>For millions of workers, wages have flatlined. Take Caterpillar, long a symbol of American industry: while it reported record profits last year, it insisted on a six-year wage freeze for many of its blue-collar workers.
>Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of the nation’s G.D.P., but last year wages fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Since 2001, when the wage share was 49 percent, there has been a steep slide. “We went almost a century where the labor share was pretty stable and we shared prosperity,” says Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. “What we’re seeing now is very disquieting.” For the great bulk of workers, labor’s shrinking share is even worse than the statistics show, when one considers that a sizable — and growing — chunk of overall wages goes to the top 1 percent: senior corporate executives, Wall Street professionals, Hollywood stars, pop singers and professional athletes. The share of wages going to the top 1 percent climbed to 12.9 percent in 2010, from 7.3 percent in 1979.
>Conservative and liberal economists agree on many of the forces that have driven the wage share down. Corporate America’s push to outsource jobs — whether call-center jobs to India or factory jobs to China — has fattened corporate earnings, while holding down wages at home. New technologies have raised productivity and profits, while enabling companies to shed workers and slice payroll. Computers have replaced workers who tabulated numbers; robots have pushed aside many factory workers.
>Real median income has stagnated, especially over the last decade. Inequality has risen dramatically, driven by huge increases in top incomes. Employment growth has disappointed. At least some of the blame for all of this, the authors argue, can be laid at the foot of new technology. It's an interesting twist on the themes developed by Tyler Cowen in his ebook The great stagnation. Mr Cowen argues that a major slowdown in innovation is constraining potential growth, while new progress in information technology isn't providing benefits to most workers. Mssrs Brynjolfsson and McAfee tweak the argument, writing that innovation has been gathering pace and having an increasing impact on labour markets. In a nutshell, new technologies are displacing workers faster than the economy can find new uses for them.
>I think the most important part of their argument is in their nice explanation of the nature of change in information and communication technologies (ICT). The first thing to understand about ICT is that it is a general purpose technology, like electricity, with the ability to dramatically change business models and boost productivity across many different sectors. The second critical detail is the deceptively rapid pace of technological change. The authors note that when technologies improve in a Moore's Law-like fashion, doubling in power at relatively high frequencies, the huge scale of potential change sneaks up on you. The first few doublings—1 to 2, 16 to 32—seem unremarkable. By the 50th doubling, when you're going from 563 trillion to 1.1 quadrillion, the pace of progress seems almost magical. In this way, developments that seemed impossible a few years ago, like fully autonomous cars and high-quality computerized translation, are now realities, or soon will be. And there's good reason to think that ICT is just getting warmed up.
>In the town that launched the War on Poverty 48 years ago, the poor are getting poorer despite the government's help. And the rich are getting richer because of it.
>The federal government does redistribute wealth down to struggling Americans. But in the years since President Lyndon Johnson took aim at poverty in his first State of the Union address, there has been an increasingly strong crosscurrent: The government is redistributing wealth up, too - especially in the nation's capital.
>Data findings The analysis found that inequality has risen not just in plutocratic hubs such as Wall Street and Silicon Valley, but also in virtually every corner of the world's richest nation:
Inequality has increased in 49 of 50 states since 1989. (See accompanying box on how inequality was measured.)
The poverty rate increased in 43 states, most sharply in Nevada, ravaged by the housing bust, and in Indiana, which saw a rise in low-paying jobs.
Twenty-eight states saw all three metrics of socioeconomic well-being worsen. There, inequality and poverty rose and median income fell.
In all 50 states, the richest 20 percent of households made far greater income gains than any other quintile - up 12 percent nationally.
Income for the median household - in the very middle - fell in 28 states, with Michigan and Connecticut leading the way.
The five largest increases in inequality all were in New England: Connecticut first, followed by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. The decline in manufacturing jobs hit New England's poor and middle hard, while the highly educated benefited from expansion in the biotech and finance industries.
The only state that didn't see a rise in inequality: Mississippi, which had an insignificant dip. The Magnolia State was one of the few to post a drop in poverty and a rise in income, but it still ranks worst in the nation on both counts.
