Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is. All you need to do is look at the real income statistics. These are already corrected for inflation and the cost of goods. Since 1980 our incomes have been flat. Relative to percapita GDP they are less than half of what they should be.
There could be a dozen other reasons why that has occurred that have nothing to do with the prevalence of a trade surplus and manufacturing jobs. You didn't even respond to my objection.
Quote:
Were you aware that you took ~50% pay cut so you could save ~1% of your income buying cheap Chinese stuff at Walmart?
Again, we're talking about 10% of the workforce. And no, not even the manufacturing workers have seen a 50% pay cut since the 70's. In fact, since the 70's they have risen, albeit just a bit.
I just presented some rational thoughts and facts. Since you're so big on them I expect you to respond in kind.
Real median incomes are 50% compared to the rise in per capita GDP. Incomes over the entire economy have been depressed, not just those in manufacturing.
The flattening of wages that occurred had never happened before. In fact for consumer-capitalism to be sustainable requires that consumers and capitalists get rich together. All the things I mentioned (globalization, trade deficits, budget deficits, loose credit, tax cuts) created a temporary situation where by the oligarchs could get massively richer by divorcing themselves from a dependence on US consumer prosperity. Our wealth has effectively been drained. We've dropped from 1st to 27th in the world in median wealth, BTW.
We had a crisis in 2008 when the house of cards nearly collapsed, but they've managed to keep the game going with even *more* creative finance. So the "temporary" situation is now 40 years old. I don't know how much longer they can keep this up, but I suspect it will be long enough. Until consumer capitalism is no longer viable anyway. See the robotics thread for more on that.
Do you have facts or rational thoughts to contribute, or just knee jerk party lines and snide remarks?
I don't know how many posts prior to the several today I have submitted over the months pointing out the essential error and confusion of your various faulty theses. It is not a small number, but you take no interest in them in any case.
Real median incomes are 50% compared to the rise in per capita GDP. Incomes over the entire economy have been depressed, not just those in manufacturing.
If workers in the non-production/manufacturing sector have not seen incomes rise, then that proves that the flattening of wages in recent decades has nothing to do with the lack of a trade surplus, because those particular workers' incomes would not be affected by a trade surplus/deficit (since they do not work in production). You actually just supported my point.
Quote:
The flattening of wages that occurred had never happened before.
You don't know that. How do you know that wages did not stagnate in, say, some or all of the 19th century? Or the Great Depression?
The problem with looking at post-WWII data is that for a few decades after the war the US was in a completely unique position in that we were the only large industrialized nation whose infrastructure had not been bombed to smithereens. It took a while for Germany, Japan and other European nations to rebuild. So we enjoyed a bit of a golden period due to special circumstances. You can't compare now to those special circumstances because that other era was special circumstances.
Quote:
In fact for consumer-capitalism to be sustainable requires that consumers and capitalists get rich together. All the things I mentioned (globalization, trade deficits, budget deficits, loose credit, tax cuts) created a temporary situation where by the oligarchs could get massively richer by divorcing themselves from a dependence on US consumer prosperity. Our wealth has effectively been drained. We've dropped from 1st to 27th in the world in median wealth, BTW.
Before you rant any more about some supposed decline in consumer wealth I suggest you read the following:
It turns out that the middle class isn’t stagnant after all.
You know the conventional wisdom. The richest 1 percent of Americans have siphoned off all the income gains of recent decades. Everyone else is treading water. The claim has been repeated so often that it’s taken on the aura of truth. The reality is different: Living standards for most income groups have improved, especially for the upper middle class, which has more than doubled in size.
