Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 121

Thread: Who can offer a coherent explanation for declining real wages since the 1970s?

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like

    Who can offer a coherent explanation for declining real wages since the 1970s?

    I'm curious.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    jets5ever ...

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Source for the claim?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2445175]Source for the claim?[/QUOTE]

    it has been bandied about by economists, business leaders, and academics. I am not reacting or reporting a claim, just posting a thought - a question based on accumulated learning. It is based on the growth of the economy vs growth of wages. Data that should be easy to find.

    The answer might be that "real compensation" has in fact gone up, and that offsets decline in "real wages".

    I don't think that there is an easy answer to the question, just want to know if anyone out there has heard of the question and has heard an answer.

    I'll try to look for a source but can't right now.

    I think that the problem may be an endemic aspect of the structure of the political economy.

    I'm a fiscal conservative but I am troubled by the fact that the government is so quick to interfere in the market, to the tune of massive bailouts of dinosaurs that should be allowed to go extinct. But the average guy gets no help. I understand the structural rational of scale involved. But I am not convinced it is wise. I certainly is not laissez-faire what the government has done with its large-scale interference.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2445213]I am not reacting or reporting a claim, just posting a thought [/QUOTE]

    I can appreciate that, but such a thought is rather hard to discuss rationally without some backing in fact and detail. I.e. the request for your source, so I could read further the details of the claim.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2445213]

    I'm a fiscal conservative but I am troubled by the fact that the government is so quick to interfere in the market, to the tune of massive bailouts of dinosaurs that should be allowed to go extinct. But the average guy gets no help. I understand the structural rational of scale involved. But I am not convinced it is wise. I certainly is not laissez-faire what the government has done with its large-scale interference.[/QUOTE]

    I don't think Shareholders of Bear Sterns thought they were bailed out...

    Are you advocating mortgage bailouts? Can you explain why?

  7. #7
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    The cold war gave us a competitive advantage in the world markets. I think it relates somehow...

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2445213]it has been bandied about by economists, business leaders, and academics. I am not reacting or reporting a claim, just posting a thought - a question based on accumulated learning. It is based on the growth of the economy vs growth of wages. Data that should be easy to find.

    [B]The answer might be that "real compensation" has in fact gone up[/B], and that offsets decline in "real wages".

    I don't think that there is an easy answer to the question, just want to know if anyone out there has heard of the question and has heard an answer.

    I'll try to look for a source but can't right now.

    I think that the problem may be an endemic aspect of the structure of the political economy.

    I'm a fiscal conservative but I am troubled by the fact that the government is so quick to interfere in the market, to the tune of massive bailouts of dinosaurs that should be allowed to go extinct. But the average guy gets no help. I understand the structural rational of scale involved. But I am not convinced it is wise. I certainly is not laissez-faire what the government has done with its large-scale interference.[/QUOTE]

    Not hard at all. 1970 your dad worked, mom stayed home with the kids for the most part. If dad worlked hard at all, you probably had a stable nice home and a car with little family debt.

    Someone explain to me how two well waged parents who could be making triple and up more than your dad in 1970, are still filing for bankruptcy.

    Whatever the scale of inflation, it's out of wack.

    You could almost consider "College" the universal scam of a lifetime. That could be for starters

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=HessStation;2445421]Not hard at all. 1970 your dad worked, mom stayed home with the kids for the most part. If dad worlked hard at all, you probably had a stable nice home and a car with little family debt.

    Someone explain to me how two well waged parents who could be making triple and up more than your dad in 1970, are still filing for bankruptcy.

    Whatever the scale of inflation, it's out of wack.

    You could almost consider "College" the universal scam of a lifetime. That could be for starters[/QUOTE]

    I'm thinking along the same lines as you.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=HessStation;2445421]Someone explain to me how two well waged parents who could be making triple and up more than your dad in 1970, are still filing for bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]

    Because instead of an afordable home they can afford, they buy one 200K above their real range, in a neighborhood the cannot afford.

    Because instead of the sensible sedan they can afford (and share), they buy a Mercedes and a top-line Minivan or SUV.

    Because instead of a 30in TV, they have a 64 in Flatscrren Plasma with all the Satellite and surround sound and features.

    Because instead of dressing afforbaly, they buy name brands at Abercrombie and Fitch.

    Because instead of drinking their cup of coffee at home in the morning, they get a $6.00 drink at Starbucks.

    Because instead of one parent staying home to raise their token/trophy child, they pay a babysitter a rack of cash, neatly removing most of one income right off teh top.

    Because instead of taking a sesnible trip to Montauk or Ocean City in the Summer, they go to Paris in the spring, and Rome in the fall.

    Because instead of.........

