Hacker News Reader

Comment by missedthecue | Hacker News Reader

My graph also shows median income, and it clearly shows it has not stagnated, but risen, and not by any small amount.

Now, overlay that with a graph of productivity over time. Observe that productivity growth has greatly exceeded wage growth. Speculate on where the gains due to productivity have gone, if they’re not being shared with workers.

There’s a story to tell here, but you’re not showing it.

Productivity has nothing to do with wages. If you worked 4 hours writing a book by hand or 4 hours writing a book on a computer with spell check, you were more productive but it has nothing to do with skill of the user but the technology of the time. Another example is in the 90s only rich has cell phones, now everyone Does, does that mean everyone is now rich? Quality of life is vastly better for the world now.

You should read an economics textbook, then come back and tell me again with a straight face that productivity doesn't affect wages. You don't seem to have an understanding of the issues, and your examples are so irrelevant as to be not even wrong.

Roughly, the way it "should" work is that if Company A and Company B are in the same industry, and Company A is more productive than Company B, free market forces cause Company A to pay more than Company B, thus improving their ability to compete for workers. Generalize this to an entire industry of competing companies, and then to an entire economy.

That would be true if every company didn’t have nearly the same benefit. We are comparing time periods not two companies. Companies from say 1950 are not competing for workers with people from 2020.

Median income has nothing to do with real wage stagnation.

It is real median income being shown, but that doesn’t show the full picture. For one thing, we need the definition of "disposable income" that's being used here.

Median (average) measures are the refuge of the scoundrel.

Refuting the (willful) abuse of statistics is like trying to refute numerology with reason.

Refuting numerology with reason works quite well for most people.

Reason doesn't work great for convincing a numerologist that they are wrong.

It does a number on the audience though.

Indeed. I eagerly await the day reason reigns supreme. Imagine! No more Reagonomics, anti-vax, flat earthers, birthers, pizza gate, qanon, powerpoint, climate skepticism, creationism, 9/11 truthers, Bell Curve, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Reply on news.ycombinator.com