First Native American POTUS?

[Leonhard]

I know Leonhard. That was my point. using some "Accumulated inflation rate" is manipulating the data to make a point. Wow! look how much inflation has gone up! Did they use an accumulated or actual wage increase? No! they "adjusted it" for "inflation" in order to minimize that line. But what year did they adjust for? Then they stuck them on the same chart.

It doesn't make sense to use "actual wages", unless you want to cheat yourself Sparko. I mean that's like complaining that the Apollo program only cost 30 billion dollars in 1970 money, and complaining that the International Space Station has cost 120 billion dollars. Or directly comparing budgets of old NASA vs NASA of today, when the fact of the matter is that inflation has changed those budgets.

That's why, when comparing across time, you see 'adjusted for inflation'. Basically.

Honestly I'm a bit surprised about your response. You're saying you shouldn't accumulated the inflation rates?

The truth is, that inflation has been rising at a pretty low and steady rate, usually around 4%.

Agreed. The average annual inflation rate is 4.9% for the past fourty years. The accumulated inflation between 1970 and 2010 is roughly a factor of 7. Its basically 1.049 raised to the power of 40.

Wages have been going up around the same rate. We can generally afford the same things today as we did 20 and 30 years ago.

Yes, that's the point. If productivity has increased, and the company owners are earning more, why are the workers earning basically the same. Shouldn't they have been getting richer? Wasn't 'trickle down economics' supposed to happen?

[Leonhard]

There are a lot of things cheaper IMO, so I think buying power has increased at least in some ways. I remember my dad buying the first color TV I had ever seen in 1971, he paid $300 for a 21 inch set. Cell phones got much cheaper as technology and mass production got more efficient.

Yes, though it might just be that there's a bigger market for electronics. When something is new its typically very expensive. Mass production does help bring down costs, which is what we're seeing with battery prices today. The cost isn't being brought down by technology, but by a massive scaling up of production.

The company I support (they contract out there desktop IT support so I'm not paid directly by them) raised their starting wage from $14.21 to $16 per hour. They are a multi-national Health insurance provider with offices all over the US. The Mexican Frozen Food factory my son works at raised their starting wages from $11 to $13.50 an hour, and raised the top salary from $15.50 to $17. It's been good for a lot of people I know so far...

I'm glad for you too. But I can't use personal testimony for anything other than indications. I'm sure the market place is doing better, because its basically been improving since 2010 and that development hasn't changed during Trump. I just don't see anything special happening during the Trump presidency when you zoom out and look at the big picture.

[Mountain Man]

GDP per Capita was climbing all the way through Obama's presidency.



Job growth was constant ever since the housing bubble collapsed. Likewise employment rate grew steadily as the market kept improving. Trump definitely didn't stop this trend, but I'm afraid most of the improvements to the market happened between 2010 and 2016.

The real thing we have to deal with is wage stagnation. Why are workers paid the same, even if their productivity is increasing?

Right, and that's why Obama and the Democrats were desperately trying to convince us that low-wages, high unemployment, and anemic economic growth was "The New Normal". During the campaign, Obama even mocked Trump saying that he would need a magic wand to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

[Sparko]

It doesn't make sense to use "actual wages", unless you want to cheat yourself Sparko. I mean that's like complaining that the Apollo program only cost 30 billion dollars in 1970 money, and complaining that the International Space Station has cost 120 billion dollars. Or directly comparing budgets of old NASA vs NASA of today, when the fact of the matter is that inflation has changed those budgets.

That's why, when comparing across time, you see 'adjusted for inflation'. Basically.

Honestly I'm a bit surprised about your response. You're saying you shouldn't accumulated the inflation rates?



Agreed. The average annual inflation rate is 4.9% for the past fourty years. The accumulated inflation between 1970 and 2010 is roughly a factor of 7. Its basically 1.049 raised to the power of 40.



Yes, that's the point. If productivity has increased, and the company owners are earning more, why are the workers earning basically the same. Shouldn't they have been getting richer? Wasn't 'trickle down economics' supposed to happen?

There are more people wanting more things so we have to increase production. But like I said, people want more for less. Which means companies have to turn to automation to make up the difference. The average worker today actually has to do a lot less real labor than a worker several decades ago. Someone doing what I do today in the 1970s would have had to work much harder than I do using a computer today. I can do the work of two or three people compared to then, but I don't actually work as hard as even one of them back then. I put in the same hours as they did (80/week) and work less hard for approximately the same adjusted wages, slightly more. Seems like a good trade off. They can't afford to pay me 3 times the wages of the 1970s version of me. They are not making any more profit than they did back then (adjusted for inflation). Not to mention the higher taxes and more social programs all this has to pay for.

Look at your country. I bet it is a lot more socialized now than it was back in 1960 or 70. Where do you think all that money comes from to pay for all those programs? Increased productivity.

[Littlejoe]

Yes, though it might just be that there's a bigger market for electronics. When something is new its typically very expensive. Mass production does help bring down costs, which is what we're seeing with battery prices today. The cost isn't being brought down by technology, but by a massive scaling up of production.



I'm glad for you too. But I can't use personal testimony for anything other than indications. I'm sure the market place is doing better, because its basically been improving since 2010 and that development hasn't changed during Trump. I just don't see anything special happening during the Trump presidency when you zoom out and look at the big picture.

I forgot to mention that these pay raises were in direct response to the Tax Cut instituted by Trump. The CEO of "my" company said so.

