this.

>>127570164
>NAZI!!!

File: 1324614626730.jpg (17KB, 246x245px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 246x245px

>>127569431
>Our standards of living today are far superior to what they were decades past and that is because of technological improvements

>DESIGNATED
>SHITTING
>STREETS
>TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS

>>127570971
That's exactly how these excesses of collective violence happen.
In our current societies you couldn't even blame the elites for indoctrinating us on purpose into thinking this way, they just created a society and framework that objectively isn't acceptable anymore for our people to even sufficiently reproduce themselves.
I mean what else would anyone expect to happen in a situation, when we have birthrates far below the replacement level for decades.
Somethings going terribly wrong, and it's not technological advancement that kills us, it's that families are actively undermined and destroyed through legislation, giving one side (the wife) the tools to destroy and enslave the husband on a whim.

Imagine they'd change the legislative framework to allow business partners to fuck each other over on a whim without penalty.
We would cease to have any significant economic activity soon after that. Why would we want to? Only do be fucked?

>>127571325
You pampered western liberals don't know anything! Toilets waste precious hours of wagecuck work earning whatever peanuts your gracious master decides to throw your way!

>>127556719
It splits when women started entering the workforce, effectively doubling it without doubling the need for twice as many products

File: 1322396935916 - Copy.jpg (109KB, 497x374px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 497x374px

>>127571859
>western liberal
>for using a toilet

>>127558003
t. cuck

>>127569858
It's hard to judge if you're genuinely retarded or trolling

>>127571837
oh I agree with you m8. we are headed somewhere magical. the entire system has gone wrong. and frankly I welcome a start over.

But to survive the collapse.. that will be the real challenge

>>127560308
>do you actually think that the top 1% just works harder than anyone else.
Maybe not harder, but certainly smarter.

>>127562596
Learn to read. The figures were coming from the OECD data I posted above and you show your ignorance on the topic by not recognising those real world figures as real.

>>127556719
>What is the 1965 immigration act, Alex
>Wow we let in millions of unskilled workers and suddenly the cost Labor plummets

>>127573364
This goyim gets it! we deserve more money for the superior crafty smarts of our chosen tribe, it's your place to do the work for us.

File: 6ec2e8bdc9c014cea490118dfcf0482a_i-wanna-be-a-rebel-but-im-too-scared-other-stuff-pinterest-star-trek-shocked-meme_500-281.jpg (48KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x281px

>>127556719
>a socialist program like minimum wage is causing employees to lose thousands in the long run

>>127560308
>I work 40 hours a week at McDonald's so I should be able to pay for my pancreatic cancer

>>127556719
>1 post by this ID
/thread
sage
>>127556863
Also this

>>127573134
Well, at least your democracy barely functions well enough so someone who wants to change the system can actually get elected.
But who knows if he can actually do something about the problems of your society.

On the other hand here in Europe things look bad. Somehow they inserted or converted the leader of the German conservative party (Merkel) to self destructive Marxist policies.
And now they also got Macron into power in France.
Of course both of them together threaten Russia and the US.

I suppose, just as usual, most of the magic will happen here in the EU.

>>127556719
How much of that productivity is due to people using more advanced machinery?

File: iskra-lawrence-butt.png (631KB, 656x571px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 656x571px

>>127573364
you obviously know fuck all about capitalism.

When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and is doing again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. In other words capital begets capital - thus if you have it you get more.

>>127574312
>at least your democracy barely functions well enough so someone who wants to change the system can actually get elected.

oh no. This is a grave misunderstanding. Trump has ties to the Jews of Manhattan via his daughter. The Kushner family is as jew as possible. We never had a chance. It was Jews or Jews for this past election.

The only difference was which jews to elect.

>>127574692
lol stop whining you stupid gibsmedat nigger, it's the fault of you stupid liberals anyway, see >>127573962 >>127573519

>>127574702
Yeah I know, but at least he intends to deport illegals and build the wall. (I believe he is honest about this)
That's at least something that would counteract the stagnant wages in the long run.

If he can do it with all the resistance is another question, we will see.

File: h1.jpg (30KB, 304x480px)

30KB, 304x480px

>>127574904
nah Im not whining. It is important to have a big middle class - you in Brazil should know how hard it sucks to have a small one. We have seen a massive transfer of wealth and power from the middle class to the upper class at the same time the tax burden has been increased to pay for baby boomer excesses and the growing nigger, spic and lower classes. Economically we are Brazilifying and that is a bad thing.

>>127575369
>We have seen a massive transfer of wealth and power from the middle class to the upper class at the same time the tax burden has been increased to pay for baby boomer excesses
whine whine "I deserve more money, gibsmedat!"

>>127575712
Spotted the kike

File: IMG_5812.jpg (137KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1024x1024px

>>127557545
Slid away from what?
Should would instead trump the trump so we can trump moar?

>poorfags in 2017

If you and your family aren't rich already, you and your genetic line has FAILED and you need to be ditched yesterday.

Zero sympathy and excuses. The bar can and will continue to be raised until the 99% are filtered out.

>>127575989
So jews would be fine then. And it's not like extreme wealth inequality has adverse macro-economic effects.

