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.
My salary increased by a factor of 16x since 1970. Inflation went up by a factor of 6x. Actually most of my 16x salary increase occurred since 1980. Inflation went up 3x since then. I am certainly not exceptional. One of the reasons we see substantial increases over time is that most of us change jobs and get promotions. Over a lifetime of work few people stay in the same job making the same relative pay.
There is another serious issue trying to compare household incomes over time. The institution of marriage has very seriously eroded. People are getting married later, if at all. There are way more single earner households than there were decades ago. Today fewer than half of kids live in a traditional two parent family. The fastest growing segments of society are blacks and Hispanics. 72% of black kids are born out of wedlock. The Hispanic segment includes many recent immigrants with low skills and low paid jobs.
My salary increased by a factor of 16x since 1970. Inflation went up by a factor of 6x. Over a lifetime of work few people stay in the same job making the same relative pay.
So what? Your real wage went up 2-3x over your life. Pretty typical. Median wages though were still flat.
From 1930 to 1975 you would gotten not only that 2-3x experience increase but a 3-4x increase from productivity gains.
Quote:
There are way more single earner households than there were decades ago.
Actually there aren't. Workers per household is slightly higher now. Much fewer women worked prior to the 70s.
As a consumer I am happy to see this. I will never forget the abysmal quality and high cost of cars when they were built in the US and unions pushed for ridiculously high wages, featherbedding, and constant battles with management including frequent sabotage and strikes. Eventually the pendulum swings.
BTW the current Ford expansion in Mexico is relatively small at less than 3000 workers. Ford already has way more employees in Mexico and lots of manufacturing worldwide.
Consumers whose jobs are exported overseas will feel differently. From a total welfare perspective, many more consumers benefit from lower prices as a result of free trade than people who lose their jobs, so the total economic is positive. But there is also a cost that shouldn't be ignored, but is ignored by the proponents of free trade.
Consumers whose jobs are exported overseas will feel differently. From a total welfare perspective, many more consumers benefit from lower prices as a result of free trade than people who lose their jobs, so the total economic is positive. But there is also a cost that shouldn't be ignored, but is ignored by the proponents of free trade.
The cost can be expressed in terms of GWP gross world product. Move a job from a high labor market to a low labor market say from $20hr to $1hr then GWP contracts, it doesn't contract by the full $19hr difference, if contracts by the difference between the job had and the one replacing it in the high labor market less the increase in wages in the low labor market. Say a 5% contraction in this example. It is expressed as a drag on growth in the high labor market and higher growth in the low labor market.
If you don't want the high labor market to suffer then you need to over pay the low labor market by the difference in old vs. new job earning potential in the high labor market.
The Personal Computer put a lot of secretarial and office people out of work. Isn't this a form of trade? The more efficient overtaking the inefficient?
That secretarial work was then transferred to professionals, like engineers. Now a high-paid employee gets to do the work that a lower-paid employee used to do.
From a total welfare perspective, many more consumers benefit from lower prices as a result of free trade than people who lose their jobs, so the total economic is positive.
Many people make this economic blunder.
Since median real wages have been flat since this started, we have not benefited from lower prices. Wages have been depressed far more than any cost savings. The trade deficit and what we have done to compensate for it is the problem.
The Personal Computer put a lot of secretarial and office people out of work. Isn't this a form of trade? The more efficient overtaking the inefficient?
The personal computer didn't exterminate whole American manufacturing sectors. Free Trade agreements did that.
It is not just clothing, it is virtually every product I buy: camera gear, photo printer and ink, household items, cellphones, computers, fitbit, watches, books, toys for the grandkids, etc, etc.
You are making my point for me. You are selling your children's future for a pile of landfill contributions.
You are making my point for me. You are selling your children's future for a pile of landfill contributions.
I have no hint what idea you are trying to express. Is it OK if I buy shoes, clothing, blankets, food? Or do those sell out my children's future? How about a cellphone? Or a computer? Or hobby gear?
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.
