workers see highest pay raise in nearly a decade

[NightFox]

So people have money to spend and save and maybe even enjoy life.

As opposed to doing nothing other than working just to make ends meet.

That's only meaningful from an individual perspective. It's how much you make, relative to others, that determines your standard of living. If everyone gets a raise, it's a wash.

No it isn’t.

More money means a stronger economy and healthier families.

Okay. So we could just double everyone's salary and bank account and we'd all be twice as wealthy, eh?

I'm reminded of explaining this to my youngest when we was 8. Except he understood.

No, we increase the wages based on the productivity.

We don't. Not anymore. That's the problem.

View attachment 208122

Er..ummm… worthless chart without the underlying data.

Does it include only domestic "non-supervisory/production workers"? what's included in "major sector productivity"? might it include production that's done off shore? What sectors does it include? which does it exclude and why? Why doesn't it include CPI? without it one cannot account for fluctuations in CPI and correlate it to changes in real wages.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's only meaningful from an individual perspective. It's how much you make, relative to others, that determines your standard of living. If everyone gets a raise, it's a wash.

No it isn’t.

More money means a stronger economy and healthier families.

Okay. So we could just double everyone's salary and bank account and we'd all be twice as wealthy, eh?

I'm reminded of explaining this to my youngest when we was 8. Except he understood.

No, we increase the wages based on the productivity.

We don't. Not anymore. That's the problem.

View attachment 208122

Wages are going up in the big companies.

As the economy gets better the wages will also start to increase more frequently.

Sure, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's only meaningful from an individual perspective. It's how much you make, relative to others, that determines your standard of living. If everyone gets a raise, it's a wash.

No it isn’t.

More money means a stronger economy and healthier families.

Okay. So we could just double everyone's salary and bank account and we'd all be twice as wealthy, eh?

I'm reminded of explaining this to my youngest when we was 8. Except he understood.

No, we increase the wages based on the productivity.

We don't. Not anymore. That's the problem.

View attachment 208122

Er..ummm… worthless chart without the underlying data.

Does it include only domestic "non-supervisory/production workers"? what's included in "major sector productivity"? might it include production that's done off shore? What sectors does it include? which does it exclude and why? Why doesn't it include CPI? without it one cannot account for fluctuations in CPI and correlate it to changes in real wages.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

Feel free to post your own, professor.
Just please make sure it covers the same time scale.

 

[sealybobo]

Why should this be a concern of government?

I didn't say it was a concern of government. Wage growth and economic growth are a concern of anyone who watches this kind of thing.
.

To answer their question

The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

The libertarianism that has infected the party doesn't leave much room for nuance.

It's all or nothing, which just isn't real life.
.

They've been told by Republicans over and over again the government is the problem. Meanwhile it's big money that's ruining our democracy.

Er… um.... "big money" is a problem because it can systematically buy what it wants when you have centralized most of the power into the hands of far away politicians and bureaucrats that are willing to sell it , that's one of the reasons the founders created a REPUBLIC, a republic inherently decentralizes power to the lowest possible level.

It's the gub'mint worshiping progressives that have created the situation by constantly pushing the authority farther away from the individual and into the hands of the institutions in Washington D.C.

Don't blame the "big money" buyers of favoritism, blame the un-accountable miscreants in Washington that are selling it and the brainless progressive sheeple that centralized so much power into their hands that Washington has became a veritable one-stop shop for influence peddling, rent seeking and corruption.

No, big money can buy what it wants regardless of if you have a centralized power. That's just right wing talk trying to demonize the federal government. Citizens United has made it possible so that big money is buying up even our local elections. So big money has taken over both our state and federal governments.

They realized a decade ago that they can get more done buying state governments.

Stop this bullshit of demonizing YOUR government. And stop the nonsense that when it's Obama or Hillary, yes corporations own and control them, but then you completely ignore the fact that those same corporation, or different ones, own your boys.

 

[NightFox]

No it isn’t.

More money means a stronger economy and healthier families.

Okay. So we could just double everyone's salary and bank account and we'd all be twice as wealthy, eh?

I'm reminded of explaining this to my youngest when we was 8. Except he understood.

No, we increase the wages based on the productivity.

We don't. Not anymore. That's the problem.

View attachment 208122

Er..ummm… worthless chart without the underlying data.

Does it include only domestic "non-supervisory/production workers"? what's included in "major sector productivity"? might it include production that's done off shore? What sectors does it include? which does it exclude and why? Why doesn't it include CPI? without it one cannot account for fluctuations in CPI and correlate it to changes in real wages.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

Feel free to post your own, professor.
Just please make sure it covers the same time scale.