Personally I believe the citizens income to be the most practical and efficient solution we have currently. At the very least implementing a system like this would buy us time to reconfigure our society to the changing economic climate without losing a large portion of our society to the pit that is poverty.
I'd like to hear everyone else's suggestions to this problem though
>Replacing the costly, complex benefits system, a citizen's income is an unconditional payment granted to every individual as a right of citizenship. It's not a high figure – barely enough to survive on alone, and below the minimum wage – but it is designed to prevent all of us from falling into poverty traps. Compellingly, it removes the stigma from state support. There is no difference between a student, a person managing life with a disability, a pensioner and someone struggling to find stable employment if we all share the same basic starting point.
I agree, the trend is more for less in basically everything.
The problem becomes how to support this trend as it continues. Either we start having to pay more for products in order to pay the costs for maintaining employment, or we work out a way to ensure people have money to pump into the economy without employment..
America should once again become Isolationist. Obviously with global economics it won't be as simple or clear cut however we definitely need to bring industries and employment back to the States instead of being dependent on the global market
I live in an apartment complex and about 75% of the residents here are from India and are here to work for Bank of America. They are even having their rent paid for by BoA while they're here. Easily a thousand jobs or so unemployed americans could be working
It will never happen. But go back to Reagan's tax percentages.
Record profits, but no wage increases. When Joe Biden is/was your poorest senator even he doesn't care all that much about wage increases and/or increased taxes on the rich.
The governor of my state has a new bold plan to... lower taxes on the rich and corporations. Thanks asshole.
10 years ago I had a factory job that paid $12.00 an hour, to keep the job I had to work 66 hours a week at that job. The job now pays $13.00 an hour, but there is no more overtime for 40-55 hours. Only the last 11 hours pay overtime. (12 hour days but minus half an hour for lunch, and two 15 minute breaks.) 12.00 x 40 + 18.00 x 26 = 948 13.00 x 55 + 19.50 * 11 = 929.5
Spending 72 hours a week at a job is not living a life. Plus an hour commute every day. No one represents the average worker anymore.
That would go a long way to helping things. But the left/liberals will scream 'Dats Rayciss' and continue to fuck poor middle-class US citizens in the ass with the wetback dick. Of course it doesn't help that the other side of the aisle keeps rewarding companies that freeze workers wages.
America becoming isolationist would hasten the end of the US dollar as the world reserve currency. If you think that America can shun German and Japanese products in favour of their own, and not have serious consequences, you'd be a fool.
Protip: the reason why the US is stagnating has a lot to do with fiscal and monetary policies.
They split us with these bullshit issues to distract us from the only one that matters, the economic one.
We will need to stop immigration, institute strict tariffs, punish companies for hiding money overseas, and reformat the taxcode. Personally I like the idea of a flat tax however there might be a better idea
Honestly it's not a "today we're cutting off ties with the world" decision. I mean work to make America self-sufficient. Bring industry back, increase public works like education/health/infrastructure, and spend money on innovating because without innovation we will surely stagnate.
I recognize that the root cause of all these issues stems from poor financial policies and such, but they need fixing.
What's not helping this issue is the application of obamacare either
It's essentially going to kill the last remaining scraps of the middle class and prevent the millennials from getting to middle class as well. Also gonna hit the working poor really bad as well, now that their full time hourly jobs are getting turned into part time hourly jobs
>>33166194 SJW don't like to talk about class issues Because for the most part, SJW are either upper or middle upper class and are "privileged"(not that they would ever admit that)
Agreed. However since these changes go against the market's will so to speak, the government would have to create laws and enforce them again. To do this the government would have to be removed from big business. If that's even possible at this point...
Yeah when you have a labor supply over-inflated with both illegal and legal immigrants, wages will tend to stagnate. Shrink the labor force by deporting illegals, securing the border, and limiting legal immigration and wages will rise due to market forces.
>>33166755 >Cost of production needs to plummet in the USA. Those niggers you've got on foodstamps should be making socks or something.
I always wondered why we don't institute a New Deal type of program where to be on government assistance you need to work on approved programs. Our above ground telephone/electric wires need burying, roads/bridges need repair, not to mention green energy possibilities of installing solar panels or other energy producers.
