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.
why shouldn't they be earning the same with some inflation adjusting ? , unless they moved up the ladder it is likely their job slot is what it is and how markets value it .
there is really no reason a job should become anymore valuable just because of time . in fact many became less as unions had less of an effect artificially propping up wages for jobs that are worth less . automation also made many jobs worth less .
this thing about wage growth having to happen is silly logic . moving up the ladder and learning skills is how most of us advanced
Though the problem is household ate still earning essentially the same that they did in 2007 just before the Great Recession
Equaling a previous peak isn't necessarily a bad thing. If we looked around in 2007 and said things are good for salaries and we're in the same place inflation adjusted today, I have trouble generating much concern.
why shouldn't they be earning the same with some inflation adjusting ? , unless they moved up the ladder it is likely their job slot is what it is and how markets value it .
there is really no reason a job should become anymore valuable just because of time . in fact many became less as unions had less of an effect artificially propping up wages for jobs that are worth less . automation also made many jobs worth less .
this thing about wage growth having to happen is silly logic . moving up the ladder and learning skills is how most of us advanced
Because the level of production and wealth is going up, but the median worker is producing more and more without getting any benefit from that. All the benefits going to the top is a recipe for poor performance in comparison to spreading it around more.
IE spreading it around more would result in a larger pie, thus benefiting all of us more-including those at the top.
Because the level of production and wealth is going up, but the median worker is producing more and more without getting any benefit from that.
So if my job is to push a button that assembles 5 widgets and I get paid $40k annually to do it, and they make a change to the factory where that button makes 10 widgets instead, I am now underpaid because pushing that same button made more widgets? I don't need new skills, or work any harder, why does my same amount of effort/expertise warrant a raise beyond usual cost-of-living type increases?
Maybe that extra money they make on the widgets went towards paying the engineers who are actually responsible for the increase in productivity by designing the better widget maker. Maybe it went to build a new factory thus hiring more $40k button pusher widget people. Maybe they are selling the widgets for cheaper to compete with the new widget place downtown. Maybe it went to McScrooge's big pile of gold in a vault. None of those possibilities are my concern, because I was hired to push a button for $40k.
So if my job is to push a button that assembles 5 widgets and I get paid $40k annually to do it, and they make a change to the factory where that button makes 10 widgets instead, I am now underpaid because pushing that same button made more widgets? I don't need new skills, or work any harder, why does my same amount of effort/expertise warrant a raise beyond usual cost-of-living type increases?
Maybe that extra money they make on the widgets went towards paying the engineers who are actually responsible for the increase in productivity by designing the better widget maker. Maybe it went to build a new factory thus hiring more $40k button pusher widget people. Maybe they are selling the widgets for cheaper to compete with the new widget place downtown. Maybe it went to McScrooge's big pile of gold in a vault. None of those possibilities are my concern, because I was hired to push a button for $40k.
Of course its your concern, because money equals political power. And political power is a zero sum game. The less you have relative to others, the less power you have. You are arguing for a system they have in third world countries, where a tiny number of people hold a massive amount of the wealth in the country. That means they can buy legislation and the courts and further rig the system to their advantage.
There is a reason why inequality was much lower in the period of strong economic growth in the 1960s. Moving towards an oligarchic system where the elected officials serve a tiny number of very rich donors is third worldish.
So if my job is to push a button that assembles 5 widgets and I get paid $40k annually to do it, and they make a change to the factory where that button makes 10 widgets instead, I am now underpaid because pushing that same button made more widgets? I don't need new skills, or work any harder, why does my same amount of effort/expertise warrant a raise beyond usual cost-of-living type increases?
Maybe that extra money they make on the widgets went towards paying the engineers who are actually responsible for the increase in productivity by designing the better widget maker. Maybe it went to build a new factory thus hiring more $40k button pusher widget people. Maybe they are selling the widgets for cheaper to compete with the new widget place downtown. Maybe it went to McScrooge's big pile of gold in a vault. None of those possibilities are my concern, because I was hired to push a button for $40k.
You are confusing some moral judgement with whats best for all concerned. "and maybe that went to pay" nonsense. Stop. 82% of all gains went to the top 1%. Theres no "maybe it went to a engineer" nonsense. 82% of the gains went to someone who most likely had absolutely zero to do with the work or effort performed. They own a asset. period.
And you missed the ENTIRE point. We would ALL be better off if the top 1% got 20% of it instead of 82%. INCLUDING the top 1%. Which do you want more-82% of $100 or 20% of $1,000? Paying people more lets them spend more, which allows production to go up. Right now we're starving the engine. Yeah we're moving forward, but if we paid people more we would do even better. And thats my point.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57808
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Because the level of production and wealth is going up, but the median worker is producing more and more without getting any benefit from that. All the benefits going to the top is a recipe for poor performance in comparison to spreading it around more.
IE spreading it around more would result in a larger pie, thus benefiting all of us more-including those at the top.
This why our raises are strictly based on performance, not cost of living. Do your job as expected and get the same pay. If you want any raise you have to exceed expectations, produce more than average, find ways to improve a process or do work beyond your job description. The annual funding of raises is fixed in the budget and only so much is given out, this year from 0-4.5%. That applies to all, even management, CEO and executives included. The only exceptions are those in the trades with negotiated union contracts. Of course 4% of $350,000 is a lot more than 3% of $100,000, but one could argue that their outstanding performance has a more significant impact overall. I personally would prefer a flat dollar amount distributed among those of us with the best performance so it could go up to 10-15% but for now a promotions are the only way to really get ahead.
You are arguing for a system they have in third world countries, where a tiny number of people hold a massive amount of the wealth in the country.
Absolutely not. I'm arguing about wages versus productive capacity, you are busy inventing nebulous positions to attach to it that assume an agreement on the pretext.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
There is a reason why inequality was much lower in the period of strong economic growth in the 1960s. Moving towards an oligarchic system where the elected officials serve a tiny number of very rich donors is third worldish.
Strong economic growth of the 60s? What about the other decades afterwards?
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.