LOL, in other words you cannot answer the questions I asked and don't know what the chart you posted actually says.

Yet another round of par for the partisan nonsense course.

Ciao.

 

[NightFox]

I didn't say it was a concern of government. Wage growth and economic growth are a concern of anyone who watches this kind of thing.
.

To answer their question

The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

The libertarianism that has infected the party doesn't leave much room for nuance.

It's all or nothing, which just isn't real life.
.

They've been told by Republicans over and over again the government is the problem. Meanwhile it's big money that's ruining our democracy.

Er… um.... "big money" is a problem because it can systematically buy what it wants when you have centralized most of the power into the hands of far away politicians and bureaucrats that are willing to sell it , that's one of the reasons the founders created a REPUBLIC, a republic inherently decentralizes power to the lowest possible level.

It's the gub'mint worshiping progressives that have created the situation by constantly pushing the authority farther away from the individual and into the hands of the institutions in Washington D.C.

Don't blame the "big money" buyers of favoritism, blame the un-accountable miscreants in Washington that are selling it and the brainless progressive sheeple that centralized so much power into their hands that Washington has became a veritable one-stop shop for influence peddling, rent seeking and corruption.

No, big money can buy what it wants regardless of if you have a centralized power.

Big money can buy what it wants but it's a lot harder and more expensive to do it when power is decentralized and it's a lot easier to hold the sellers accountable.

If you're a corporate influence buyer would you rather go shopping at one federal store for a law or regulation change, or deal with 50 state stores and thousands of county and local stores? Which scenario do you think is cheaper and thus has a better ROI? Which one carries less risk of exposure and/or rejection?

Want a recent example of how this works?.... Daffy Don is proposing stripping the states of their authority to set higher emissions standards on Autos, you know why? Because the Auto industry doesn't want to deal with the 19 states that have their own emissions standards and instead just want to buy all the regulatory changes they need from a single seller.

The weaker the States get, the stronger K Street gets.

 

[sealybobo]

To answer their question

The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

The libertarianism that has infected the party doesn't leave much room for nuance.

It's all or nothing, which just isn't real life.
.

They've been told by Republicans over and over again the government is the problem. Meanwhile it's big money that's ruining our democracy.

Er… um.... "big money" is a problem because it can systematically buy what it wants when you have centralized most of the power into the hands of far away politicians and bureaucrats that are willing to sell it , that's one of the reasons the founders created a REPUBLIC, a republic inherently decentralizes power to the lowest possible level.

It's the gub'mint worshiping progressives that have created the situation by constantly pushing the authority farther away from the individual and into the hands of the institutions in Washington D.C.

Don't blame the "big money" buyers of favoritism, blame the un-accountable miscreants in Washington that are selling it and the brainless progressive sheeple that centralized so much power into their hands that Washington has became a veritable one-stop shop for influence peddling, rent seeking and corruption.

No, big money can buy what it wants regardless of if you have a centralized power.

Big money can buy what it wants but it's a lot harder and more expensive to do it when power is decentralized and it's a lot easier to hold the sellers accountable.

If you're a corporate influence buyer would you rather go shopping at one federal store for a law or regulation change, or deal with 50 state stores and thousands of county and local stores? Which scenario do you think is cheaper and thus has a better ROI? Which one carries less risk of exposure and/or rejection?

Want a recent example of how this works?.... Daffy Don is proposing stripping the states of their authority to set higher emissions standards on Autos, you know why? Because the Auto industry doesn't want to deal with the 19 states that have their own emissions standards and instead just want to buy all the regulatory changes they need from a single seller.

The weaker the States get, the stronger K Street gets.

Good points. Yes, Don's deregulations are a huge gift to the oil companies too

Trump Proposes Gutting Fuel Economy Rules In ‘Giant Giveaway’ To Big Oil, Automakers | HuffPost

This might be the Trump administration’s most destructive climate policy change yet.

 

[sealybobo]

The regulation, which automakers agreed to in 2012, required passenger vehicles to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 — nearly double today’s standard. If fully implemented, over the course of the program, that rule would have reduced oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, halved tailpipe emissions and doubled fuel efficiency, saving consumers $3,200 to $5,700 in gasoline costs over a vehicle’s lifetime.

Instead, the new Trump administration standard aims to freeze 2020 standards through model year 2026. And in a break with the Republicans’ rhetorical reverence for states’ rights, the proposal would revoke a waiver allowing California to set its own vehicle standards, a long-standing provision in the Clean Air Act that grants special status to the Golden State, which is particularly prone to air quality problems.