    You get the point yet? Living beyond ones actual means is what the problem is. People are not making less, they're simply demanding MORE, believeing (inaccurately) that they are entitled to these things, that they are not wants, but needs.

    The entiure country is one bg bag of "living beyond their means", and such a lifestyle always catches up in the end.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Source?

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2445444]Because instead of an afordable home they can afford, they buy one 200K above their real range, in a neighborhood the cannot afford.

    Because instead of the sensible sedan they can afford (and share), they buy a Mercedes and a top-line Minivan or SUV.

    Because instead of a 30in TV, they have a 64 in Flatscrren Plasma with all the Satellite and surround sound and features.

    Because instead of dressing afforbaly, they buy name brands at Abercrombie and Fitch.

    Because instead of drinking their cup of coffee at home in the morning, they get a $6.00 drink at Starbucks.

    Because instead of one parent staying home to raise their token/trophy child, they pay a babysitter a rack of cash, neatly removing most of one income right off teh top.

    Because instead of taking a sesnible trip to Montauk or Ocean City in the Summer, they go to Paris in the spring, and Rome in the fall.

    Because instead of.........

    You get the point yet? Living beyond ones actual means is what the problem is. People are not making less, they're simply demanding MORE, believeing (inaccurately) that they are entitled to these things, that they are not wants, but needs.

    The entiure country is one bg bag of "living beyond their means", and such a lifestyle always catches up in the end.[/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2445213]it has been bandied about by economists, business leaders, and academics. I am not reacting or reporting a claim, just posting a thought - a question based on accumulated learning. It is based on the growth of the economy vs growth of wages. Data that should be easy to find.

    The answer might be that "real compensation" has in fact gone up, and that offsets decline in "real wages".

    I don't think that there is an easy answer to the question, just want to know if anyone out there has heard of the question and has heard an answer.

    I'll try to look for a source but can't right now.

    I think that the problem may be an endemic aspect of the structure of the political economy.

    I'm a fiscal conservative but I am troubled by the fact that the government is so quick to interfere in the market, to the tune of massive bailouts of dinosaurs that should be allowed to go extinct. But the average guy gets no help. I understand the structural rational of scale involved. But I am not convinced it is wise. I certainly is not laissez-faire what the government has done with its large-scale interference.[/QUOTE]


    If you read my posts you would get a glimpse of what you are looking for.

    It has to do with consolidation of wealth -- it has to do with the fact that we no longer have a currency backed in anything (precious metals, etc.) -- it has to do with those with the "real" money buying off the politicians -- it has to do with primarily greed -- and it has to do with a "planned" agenda.

    There is a reason why even the mainstream politicians that are supposed to support the "common man" OBAMA/HILLARY will do nothing to bridge such a gap -- they will do nothing to stop billions upon billions of dollars to be fed into a war no one wants.

    The only logical reason why no one has stopped the war yet (S.C./Congress/Etc.) is economic incentive -- not for our economy as a whole (that will not work this time like it did in WW2), but for those particular politicians and other chosen officials. There is a reason why 36.5 million are impovershed -- because if you don't have money you are always in debt -- once you live your life constantly in debt, are you are in effect a "debt slave" to those financial institutions to which you owe this money.

    Oil as well as other major economic indicators (affluent industries) that influence our economy are all being lead by the same minute amount of people -- aproximately 300 people own our economy.

    These people sit on various advisery committees, own exponential amounts of stock, own infinite land, as well as have influence in both the media and politics far beyond the reach of anyone else in the world.

    What they do is insure a common interest uniformaly among them. A similar social contract to that of the "common" man - it is in their best interests to not try to harm one another, as this would in turn make themselves vulnerable.

    Thus instead of trying to gain additional wealth from one another - they decided to do so at the expense of the common man.

    Remember -- they own our politicians, our media, our government, and our banks. Literally, they have BOUGHT every single one of those avenues.

    Thus with such an overarching influence they can control our thoughts/actions "for the most part", even more so than our own parents - who are too busy working to raise us.

    Isn't ironic that whenever a "true leader" comes around in this nation -- with GENUINE intentions for mankind -- they always wind up dead?

    Wouldn't it logically make sense that in a world in which assassinations are supposedly latent functions of an individual angering enough people, that the Hitlers and Bush's and Nixon's of the world would be getting assassinated, not the Kennedy's, the King Jr's, the Lennon's?

    The real answer is this.

    Those on the side of the real authority; PENOPTICON, never have anything to worry about.

    Those on the side of the common man, despite the interests of the real authority; PENOPTICON, have something to worry about as they are a threat to a broader agenda.

    The real answer is this --

    Our society is moving to an age of "technological serfdrom".

    With all of this modern globalization, those with money in this world have further cultivated their economic resources.