Look at what the media has been doing to the TEA Party. Look at what they did to Cliven Bundy. Look at what happened to the original OWS. The minute any movement reaches a point of actually being able to do anything, it gets railed on in the media, and the Feds wreck it beyond all recognition. Nothing short of a revolution is going to save this country and nobody left in America has the grapes. Maybe bread and circus isn't so bad. At least you become so numbed that you wont even care anymore. Like oxygen masks on a plane, we'll go down in flames calm as Hindu cows.
Cheap disposable stuff and planned obsolescence is a good thing, depending on the application and item. Driving a car for 40 years would mean you miss out on a lot of technological enhancements, such as electronic fuel injection.
If a product is cheap, but does it's intended job once or twice, or even outperforms much more expensive brand name counterparts, it's a superior product.
>>33166846 Specifically for me, food seems exorbitantly expensive. Grapes, cherries and meat are getting pricey. It's either spend the dosh on it or adopt a bland, unappealing diet that has poor nutrition and will contribute to future health problems.
Because it's been tried in many municipalities and all these welfare queens turn out to be good for is unskilled labor. In the end it just exasperates the problem they already face with their own children who see no improvement, and end up seeing their parents even less.
>>33166755 >Immigration in of itself is not a bad thing, the quality of the immigrants themselves is the question American needs to be asking.
Skilled immigration is just as bad now. All the Indian and Chinese engineers being hires are depressing wages and exploited by corporations who could send them back to whatever third world shut hole they came from at a whim, meanwhile 12 million Stem workers are out of work and every year that number will grow.
>>33166995 You think Bundy was a retard, Tea Party and OWS were controlled opposition, but you didn't follow the VERIFIABLE controlled opposition in OP Am. Spring or the truckers? What are you, a shill?
>>33166750 You could start with tariffs for offshore products, even ones made by US companies. Create incentives for expanding domestic manufacturing, paying higher wages, and creating quality and durable products.
>Honestly it's not a "today we're cutting off ties with the world" decision. I mean work to make America self-sufficient. Bring industry back, increase public works like education/health/infrastructure, and spend money on innovating because without innovation we will surely stagnate.
Industry goes overseas because of the elevated cost of production in the USA compared to say, Asia. Nothing you just mentioned will address this fact, in actuality, more deficit-driven public spending will exacerbate it.
Hell, the trade war you're going to start with the tariffs will end the hegemony of the US dollar.
Please proceed Americlap, I always wanted to see an Empire crumble in my lifetime.
>I always wondered why we don't institute a New Deal type of program where to be on government assistance you need to work on approved programs. Our above ground telephone/electric wires need burying, roads/bridges need repair, not to mention green energy possibilities of installing solar panels or other energy producers.
Because the New Deal didn't work when it was new (see: downturn in 1938), and it sure as shit won't work in 2014.
Question: now that wages and their taxes are rising in China, what is the progression of offshoring now? Do they collectively spend multiple billion dollars moving shop to another undeveloped country and ride that out until they too become developed?
>>33165273 Essentially this, you in-effect subsidize the slave wages of third world nations by raising the prices of the goods and service they make and sell back domestically here to parity with our workers.
That coupled with an implementation of Card Check or repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act which made Right-to-Work State Laws legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947
Those would tackle labor substitution via outsourcing but not automation.
Barring those things, or maybe in spite of them in long-run as a result of automation, we should enact a Basic Income Guarantee to replace all forms of means-tested Welfare & Social Security.
Read his inaugural address, its good stuff. Long story short he was a dreamer
>The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
>So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
>Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring these problems which divide us.
>Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
>And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but together what we can do for the freedom of man.
>>33165068 No it's literally the only solution to fill the gap between now and a time where technology may make production decentralised enough that it benefits the 'everyman', short of going full retard and trying to implement planned economies again or just waiting for a revolution.
Now just you wait a moment, the REASON why there isn't domestic production is because the cost of doing business is too high in the US. It's too high in the UK, Australia and other western countries too.
Manufacturers build obsolescence into their products because many times the labour to repair something far exceeds the value of the item itself.
