Hacker News Reader

Comment by lkrubner | Hacker News Reader

Wages have been mostly flat, so consumers have no extra money to engage in additional buying. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the top 1% of the income distribution have absorbed 125% of productivity gains. This is the reverse of what we saw in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s when strong labor unions were able to win 110% of productivity for workers, so that the share of national income going to labor increased. Now the opposite is happening, with the share of national income going to labor decreasing.

View on HN

> Wages have been mostly flat, so consumers have no extra money to engage in additional buying.

Check out [1] and scroll down to Table A-7 (it's an Excel file). It's the real earnings data (in 2018 dollars), by gender, from 1960 to 2018 (though it's kind of spotty before 1967). What sticks out to me:

* For men (looking at Total Workers), real earnings are currently around 10% higher than they were in the 70s (moving from low-$40K's to recently just past mid-$40K's, with some peaks and valleys along the way). Doesn't sound like much, but...

* For women, earnings have roughly doubled in that timespan

* The number of men in the workforce has increased by almost 50%

* The number of women in the workforce has increased by almost 100%

From a certain perspective, it's kind of amazing that real earnings haven't gone down significantly.

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26... (Census report that came out last month)

Women didn't work as many hours back then. A lot of career options weren't possibilities then, either. Women's earning increases are largely attributable to cultural changes.

Well... just last night, I was planning a trip. There was a place I could see on Google Maps (satellite view) that looked interesting, but it wasn't clear that I could turn onto it (there might be a barrier or an elevation difference). But Google Street View made it clear that I could turn onto this little dirt road in the middle of nowhere. For free.

That isn't wage growth. And yet, I am better off for being able to do that - not better off in terms of dollars, but better off in terms of being able to more easily do the things that I want to do.

I think most people would prefer to decide for themselves if that's worth the $40,000/yr that they would have had if wages kept up with productivity.

Would the computer or mobile phone used to see that satellite map be a new category of device if we're comparing to 30+ years ago? I remember when I first moved out of home that there were council rates, water, electricity and gas bills. Optionally, phone too. Now there's internet, 2x mobile phone plans (more if you have teenagers), Netflix, Stan, etc.

A lot of people are upgrading phones or laptops every few years too.

The tech is great, but it isn't always free.

Did you read the article? Some of the resources hit peak use in the 1970s. With respect to crops, we're producing double the tonnage we did in 1980 with the same level of water and fertilizer, and greatly diminished acreage. There are also signs that new construction uses fewer materials to produce similar amounts of building.

There are similar indicators for Germany as well, and their wage picture is pretty different.

>This is the reverse of what we saw in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s when strong labor unions were able to win 110% of productivity for workers, so that the share of national income going to labor increased. Now the opposite is happening, with the share of national income going to labor decreasing.

Yeah, but this is a good thing. The labor class is a very strong supporter of the political party that pushes policies which increase the income gap, and votes strongly against anyone who tries to change this or go back to the policies you're talking about. So they're getting exactly what they're voting for.

They might be getting exactly what they're voting for. But they might not be voting for what they need or want.

It's not that hard to spin things in a way that people unknowingly vote for the opposite of what they actually want or need.

>It's not that hard to spin things in a way that people unknowingly vote for the opposite of what they actually want or need.

If people are intentionally voting for the opposite of what they actually need, why is this a problem? Who's the arbiter of what the voters "need" anyway? The voters are responsible for determining what they need, and voting for it; if they can't do that, then they're getting what they deserve, right?

Basically, this comes down to an argument of democracy vs. authoritarianism. Should the voters get what they want or vote for, even if it's seemingly not in their best interest? Or should some other party decide what the citizens need and force it on them?

I don’t know what you mean. The working class reliably votes for the Democrats who continue to fight for strong labor unions.

It’s possible you were thinking of the white working class, but if that’s what you meant, then you should have said so.

The issue is less wages and more cots, especially of housing. http://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf

Reply on news.ycombinator.com