    They have begun to consolodate power in Europe -- the EU -- they have already done so much in Africa -- they will do so much in Asia -- they are doing as much here. When it is all finnished we will live in a coorporate run single world order. There will be no middle class -- only those with power and say -- and influence -- and those without.

    With all of these Patriot Act laws being passed -- is it no surprise that our society is moving into a 1984 type dystopia?

    Did you know that the CIA takes pictures at EVERY protest rally nationally - and has been doing so much since the before the 60's?

    We live in a society in which Wal-mart discourages employee fratinization - as they are afraid that in somehow it is an indication of, or precurser to a union of sorts?

    You ever wonder why the "Communist" threat was the one we were battling for the 2nd half of the 20th century?

    Because coorporations were afraid of the creation of unions - the bearing of human rights/economic equality/fair pay.

    Have you even read about all the **** people used to have to deal with in the 1800's and early 1900's if they wanted to gather for "worker rights" -- even after hundreds of thousands of them had died throughout the century due to improper working conditions/health standards/pay rates?

    The government would often send in the military to "resolve" disputes - giving them authority to do "whatever is needed".

    I know you probably have 1000 responses to this right now --- readying up to argue the tiniest minute detail --- however you would be missing the point.

    The those in power, and thus their subsequental varied arms, the government/the media/the history books have a tendency to act under the premise of "double-speak", AKA hippocracy. They accuse something as being immoral, as bad, or as sinful then they do it themselves (Spitzer cough cough). They suggest that something is going to do something posative, but then it does something negative. They do this for numerous reasons.

    The most obvious is greed -- they make tons of money this way.

    The second is mis-direction. Think about Matt Damon's charecter in the departed - if you are the one leading the search for the "rat" - you are the last one anyone would suspect as being the "rat".

    Third - it helps to promote their broader agenda -- if we are constantly working our lives away for their benefit instead of our own -- it means that they are the queens of the ant hill -- and we are just drones. This "NWO" that will result after the succesfull tansitions to independent "regional unions" has already taken place will be the culmination of that agenda.

    Our lives will be over-complified to the point of macro simplicity.

    Thus -- by taking out the human/natural element of things we are taking out numerous variables that would compromise efficiency -- thus from a macro standpoint (the standpoint of those in power -- looking down) everything has been maximized to the most efficient standards imaginable.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2445449]Source?[/QUOTE]

    Simple.....a small act called opening your eyes....

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2445444]Because instead of an afordable home they can afford, they buy one 200K above their real range, in a neighborhood the cannot afford.

    Because instead of the sensible sedan they can afford (and share), they buy a Mercedes and a top-line Minivan or SUV.

    Because instead of a 30in TV, they have a 64 in Flatscrren Plasma with all the Satellite and surround sound and features.

    Because instead of dressing afforbaly, they buy name brands at Abercrombie and Fitch.

    Because instead of drinking their cup of coffee at home in the morning, they get a $6.00 drink at Starbucks.

    Because instead of one parent staying home to raise their token/trophy child, they pay a babysitter a rack of cash, neatly removing most of one income right off teh top.

    Because instead of taking a sesnible trip to Montauk or Ocean City in the Summer, they go to Paris in the spring, and Rome in the fall.

    Because instead of.........

    You get the point yet? Living beyond ones actual means is what the problem is. People are not making less, they're simply demanding MORE, believeing (inaccurately) that they are entitled to these things, that they are not wants, but needs.

    The entiure country is one bg bag of "living beyond their means", and such a lifestyle always catches up in the end.[/QUOTE]

    I hear you loud and clear on this Warfish.....

    But I would like to add a comment. The whole system is set up for this to happen. Mass production needs mass purchasing, and we have created a system in which it is easy to get yourself further and further into trouble.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Really? Warfish's explanation is completely accurate?
    I guess then every rapper is a gangsta?
    Or every Priest is gay and a child molestor.
    Or to be a successful actor you have to be a Scientologist.


    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2445482]Simple.....a small act called opening your eyes....[/QUOTE]

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2445444]Because instead of an afordable home they can afford, they buy one 200K above their real range, in a neighborhood the cannot afford.

    Because instead of the sensible sedan they can afford (and share), they buy a Mercedes and a top-line Minivan or SUV.

    Because instead of a 30in TV, they have a 64 in Flatscrren Plasma with all the Satellite and surround sound and features.

    Because instead of dressing afforbaly, they buy name brands at Abercrombie and Fitch.

    Because instead of drinking their cup of coffee at home in the morning, they get a $6.00 drink at Starbucks.

    Because instead of one parent staying home to raise their token/trophy child, they pay a babysitter a rack of cash, neatly removing most of one income right off teh top.