They are already moving to the other South East countries. Anything to save a buck
>More Filipinos — about 400,000 — than Indians now spend their nights talking to mostly American consumers, industry officials said, as companies like AT&T, JPMorgan Chase and Expedia have hired call centers here
>Question: now that wages and their taxes are rising in China, what is the progression of offshoring now? Do they collectively spend multiple billion dollars moving shop to another undeveloped country and ride that out until they too become developed?
Industrialization 101. Rural people will move to the cities and provide cheap labour for the factories, rinse and repeat until China is relatively well off and can produce quality goods. They can in turn offshore some of the shittier industries that pollute China to other areas of Asia.
>President Kennedy was quoted as saying, "How could I have been so stupid?" to trust the groups who were advising him, such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). (2) Even more damning to the CIA was a reputed quote by President Kennedy that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds." (3)
>Two and a half years after Kennedy supposedly uttered these words, he was assassinated along a motorcade route in Dallas, Texas.
He was about to make some big moves after getting burned by the CIA/Joint Chiefs of Staff. The establishment thought he was getting too reckless in my opinion and couldn't risk him actually doing stuff
How about a parliamentary style of government like Europe has where the percentage of votes received by each party translates into the amount of seats they hold. Not like the winner take all system we have now
I think a couple of things would go a long way. First, the government needs to increase spending on things that spur economic development. So, more spending on basic research and more spending on infrastructure. Eliminating or severely reducing patents would likely help spur more innovation and entrepreneurship. The safety net should be reserved for those people who truly need it, and at the same time something needs to be done about the income tax. We shouldn't be subsidizing poverty and taxing income at the same time. If we stop filling up our prisoners with low-level drug offenders we might solve some of the problems inner-city communities see.
Also really basic shit like emphasizing a strong two-parent family and no-nonsense education that emphasizes science, math and writing skills.
>'(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of an outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
Oh, and here is Kennedy explaining in his own words his policy on silver.
>I again urge a revision in our silver policy to reflect the status of silver as a metal for which there is an expanding industrial demand. Except for its use in coins, silver serves no useful monetary function.
>In 1961, at my direction, sales of silver were suspended by the Secretary of the Treasury. As further steps, I recommend repeal of those Acts that oblige the Treasury to support the price of silver; and repeal of the special 50-percent tax on transfers of interest in silver and authorization for the Federal Reserve System to issue notes in denominations of $1, so as to make possible the gradual withdrawal of silver certificates from circulation and the use of the silver thus released for coinage purposes. I urge the Congress to take prompt action on these recommended changes.
Before this time, coinage and small bills were backed by silver. He was actually advocating the elimination of silver from the monetary system, enhancing the Federal Reserve's monopoly on our currency.
And retards like you lap up whatever conspiracy theory Jim Marrs and Oliver Stone serve up.
>>33163975 Obviously it was caused by a sudden epidemic of lazy people. Everyone needs to stop being so entitled, pull on their bootstraps, walk into that store, look the manager in the eye and shake his hand.
>>33170768 Basically the rich won. The stock market no longer correlates to the actual economical conditions of the country. It literally operates on FEELS, and the underlying economy hasn't relied on having a fully employed population for it's growth in decades.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing but policy makers still have this notion that the economy must have everyone working to function and grow. There just isn't enough jobs for the number people who need to work which creates permanent slack in the economy and drags wages down without impacting production at all.
>>33163975 Peoria fag here, city of Caterpillar. They are in the process of moving. I know many people who work in their factories and they say everyday they go in there is more and more equipment gone.
Cant wait for Peoria/IL to become even more of a hellhole.
>>33172710 Okay find me better sources. It's still adjusted for inflation and isn't an average that can be skewed by outliers.
>>33172827 Not really as you replace many transfer programs that already exist. Also the principal problem has been that increased production no longer requires large numbers of jobs. Automation efficiency is making supply outpace demand and creating a permanent shortage of jobs.
Quite simply, we don't have to. Inequality doesn't matter.
Today, the average unemployed nigger on welfare lives better than the average member of the white working class did in 1900.
Our current society and economy is incredibly productive and successful, and in future it will only be more so. Even the most marginal loser in 2050 will live better than most of us posting on this board. He will have better healthcare, eat better food, and be more educated.