The move would clear the way for vehicles to, by 2030, spew an addition 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ― equivalent to the entire annual emissions of Canada.

 

[tigerred59]

Are you trying to tell us that YOU didn't see only the worst in Obama?

if you read it all you'll see where i said i *did* start out that way but after thinking about it, no one can be wrong 100% of the time regardless of how i feel about my own opinions or the other people in question. so yes, in time i did put my hate away and i have to remind myself it took some time to see past our emotional state of mind.

you can either try, or you can stay in a world of hate.

your call.

You project.

it's a hobby.

Rank these presidents in terms of their effect on America's image abroad from best to worst. Please.

Reagan
Bush 1
Bush 2
Carter
Trump
Clinton
Obama

Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump

DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump

 

[ptbw forever]

if you read it all you'll see where i said i *did* start out that way but after thinking about it, no one can be wrong 100% of the time regardless of how i feel about my own opinions or the other people in question. so yes, in time i did put my hate away and i have to remind myself it took some time to see past our emotional state of mind.

you can either try, or you can stay in a world of hate.

your call.

You project.

it's a hobby.

Rank these presidents in terms of their effect on America's image abroad from best to worst. Please.

Reagan
Bush 1
Bush 2
Carter
Trump
Clinton
Obama

Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump

DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump

Not going to happen.

He is god emperor now.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Okay. So we could just double everyone's salary and bank account and we'd all be twice as wealthy, eh?

I'm reminded of explaining this to my youngest when we was 8. Except he understood.

No, we increase the wages based on the productivity.

We don't. Not anymore. That's the problem.

View attachment 208122

Er..ummm… worthless chart without the underlying data.

Does it include only domestic "non-supervisory/production workers"? what's included in "major sector productivity"? might it include production that's done off shore? What sectors does it include? which does it exclude and why? Why doesn't it include CPI? without it one cannot account for fluctuations in CPI and correlate it to changes in real wages.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

Feel free to post your own, professor.
Just please make sure it covers the same time scale.

LOL, in other words you cannot answer the questions I asked and don't know what the chart you posted actually says.

Yet another round of par for the partisan nonsense course.

Ciao.

You know what the chart says. It's very clear.
If you're challenging the veracity of the data used in it's creation, I again invite you to post your own using any parameters you wish. I only ask that you use the same time scale.

IOW, prove me wrong.

 

[tigerred59]

You project.

it's a hobby.

Rank these presidents in terms of their effect on America's image abroad from best to worst. Please.

Reagan
Bush 1
Bush 2
Carter
Trump
Clinton
Obama

Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump

DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump

Not going to happen.

He is god emperor now.

LOLOL.....so was Hitler. You must know, ALL GOOD THINGS MUST EVENTUALLY COME TO AN END.

 

[ptbw forever]

it's a hobby.

Rank these presidents in terms of their effect on America's image abroad from best to worst. Please.

Reagan
Bush 1
Bush 2
Carter
Trump
Clinton
Obama

Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump

DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump
DUMP Trump

Not going to happen.

He is god emperor now.

LOLOL.....so was Hitler.

Trump loves all of his supporters.

No matter what color they are.

 

[iceberg]

No, we increase the wages based on the productivity.

We don't. Not anymore. That's the problem.

View attachment 208122

Er..ummm… worthless chart without the underlying data.

Does it include only domestic "non-supervisory/production workers"? what's included in "major sector productivity"? might it include production that's done off shore? What sectors does it include? which does it exclude and why? Why doesn't it include CPI? without it one cannot account for fluctuations in CPI and correlate it to changes in real wages.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

Feel free to post your own, professor.
Just please make sure it covers the same time scale.

LOL, in other words you cannot answer the questions I asked and don't know what the chart you posted actually says.

Yet another round of par for the partisan nonsense course.

Ciao.

You know what the chart says. It's very clear.
If you're challenging the veracity of the data used in it's creation, I again invite you to post your own using any parameters you wish. I only ask that you use the same time scale.

IOW, prove me wrong.

he has well he's more gotten you to prove yourself wrong. maybe one day you'll be smart enough to see it but this is what happens when you push hate/agendas as facts.

 

[hazlnut]

U.S. Workers Get Biggest Pay Increase in Nearly a Decade

not too long ago there were anti-trump posts talking about how wages have not increased.

gonna need to redo that occupydemocrats.org powerpoint slide now.

FACTS:

ONY 4% OF CORPORATE MONEY SAVED DUE TO TRUMP TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH HAS GONE TO THEIR HOURLY WORKERS.

