- Perhaps for this reason, the wage/productivity chart has been under attack, with economists and pundits trying to explain away the gap as something not fundamental to our economic story. But Mishel, the originator of the chart, is pushing back, arguing that critics “are denying reality through technical arguments and sleight of hand.” The key point, Mishel says, is that “economic policy cannot be reduced to being about more growth or productivity… they also have to be accompanied by policies that reconnect them to rising wages and benefits for the vast majority.”
I don't understand the logic behind lower wages, but more production. Who are you producing for if everyone is poor? The whole focus on these minor short-term gains is ludicrous to me. I mean I don't have access to any real numbers, but I'm gonna make a wild guess that when people have more money in their pockets they are more likely to spend it...
FOR FUCKING RICH PEOPLE, DUH Let's say you make widgets for a living. You're on an hourly. You get $10 regardless of how many widgets you make. Let's say your boss is a capitalist who wants to make money. The more widgets you make, the more widgets he can sell and the richer he can get. Let's say he discovers that a judicious application of methamphetamine and corporal punishment increases your widget output by 200%. He now has twice as many widgets to sell as he did - because your productivity went up. And let's be honest; meth is cheap and he'd whip you for fun so it's a win-win. For him anyway. You? You're still making $10 an hour only now you've got welts on your back and meth bugs on your wrists. YAY PRODUCTIVITY! This is why capitalists want to talk about productivity, rather than job satisfaction.
But if I can make more money in the long term, and really solidify my business for the foreseeable future why would I trade that for short term gains? I mean you are talking about destructive amounts of greed, it isn't sustainable. I get that they just don't care I guess it just surprises me that people can think like that.
Exactly this. So long as I add value to the shareholders I'm an f'n genius. War: 2900 layoffs, R&D department shuttered at Amgen Amgen to close Onyx Pharmaceuticals Amgen, bowing to hedge fund pressure, to cut 1100 more jobs Looks kind of like a stock in trouble, right? But check out this morning's Seeking Alpha: Amgen: Solid value with buyout potential Yay! You laid off 4500 people, shuttered your R&D campus and are struggling to stay alive but you're a "solid value!" Sustainable? Who gives a fuck about sustainable? P/E, baby, P/E! EBIDTA EBIDTA EBIDTA!
Not at all. Even Adam Smith thought the market needed to be regulated. Any time you see a concentration of wealth you will see negative effects for those without concentrated wealth. Unfortunately, the entire study of economics is one long riff of "don't hate the playa hate the game." And the whole discussion here is that productivity is a really poor metric to judge quality of life by. Those on the side of the worker are going to rally behind this and try and get more of the proletariat to vote. Those on the side of the owner are going to shovel money into campaigning so that the proletariat gets kept in its place. And that, my friend, is politics.
Campaigns so successful that they've got the proletariat funneling money into deluding itself.Those on the side of the owner are going to shovel money into campaigning so that the proletariat gets kept in its place.
Well, I know the political side of things pretty well. The only thing is long-term sustainability is more of a concern when referring to states. Business practices in no way translates well to state practices, but sadly political systems are rapidly morphing into businesses...
Amazon and Bezos are being punished by the stock market due to Bezos investing into the long term growth of the company rather than paying out dividends. article I love Amazon. They are one of few tech companies trying to fight back against the Quarterly report or fail mentality. They are also one of the few that are looking 5, 10 years down the road and building something. I think Google is doing that, as is Tesla.
Buy low, sell high, no past, no future. Let's say Amgen is 170 bucks a share. You buy 100 shares. Your investment is $17,000. Let's say Seeking Alpha publishes that "buy Amgen" article. Amgen is now $178 a share. (go check! Ticker is AMGN). Your investment is now worth $17,800. If you bought Amgen last night and sold it right now, at $8 per trade on eTrade, you just made $792. So that's one way. Let's also say that Amgen, as a company, is defunct. Amgen, as a slu of patents, is a valuable portfolio. Whoever buys the company will get their patents and "trim the fat" (IE, everyone who works at amgen). The owner of those patents gets all the profit and none of the overhead. So if you hold Amgen stock and Amgen is bought by a corporate raider intent on dismantling it, everyone is going to want some of that Amgen stock so that they get bought out. So that's another. Now - if you work at Amgen you get upside on the first and all downside on the second. But who gives a fuck about the people who actually make things? The market is all about the people who buy and sell the companies that make things.
And this just in to kill any speculation that wages were finally beginning to rise... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-31/worker-pay-in-u-s-rises-0-2-smallest-gain-in-records-to-1982 And to add insult to injury:Stock-index futures rallied after the report.
It's interesting that you always hear that on the one hand we're still short of the Fed's 2% target, but on the other hand that housing, healthcare, and education have out of control prices increases (and for a long time for the two former). What gives? Housing is considered in the CPI, if I'm not mistaken, no?
- FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks) - HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture) - APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry) - TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance) - MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services) - RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions); - EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories); - OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).
I'll debunk it. This productivity is not caused by increased work. It's caused by more efficient tech. Your work is no more valuable.
So what you're saying is the owners of the tech are reaping all the benefits? Where have I heard that before?The updated chart grants perhaps the best visual depiction of rapidly rising inequality, with productivity gains failing to reach the everyday worker and instead funneling into corporate profits and the bank accounts of the wealthy.
Trickle down economics have shown themselves to be ineffective since before many Hubski users were born but it hasn't kept the Republicans from being a viable party. This is the chart that Hilary needs to make the average voter understand before she gets elected and gives her friends in the financial sector whatever they want.