I've been in these kinds of arguments many times before, and it never ceases to amaze me how oblivious proponents of arguments like yours are. Typically they live in or near some big city, but one would think they never venture out of anything except the poorest neighborhoods. Why does it seem that way? Because it so happens that every single metro in the US, large and small, contain mile after mile after mile after mile of prosperous, middle-class and upper-middle-class suburbs filled with houses that look like this and this and this, complete with multiple cars in the driveway, SUV's and pickup trucks included, often with 3-car garages, and multiple rooms in the houses that often barely get used. There is pretty much nothing like it in Germany or Japan or anywhere else that typically runs trade surpluses, and yet somehow those other nations are supposed to be better off than we are. This is not the 1% that lives in these areas, nor the 5% or even the 20%. It's more like the 40% or even 50%. But in spite of all this clear, obvious and blatant wealth and prosperity staring people like you in the face if you would only drive around your own city and pay attention, instead we have to listen to incessant rants that make it sound like the US is just a step away from becoming the next Venezuela.
I don't know how many posts prior to the several today I have submitted over the months pointing out the essential error and confusion of your various faulty theses. It is not a small number, but you take no interest in them in any case.
Is zero a small number? You've had nothing to offer except this same rhetoric.
If workers in the non-production/manufacturing sector have not seen incomes rise, then that proves that the flattening of wages in recent decades has nothing to do with the lack of a trade surplus, because those particular workers' incomes would not be affected by a trade surplus/deficit (since they do not work in production).
Completely untrue. All wages are related. The unemployed in one sector must find employment in another. When a glut of workers is systemically created by a perpetual trade deficit the whole economy is effected. The deficit is what is important here.
Quote:
You don't know that. How do you know that wages did not stagnate in, say, some or all of the 19th century? Or the Great Depression?
Data. Wages fell briefly during wars and recessions, but then quickly rebound.
The problem with looking at post-WWII data is that for a few decades after the war the US was in a completely unique position in that we were the only large industrialized nation whose infrastructure had not been bombed to smithereens.
I never get tired of hearing that one! How do you suppose the US consumer profited from the devastation in the rest of the world? Do you imagine we exported lots of goods? We didn't. US trade was a pittance in those days, ~1% of GDP. The great increase in consumer wages was the result of domestic investment, production, and consumption. Anyway, the rapid rise started in the early 30s not after the war. I explained why in the robotics thread.
Quote:
Before you rant any more about some supposed decline in consumer wealth I suggest you read the following:
I'm well aware of the apologetic nonsense that is flooding our media regarding this. The article you posted is a good example. The biggest whopper in that one is that he adjusted for household size. That's how he massaged the unfavorable wage data to suit his narrative. What possible sense does that make? Income results from jobs not warm bodies, and the number of *workers* per household, and the number of hours worked actually increased!
Quote:
I've been in these kinds of arguments many times before, and it never ceases to amaze me how oblivious proponents of arguments like yours are. Typically they live in or near some big city, but one would think they never venture out of anything except the poorest neighborhoods. Why does it seem that way?
I don't live in a big city, and I certainly don't rely on personal observation, but I've been alive long enough to remember life in the US since the 70s. Back then pretty much any guy who was willing to work could get a good paying stable job with benefits, enough to buy a house and support a family. That's quite a change, don't you think?
If you actually pay attention to the outside world (all of it, not just your corner), then it looks about like you'd expect based on the statistics compiled by government agencies and economic experts, who certainly have no reason to fudge numbers to make things look worse than they really are.
Much manufacturing is still done in the US. It just doesn't appear that way because most consumer goods, that the typical consumer actually buys, are foreign made. Other countries have a competitive advantage. But there are others where US manufacturing is competitives. Large generators, MRI machines, military hardware. Of course, automation has decimated employment. Probably most Americans have never been inside a factory.
I'm well aware of the apologetic nonsense that is flooding our media regarding this. The article you posted is a good example. The biggest whopper in that one is that he adjusted for household size. That's how he massaged the unfavorable wage data to suit his narrative. What possible sense does that make? Income results from jobs not warm bodies, and the number of *workers* per household, and the number of hours worked actually increased!
I would love to see that wage curve adjusted for inflation. Not a CPI calc but one that appropriately adjusted for the weighting and cost increases of housing, healthcare, and college tuition. Would also like to see it adjusted for changes in federal, state, and property tax changes over time along insurance rates and the transfer or retirement investment risk out of defined benefit pensions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
