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.
Show us the law, theory or corollary in Economics that says wages must rise when Demand-pull or Cost-push Inflation exists.
You missed the point of my point......
Someone posted that wage increases were greater than price increases -- I was just pointing out it wasn't.
Never said that wages MUST rise -- simply reported a link what showed WHAT HAD HAPPENED
Whether or not wages must rise when Demand-pull or cost-push inflation exists is not necessarily a political or controversial topic - -might be better suited for the Economics board.
Someone posted that wage increases were greater than price increases -- I was just pointing out it wasn't.
Never said that wages MUST rise -- simply reported a link what showed WHAT HAD HAPPENED
Whether or not wages must rise when Demand-pull or cost-push inflation exists is not necessarily a political or controversial topic - -might be better suited for the Economics board.
I would argue that if say you were in your early 20's and managing a shoe store in 1974 and today you are in your 60's and still managing a shoe store you should probably not expect your real wages to improve. Same thing as a fast food cook. One would assume that even an unskilled person 30 or 40 years ago will move up the ladder. The person managing the shoe store should be a district manager or exec. VP by now. And be earning much more money. Same for the fry cook. They should be GM by now assuming they never left that industry. Usually people move up the ladder not stay at the bottom. So the 20 something person today managing a shoe store should have a similar lifestyle as the one in 1974 did. You could apply this to any field and get similar results. Most people are doing better in real terms than they did 40 years ago if they are still working.
Yet the OP thinks that the same jobs should someone be much better compensated even after considering inflation and I don't see how that is possible or necessary.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 08-15-2018 at 02:31 PM..
No you make successful people scapegoats for unsuccessful people. You are saying that there is a epidemic of successful people and the only solution is taking away a big chunk of their money and handing it to unsuccessful people.
Like I have said several times the countries with the least wealth inequality are among the poorest. All equal all poor. You want to have the possibility of upward mobility in society or you end up with Cuba or Venezuela.
Venezuela has extreme inequality. The countries with the lowest income inequality are western European societies.
America has seen skyrocketing income inequality at the same time as GDP growth has slowed down over the last few decades. America also has generally low upward mobility compared to many other developed countries.
I would argue that if say you were in your early 20's and managing a shoe store in 1974 and today you are in your 60's and still managing a shoe store you should probably not expect your real wages to improve. Same thing as a fast food cook. One would assume that even an unskilled person 30 or 40 years ago will move up the ladder. The person managing the shoe store should be a district manager or exec. VP by now. And be earning much more money. Same for the fry cook. They should be GM by now assuming they never left that industry. Usually people move up the ladder not stay at the bottom. So the 20 something person today managing a shoe store should have a similar lifestyle as the one in 1974 did. You could apply this to any field and get similar results. Most people are doing better in real terms than they did 40 years ago if they are still working.
Yet the OP thinks that the same jobs should someone be much better compensated even after considering inflation and I don't see how that is possible or necessary.
By that logic, ordinary workers should have the same living standards as 200 years ago, while a tiny Wall Street elite should have tens of trillions in wealth. Since you dont believe in higher living standards for ordinary Americans you are in fact calling for mass poverty, homelessness and despair for larger and larger chunks of the population. When ordinary workers see no change and national income is transferred into the hands of a tiny super rich elite, it generally leads to economic stagnation, depressions and revolutions.
Just wait until the 2.5 Billion people who don't have electricity now actually get electricity.
Your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell.
Will never happen. There aren't enough resources left on the planet to move 8 billion people to 1st world status.
Leftists complain about the environment, but then ignore the obvious when it comes to "globalism". But no matter, this isn't about the world. It's about American jobs. It wasn't even a good distraction on your part because you know what I said is 100% true.
Please serve me a cup of instant economy. I'll have the coffee too.
I normally just have coffee but today I want what you are offering.
All the ills of the country were solved by Obama's 8 years. Trump hasn't even had two.
Put the rush into the coffee delivery and hold the rush to judgement.
That was my tip.
Imagine that! I agree with phma. As much as I disagree with Trump's policies this can hardly be laid at his feet. I believe he's doing more damage but this isn't a crisis of his making.
Unions lifted the masses into middle class for a blip in time.
Is there a reason why the purchasing power of a wage ( adjusted for inflation) should be more now than 40 years ago, for the same/ similar job function? Most union jobs continue to have retirement benefits and healthcare.
You are asking why living standards for a worker should be higher today than 40 years ago? Why not 200 years ago while we're at it?
We have to choose. Either massive income and wealth inequality or democracy. We cant have both. If we ask why workers should even take part in any national prosperity boom at all, then we are basically ditching democracy in favor of oligarchy; rule by wealth.
Imagine that! I agree with phma. As much as I disagree with Trump's policies this can hardly be laid at his feet. I believe he's doing more damage but this isn't a crisis of his making.
Except hold the coffee. I don't drink the stuff.
He's serving the same masters that is responsible though. Why did he pack his cabinet with Goldman Sachs fat cats? He's giving himself and his cronies billions in tax breaks while preparing deep cuts in the public safety net. And the people who are getting hurt by this are cheering him on.
No you make successful people scapegoats for unsuccessful people. You are saying that there is a epidemic of successful people and the only solution is taking away a big chunk of their money and handing it to unsuccessful people.
Like I have said several times the countries with the least wealth inequality are among the poorest. All equal all poor. You want to have the possibility of upward mobility in society or you end up with Cuba or Venezuela.
There isn't an epidemic. Quite the opposite, fewer and fewer people hold more and more money.
That is literally just what the data tells us. Do you believe the data to be made up?
And I'm not advocating for Cuba or Venezuela. But if you care about a sustainable society, you should care about wealth inequality (not just income, but total wealth).
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.