[JimL]

I forgot to mention that these pay raises were in direct response to the Tax Cut instituted by Trump. The CEO of "my" company said so.

Sure they are littlejoe, the richest man in the world wouldn't be able to afford them otherwise.

[One Bad Pig]

Sure they are littlejoe, the richest man in the world wouldn't be able to afford them otherwise.

Thus saith JimL, valiant burner of strawmen.

[Leonhard]

Right, and that's why Obama and the Democrats were desperately trying to convince us that low-wages, high unemployment, and anemic economic growth was "The New Normal".

I can only find one reference to Obama using the words "new normal", and it was mostly him throwing it out as a concern, something he didn't want to see happen. Have you got some specific quotes from him? Because I can only find that one interview.

[Leonhard]

I forgot to mention that these pay raises were in direct response to the Tax Cut instituted by Trump. The CEO of "my" company said so.

Cool, I'm not going to dispute that. I'm glad the CEO of the company you work for felt encouraged to give his workers a pay raise.

[rogue06]

I can only find one reference to Obama using the words "new normal", and it was mostly him throwing it out as a concern, something he didn't want to see happen. Have you got some specific quotes from him? Because I can only find that one interview.

Not "a concern" but more of regretfully stating what he thought was a hard truth.

And as I noted the last time this was brought up his Treasury Secretary expounded upon this and made it abundantly clear that they thought this was indeed the way things were going to be from now on.

[Cow Poke]

Not "a concern" but more of regretfully stating what he thought was a hard truth.

And as I noted the last time this was brought up his Treasury Secretary expounded upon this and made it abundantly clear that they thought this was indeed the way things were going to be from now on.

I can't find a quote of him saying it, but I can find people referring to it as though it were a known fact, including his treasury guy.

[Leonhard]

There are more people wanting more things so we have to increase production. But like I said, people want more for less. Which means companies have to turn to automation to make up the difference. The average worker today actually has to do a lot less real labor than a worker several decades ago. Someone doing what I do today in the 1970s would have had to work much harder than I do using a computer today. I can do the work of two or three people compared to then, but I don't actually work as hard as even one of them back then. I put in the same hours as they did (80/week) and work less hard for approximately the same adjusted wages, slightly more. Seems like a good trade off. They can't afford to pay me 3 times the wages of the 1970s version of me.

I don't think they should pay you three times as much. But a complete wage stagnation seems strange to me. I don't mind inequality, but it does seem that the lowest rungs on the hierarchy are paying for it.

They are not making any more profit than they did back then (adjusted for inflation). Not to mention the higher taxes and more social programs all this has to pay for.

Actually they are, but the money is flowing upwards. The workers are making the companies more money, but the money isn't being paid back to them. It goes elsewhere.

Look at your country. I bet it is a lot more socialized now than it was back in 1960 or 70. Where do you think all that money comes from to pay for all those programs? Increased productivity.

I'm not against increased productivity, but the situation between the US and Denmark isn't comparable. You follow a quasi-free market economics, but in a society without social welfare (at least not as tightly knitted as it is in Denmark). Companies in the US have to pay more income taxes than danish companies, and they need to provide welfare as benefits to workers. In Denmark a company doens't have to provide health insurance, as that's paid for via taxes. We also don't have a legal definition of minimum pay. We just have aggressive collective bargaining on behalf of workers, where as you guys seem to want to make workers bargaining collectively legally difficult. Politically our countries are also very different. You have a two-party system, winner takes all, republic, situation. And we have a democracy where as many parties you want earn mandates based on public votes, and whichever cause earns the highest number of mandates gets pushed through, which causes the parties to create various alliances and compromises.

The budgets of the danish government are very stable. Its estimated that little more than 1% of the budget is moved around per year. In comparison to the US where I see you guys having a president who raises federal taxes to 75%, and the next one lowering them 30%.

Not saying Denmark is superior either. You guys indisputably have the biggest industry on the planet. Just saying that I was before quick to make comparisons and now its very difficult.

As for more "money" being generated from productivity. You're right Sparko. But I'm looking at what's happening to it. Apple, infamously, is just sitting on their money mostly. They've amased 173 billion dollars, most of which they've avoided paying taxes on. Microsoft and other huge companies I've followed have gotten away with similar tax scams. And it seems in general its hard for the bigger companies to invest them.

The money the money they get from tax cuts doesn't seem to go anywhere in the large scheme of things.

[Leonhard]

Not "a concern" but more of regretfully stating what he thought was a hard truth.

And as I noted the last time this was brought up his Treasury Secretary expounded upon this and made it abundantly clear that they thought this was indeed the way things were going to be from now on.

Honestly, you would call that as Mountain Man puts it "desperately trying to convince us that low-wages, high unemployment, and anemic economic growth was "The New Normal""

At any rate, you guys will believe what you will about that. I know I'm just a lone liberal here, and I'm constantly outshouted by Starlight and JimL whom you're not sympathetic for. But honestly guys, its getting a little bit echochambery in here.

[Sparko]

I can't find a quote of him saying it, but I can find people referring to it as though it were a known fact, including his treasury guy.

here is an article from 2016 talking about the "new normal" and poo-pooing Trumps claim to beat 4%

https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/new...sts/index.html

[rogue06]

here is an article from 2016 talking about the "new normal" and poo-pooing Trumps claim to beat 4%

https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/new...sts/index.html

There's also Obama's own sneering response to Trump saying he'd help get the economy up to a 4% growth rate (the one where he asked if Trump had a magic wand).