The burger mind is so judaized, you're their favourite goys for a reason.

>>127574131
>people who work in fast food don't deserve treatment for terminal diseases
This is the exact opposite of what Hitler would want, you filthy shabbos goy.

>>127576840
I'll be fine, too.

Who cares about what some poorfags say or want? I certainly don't, and the Jews shouldn't either.

>>127556956
>>127557110
>>127557058
>>127557792

These are correct. We also switched from the American School of Economics to Chicago Monetarist School.

>>127561755
>It is not the contribution of the worker, that is why worker compensation has not increased.
Who do you think builds and operates these high tech machines, vehicles, personal computers? Business owners?

>>127577135
It's a cornerstone of fascist ideology, corporatism, class collaboration and all that. Viewing the whole of society as an organic structure means not wantonly neglecting essential parts of it. The idea that people who work full time should have a reasonable standard of living is not a misguided ideal, and it's achievable without resorting to communism.

The AP in NSDAP stood for ''Arbeiterpartei'', because they represented the interests of the working class.

File: 132669-004-AF290F2D.jpg (41KB, 550x390px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 550x390px

>>127577135
You should care. Because everything that holds these "poorfags" back from knocking your door down and putting your head on a spike is the fading social contract.

>>127575989
This is completely retarded. I am rich and my parents were poor.
50% of all Americans are in the top 10% for at least 1 year in their lifetimes.
50% of the top 10% are in the top 1% for at least 1 year in their lifetimes.

There is possibility to rise and many do it, at least for some time.
Aristocracy on the other hand is total degeneracy, as we can witness by todays elite.

>>127577868
Fascism is dead and is less likely to come back than full blown communism.

>>127578356
Nope. We will turn half of the working class against the other half and laugh as your groups slaughter each other while we wait it out.

If that doesn't work, its carpet nuking time.

>>127556719
No /pol/ won't. Ancaps will defend that.

>>127562735
i mean, massive for the time. obviously nothing is ever going to top obama. 8 trill bail out bro.

>>127578634
>laugh as your groups slaughter each other while we wait it out
You are shitposting on 4chan. Stop LARPing as rich guy.
>carpet nuking time.
hf finding someone protecting your sorry ass in a civil war.

>>127563934
yeah, automation is actually carving away from the low IQ workforce, and pushing the brackets down over and over.
exactly as your example demonstrats, automation has turned 85IQ jobs like post holing or landscaping into 95IQ jobs, cause now there heavy machinery involved.
you apply this shift to enough jobs, and it starts looking pretty grim. we need very smart people these days just to do relatively simple roles, because theyre actually doing the job of 4 or 5 of people in that 1 role, with a technical machine.
and where low iq people are getting jobs, theyre so incredibly repetitive and tedious that they cant accrue any skills at all. they work in lines where they literally just do 1 screw, or just put these cherries on cakes, or just wash chickens or whatever. that's not remotely transferable.

>>127556863
Why not increase immigrant wages?

File: immigration.png (66KB, 853x718px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 853x718px

>>127556719
Something obviously changed somewhere around the 70s which detached those two quantities.

Now lets just line the dates up with this graph here...

File: 1494876417967.jpg (70KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1024x640px

>>127556719
This is why we need national socialism

>>127561190
Unions? don't expect many to have read Sinclairs The Jungle here.

>>127579222
>laugh as your groups slaughter each other while we wait it out
I'd honestly do the same thing if niggers and white supremacists fought, or if we went to civil war. Though I would buy a bunch of guns and shit, I'd rather let some other idiots do the fighting. Same with antifa and Trump supporters.

File: 1487529681773.jpg (70KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 450x450px

>>127579662
>increase wages paid to immigrants
fucking genius. the left will eat this shit up until immigrant employment drops to zero and they realize how labor markets work.
Also we need to require H1B visa's be paid >25% more than similar employees to make up for racism etc.
niggers and spics will eat this shit up and the dems won't be able to explain to them why this is a bad idea

>>127582482
>why this is a bad idea
for niggers and spics

>>127580708
what do you know? the inflection point on immigration matches the point where wages fell away from productivity. I guess labor supply is really a thing.

>>127556719
But muh automation?

>>127579559
It has undeniably pushed requirements up, I can't deny that.
Still I believe that most jobs, particularly those that have something to do with maintaining and building infrastructure, don't require a level of intelligence or education that people originating from Europe wouldn't have.
Otherwise our elites couldn't import millions upon millions of these people from the third world and use them to suppress wages for these kinds of jobs.
I'm working in the IT field, so I'm lucky in this respect. But I wouldn't have an issue if these other workers would earn more money like they used to.
In fact, our governments have been trying to suppress wages of us who work in the STEM fields as well by importing Indians and others.
It's all just a race to the bottom and I don't want it. If we have labour shortages then we should educate more and have more children, which comes naturally when wages rise and wives can afford to stay at home.
Or we develop new, even more powerful technologies to help us deal with the labour shortage.
I don't believe I'm proposing here anything that could be considered terribly racist or evil, why wouldn't anyone want to have a happy society. That is, one that's happy to have at least replacement level birthrates.