    Because instead of taking a sesnible trip to Montauk or Ocean City in the Summer, they go to Paris in the spring, and Rome in the fall.

    Because instead of.........

    You get the point yet? Living beyond ones actual means is what the problem is. People are not making less, they're simply demanding MORE, believeing (inaccurately) that they are entitled to these things, that they are not wants, but needs.

    The entiure country is one bg bag of "living beyond their means", and such a lifestyle always catches up in the end.[/QUOTE]


    Great Post! This all comes back to the personal responsibility conversation that you seem to have on this board when talking about the housing and healthcare "problems"

  17. #17
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2445444]Because instead of an afordable home they can afford, they buy one 200K above their real range, in a neighborhood the cannot afford.

    Because instead of the sensible sedan they can afford (and share), they buy a Mercedes and a top-line Minivan or SUV.

    Because instead of a 30in TV, they have a 64 in Flatscrren Plasma with all the Satellite and surround sound and features.

    Because instead of dressing afforbaly, they buy name brands at Abercrombie and Fitch.

    Because instead of drinking their cup of coffee at home in the morning, they get a $6.00 drink at Starbucks.

    Because instead of one parent staying home to raise their token/trophy child, they pay a babysitter a rack of cash, neatly removing most of one income right off teh top.

    Because instead of taking a sesnible trip to Montauk or Ocean City in the Summer, they go to Paris in the spring, and Rome in the fall.

    Because instead of.........

    You get the point yet? Living beyond ones actual means is what the problem is. People are not making less, they're simply demanding MORE, believeing (inaccurately) that they are entitled to these things, that they are not wants, but needs.

    The entiure country is one bg bag of "living beyond their means", and such a lifestyle always catches up in the end.[/QUOTE]

    I don't know if its the sole source, but I definitely agree with your argument. I think there is a serious problem with our education system not teaching us at a young age how to manage our money. I hope its something that our schools begin to focus on eventually.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Globalization/Technology: greater job resources (and greater means to ship/fly/move non-labor resources) outside the country drive our [B]real[/B] wages down as companies don't need to raise them to keep up with inflation when they can pay someone a quarter an hour halfway around the globe to do the same thing.

    Price of Oil. - 70's and 2000's

  19. #19
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2445444]Because instead of an afordable home they can afford, they buy one 200K above their real range, in a neighborhood the cannot afford.

    Because instead of the sensible sedan they can afford (and share), they buy a Mercedes and a top-line Minivan or SUV.

    Because instead of a 30in TV, they have a 64 in Flatscrren Plasma with all the Satellite and surround sound and features.

    Because instead of dressing afforbaly, they buy name brands at Abercrombie and Fitch.

    Because instead of drinking their cup of coffee at home in the morning, they get a $6.00 drink at Starbucks.

    Because instead of one parent staying home to raise their token/trophy child, they pay a babysitter a rack of cash, neatly removing most of one income right off teh top.

    Because instead of taking a sesnible trip to Montauk or Ocean City in the Summer, they go to Paris in the spring, and Rome in the fall.

    Because instead of.........

    You get the point yet? Living beyond ones actual means is what the problem is. People are not making less, they're simply demanding MORE, believeing (inaccurately) that they are entitled to these things, that they are not wants, but needs.

    The entiure country is one bg bag of "living beyond their means", and such a lifestyle always catches up in the end.[/QUOTE]


    I totally agree with this assessment. That's actually about the same problem we have here in Germany. Moaning about what you don't get but what you should be getting has been discussed to such an degree that people are forgetting what they already have.
    I know, I know, I have fewer posts than the average JI poster's IQ, but I've been reading this forum for a couple of years now, and if there is one sensible person in here who you can rely on, it's the Warfish.

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,267
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=GoJets!;2445647]I totally agree with this assessment. That's actually about the same problem we have here in Germany. Moaning about what you don't get but what you should be getting has been discussed to such an degree that people are forgetting what they already have.
    I know, I know, I have fewer posts than the average JI poster's IQ, but I've been reading this forum for a couple of years now, and if there is one sensible person in here who you can rely on, it's the Warfish.[/QUOTE]

    What's the verdict on Merkel and the 'Grand Coalition?' As an outsider looking in, it appeared as though Germany has/had some massive problems some were attributing to the overall welfare system. Has their been improvements since her entrance?

    As far as Warfish's post, it reminds me of an article I read a few months back about relative wealth. Basically, it described wealth in relative terms. X amount of dollars allows you to buy what is desirable. The fewer people that have the luxury, the more desirable the luxury. As more people obtain more wealth, the items once thought of as luxurious are not nearly as desirable, because "everyone" has one. A never ending process.

    So, what you end up having is some immigrants saying "I want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us