4%

THE REST HAS GONE TO STOCK BUY-BACKS AND DIVIDENDS TO THE RICH INVESTOR CLASS.

THE 'FORGOTTEN MAN' GOT SCREWED. BUT WE TOLD YOU SO.

 

[Mr Natural]

They weren’t kidding when they called it “Trickle Down”.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We don't. Not anymore. That's the problem.

View attachment 208122

Er..ummm… worthless chart without the underlying data.

Does it include only domestic "non-supervisory/production workers"? what's included in "major sector productivity"? might it include production that's done off shore? What sectors does it include? which does it exclude and why? Why doesn't it include CPI? without it one cannot account for fluctuations in CPI and correlate it to changes in real wages.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

Feel free to post your own, professor.
Just please make sure it covers the same time scale.

LOL, in other words you cannot answer the questions I asked and don't know what the chart you posted actually says.

Yet another round of par for the partisan nonsense course.

Ciao.

You know what the chart says. It's very clear.
If you're challenging the veracity of the data used in it's creation, I again invite you to post your own using any parameters you wish. I only ask that you use the same time scale.

IOW, prove me wrong.

he has well he's more gotten you to prove yourself wrong. maybe one day you'll be smart enough to see it but this is what happens when you push hate/agendas as facts.

Wages have not kept pace with productivity for more than forty years. The graph showed that very clearly.
I make the same offer to you. Prove otherwise.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

I want my nation to succeed, not this president. He’s an embarrassment. He’s a pathological liar.

Actually he hasn't told one lie that I can find. I'll put up a thread about that, shortly.

No collusion! No collusion!

There was no collusion. As for the thread - it'll have to wait until tomorrow. As I'm a newbie I'm not allowed to post links. Without links who can disprove allegations against Trump?

 

[NightFox]

No, we increase the wages based on the productivity.

We don't. Not anymore. That's the problem.

View attachment 208122

Er..ummm… worthless chart without the underlying data.

Does it include only domestic "non-supervisory/production workers"? what's included in "major sector productivity"? might it include production that's done off shore? What sectors does it include? which does it exclude and why? Why doesn't it include CPI? without it one cannot account for fluctuations in CPI and correlate it to changes in real wages.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

Feel free to post your own, professor.
Just please make sure it covers the same time scale.

LOL, in other words you cannot answer the questions I asked and don't know what the chart you posted actually says.

Yet another round of par for the partisan nonsense course.

Ciao.

You know what the chart says. It's very clear.
If you're challenging the veracity of the data used in it's creation, I again invite you to post your own using any parameters you wish. I only ask that you use the same time scale.

IOW, prove me wrong.

No genius it's not clear thus the very specific questions I asked about the underlying data and what exactly it's measuring, it's worthless without that information which is the reason you chose not to link to the source data nor even attempt to answer the questions I asked, you're just hoping that everybody is just as ignorant as you are and will take it at face value.

Newsflash, some of us understand how to validate evidence and aren't intellectually lazy like you are.

Now run along back to your kindergarten class...

 

[iceberg]

Er..ummm… worthless chart without the underlying data.

Does it include only domestic "non-supervisory/production workers"? what's included in "major sector productivity"? might it include production that's done off shore? What sectors does it include? which does it exclude and why? Why doesn't it include CPI? without it one cannot account for fluctuations in CPI and correlate it to changes in real wages.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

Feel free to post your own, professor.
Just please make sure it covers the same time scale.

LOL, in other words you cannot answer the questions I asked and don't know what the chart you posted actually says.

Yet another round of par for the partisan nonsense course.

Ciao.

You know what the chart says. It's very clear.
If you're challenging the veracity of the data used in it's creation, I again invite you to post your own using any parameters you wish. I only ask that you use the same time scale.

IOW, prove me wrong.

he has well he's more gotten you to prove yourself wrong. maybe one day you'll be smart enough to see it but this is what happens when you push hate/agendas as facts.

Wages have not kept pace with productivity for more than forty years. The graph showed that very clearly.
I make the same offer to you. Prove otherwise.

so if i find a graph that disagrees, who wins? your graph cause you like it? that would seem to be where this is headed, making any form of conversation with you about as pointless as tits on a nun.

you don't spend a second of your time listening to someone else. you're just waiting for an opportunity to reply back with more of whatever it is you think you're doing and maybe it will apply, likely not. but either way you're gonna declare yourself a winner in an internet argument which one day will hope to be as useful as said nun tits.

shine up that trophy son, make it shine.