U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 08-28-2018, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,680 posts, read 2,296,137 times
Reputation: 13638

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
And if you paid them 50% more, nothing would change.
It might. People would have more money to spend and they might actually spend it. Even if the money is going to pay bills, it's circulating and that's a good thing for our economy.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2018, 03:07 AM
 
Location: Honolulu, HI
4,556 posts, read 1,138,948 times
Reputation: 6518
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
It might. People would have more money to spend and they might actually spend it. Even if the money is going to pay bills, it's circulating and that's a good thing for our economy.
Not at the cost of higher unemployment, more declared bankruptcies to small businesses, higher cost of consumer goods, and manipulation of the free market.

What you propose is the equivalent to sawing off a leg due to a mosquito bite.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2018, 12:49 PM
 
3,533 posts, read 1,985,593 times
Reputation: 6123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
The EPI, or the Economic Policy Institute is a progressive, labor-movement supportive organization. Their so-called research is typical of biased organizations on both sides: they start with the conclusion they want.
I agree that there can be political bias in any article or study. I tend to look past the bias to get to the real statement the article is trying to make and then interpret the data presented to support the argument. The BLS is certainly not a politically biased source of data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Wages were never coupled with productivity, except perhaps for garment-industry workers who were paid by the piece. Prior to the federal minimum wage being applied to agricultural workers in 1966, many agricultural workers were paid by the bushel or basket for crops harvested.


Farmers wages were never based on productivity. Whether a farmer worked 8 hours a week or 120 hours a week, and farmed 40 acres or 400 acres or 4,000 acres is irrelevant. All that's relevant is how much the farmer gets for his crop, which wasn't based on productivity.


If Productivity is measured, the only accurate and correct measure of Productivity is Unit Volume / Labor Hours = Productivity, but certain think-tanks and policy groups, like EPI, report Productivity in US Dollars for propaganda and disinformation purposes:

200,000 labor-hours; 1 Million widgets produced; unit price is $10; gross revenues $10 Million
190,000 labor-hours; 950,000 widgets produced; unit price is $12; gross revenues $11.4 Million

Did Productivity increase?


No, it did not, but EPI would falsely claim it did in order to propagandize.

I think at a macro level when the economy was far more manufacturing/production based (prior to 1980) you will find a greater level of hourly workers where there was an hourly wage (many unionized) had a COLA that was tied to inflation benchmarks. The inflation benchmarks were highly correlated with labor productivity.

To stay away from a political discussion one would need to discuss all of independent variables that have been introduced from 1980 to today which has caused a reduced correlation between labor productivity and wage growth.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another good link with some solid concepts to review:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/t...t-wage-growth/











Quote:
While in the long run real wage growth depends on productivity and the distribution of gains from productivity, over shorter time horizons wage growth can be determined by the supply and demand for labor. When there is extensive slack in the economy—such as during a recession or the early phase of a recovery, when labor and capital are underutilized—wage growth can be temporarily lower. At these times, there are more unemployed workers and hiring demand is low, both of which put downward pressure on wages.

The sizable slack in the U.S. labor markets early in the Great Recession likely put substantial downward pressure on wage growth for a number of years. By many measures, labor market slack is now at roughly its prerecessionary level. The unemployment rate was 4.3 percent as of July 2017, with several states experiencing record lows. The alternative U-6 rate—a broader measure of unemployment that includes the unemployed, people working part time who would like full-time work, and those who would like a job but are not actively looking (marginally attached workers)—is also at its lowest level since the Great Recession. A number of other measures tell a similar story, including the rise in workers’ job quits, job openings rate, and the length of time required for firms to fill job vacancies (Yellen 2017). Still, there might be slack remaining in the labor market: the number of people working part time for economic reasons remains elevated relative to the precrisis period, inflation remains unusually low, and the employment rate of prime-age workers remains below its prerecession starting point.

Diminishing slack in the labor market generally means that employers must pay higher wages to attract workers (Krueger 2015). Wage growth for less-educated workers is particularly sensitive to changes in labor demand (Katz and Krueger 1999), but thus far the large reduction in slack has not been accompanied by dramatically higher nominal wage growth.

Last edited by SWFL_Native; 08-29-2018 at 01:35 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2018, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,680 posts, read 2,296,137 times
Reputation: 13638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20 View Post
Not at the cost of higher unemployment, more declared bankruptcies to small businesses, higher cost of consumer goods, and manipulation of the free market.

What you propose is the equivalent to sawing off a leg due to a mosquito bite.
Some of this isn't happening now? We have good employment and a surplus of jobs, however, those jobs are mostly low wage jobs and those wages aren't paying the bills, especially since the COL has outstripped the wages people get.

We already have high cost of consumer goods and if the manipulation of a free market didn't occur in 2008, what exactly did you call that? Small businesses are already on the way out due to not being able to compete against larger corporations (think Amazon and Walmart) and if it's not businesses declaring bankruptcies, then it's people declaring bankruptcies at a record pace right now. Let's not forget Big Pharma and medical care are also large businesses whose costs are way beyond what most people can comfortably pay, even with insurance, and that's just to stay healthy, not only when medical emergencies hit.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top