The real issue here though is FREEDOM
The total institutionalization of the majority of the population will completely end modern freedoms as we know them, as most of us will no longer have any means of supporting ourselves and will be reliant on government and charity to support ourselves.
Only a tiny minority will enjoy this privilege - and the relative decline in social status of most people will eventually be formally reflected in the form of government.
>>33172827 My solution is maximum wage. Companies can pay workers whatever they want, but the CEO can only make a certain percentage more than base employee. Lets say, they can only make 25 times what a base level employee makes working full time. So if they have any employees making $20,000, thats a bit above minimum wage, they themselves could only be paid $500,000. And no benefits or perks, only straight up pay, this would be to close any loopholes. And before all you conservitards bitch and moan, "well then no one will work for the top jobs!" BULLSHIT. People do lots of bullshit for the value of power and prestige as much as money. And if they wont do for that price, I sure as hell fucking will. There are plenty of people stuck in middle management hell who would gladly take that pay raise.
>>33173683 >why are those houses not for rent right now? because the price of housing is higher than it was before 07 Which is due to people speculating on the housing market, so it makes sense for the banks to sit on the homes
>>33166847 A republican candidate suggested this a few years ago. She was absolutely lampooned for it. They compared her to a plantation runner, a gender traitor, and I remember one publication calling her a bitch.
They then shifted the argument to "ARE YOU SAYING EVERYONE WHO IS ON WELFARE IS LAZY!!?!?!?"
Newt suggested schools farm out minimum wage jobs like janitorial work to students over summer. They called him a nigger hater and bashed him to death over it.
You EVER suggest work, and the liberals will have you over the fire so fast it will make your head spin.
as an ultra-leftist this is good news. Marxism is too tainted with the bourgeois/protestant idea that 'work is good'
There is going to be a tough middle time, where I think we should have a guaranteed income/housing/food. Similar to socialized medicine - food/housing should be socialized too - Using the exact same arguments. Then we will move to a post-work world where everyone will just spend their time at leisure. This will be the death blow to liberalism/conservatism/capitalism (all three are essentially synonymous btw)
Bertrand Russell had a short relevant essay on this: "In Praise of Idleness" which you should all read.
>>33174570 What I want to happen: -Basic income implemented -Free food and housing available -I get to move by the coast and spend all day surfing -Borders are secure, the US takes isolationist policies.
What I think will happen: -Evangelicals will keep praising "hard work" your SUPPOSED to work hand. People who don't work hard are sinners! etc. -Jobs will keep disappearing -Conservatives will keep blocking bills for basic income -Massive poverty, no jobs -Many people will survive on the "underground economy" setting up home businesses, selling drugs, prostitution.
As for my future. I'm 27, no job, only source of income is selling stuff online on Amazon, I'm basically what I describe above, someone who survives in poverty in the "underground economy."
>>33175962 >-Basic income implemented Inflation, job loss. -Free food and housing available Shit food and shit housing will be available. -I get to move by the coast and spend all day surfing >-Borders are secure, the US takes isolationist policies. LELELELEL
>>33176190 >Why do you believe you are entitled to income that you do not generate yourself? That's a pretty loaded question. This is the type of friction that I expect from conservatives, to try to make me feel guilty for taking money from others.
I feel no guilt from taking money from others, I'm already on MediCal and I don't feel a shred of guilt about it.
Basic income is going to be necessary if most of the jobs are automated in the future. A country where most of the population is starving, homeless, and have to sell their bodies to survive isn't going to be very stable. Capitalism can't keep running if most of the consumers are too poor to buy things- they will just grow their own food, barter, and buy used items.
>>33176618 >But that's not going to happen. This neet fantasy will never happen This is already happening in many parts of the world and the US. Its called the "underground economy" or "shadow economy" when people set up untaxed legal and illegal home businesses just to survive.
If people don't have conventional jobs, they will find ways to survive, doing things like growing their own food, selling drugs, prostitution, home based restaurants.
Basic income is designed to make people live comfortably without the need to sell drugs and break the law for a living. I don't want to live in a country where my neighbor is selling drugs and running a brothel out of his house.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.