What caused the change in wages over the past 20 years ?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Free trade, which resulted in sharing some of the wage earners prosperity with the rest of the world.

So, you're OK with sharing the middle class's wealth/prosperity with the rest of the WORLD. But you're NOT OK with sharing the middle/uppermiddle/rich's wealth/prosperity with the rest of their own countrymen (healthcare)? What kind of patriot are you? Please explain this confounded conundrum, if you can.
 

RU482

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
12,689
3
81
I wonder what the graph would look like if a third line titled "upper management compensation" was added
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Only one way to compete with cheap labor in a global free trade market.

Not really. It's the only way the financial elite can maximize their own incomes, build their own international empires at the expense of their countrymen... Having Uncle Sam borrow money to pay entitlements is obviously better than paying decent wages yourself, right? Particularly when he's borrowing from you...
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Only one way to compete with cheap labor in a global free trade market.

And the more we play that game the more we lose our middle class. How long can this go on until only the doctors, lawyers, ploiticians, and business leaders are the only ones who can afford health care and save for retirement?

I for one want to be able to retire in the USA, not China.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If you look at charts like this one:
productivity_wages_graph.gif


Up until about 20 years ago wages were pretty much in line with productivity and increased each year , then all of a sudden wages stopped increasing yet business was able to produce more and prices for goods increased. Basically business benefited while the workers got shafted. I think that has to do with the economic problems more than anything else. People had to borrow to buy the same things they had before because wages lost pace with cost.

So what caused it to occur ? I heard some people say it was computers and automation that allowed factories to turn out more and need less skilled workers so there was no need to increase wages . The problem with that is in some countries they have kept the wages increasing over the years even though they have modernized the factories and production. So what is it we are not doing ?

You've not shown any reason to assume that the increase in productivity is due to anything the employees did, rather than by capital expenditures by the business owners. For example, if I run a landscaping business my employees will be more productive if I give them a riding mower than a push mower, but why should I increase my workers' salaries because I spent money giving them better equipment?
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
America is sick. It has a powerful party of death and hate that cannibalizes it's own children. God is used to make you feel worthless and undeserving and to treat others as you feel about yourself.

We have created a society where you have to have a good job to survive and be successful and then we have destroyed those jobs, destroyed the schools needed to attain them, destroyed the social structure that supports the mentality needed for success, destroyed our organic happiness.

If you need a job to live, then a job is your human right and any government that does not provide those jobs should be abolished and new government instituted that affects your safety and happiness.

The government's job isn't to create jobs :rolleyes:

Companies and people creating companies create jobs. The government can help by not taxing/regulating the companies to death. I am NOT saying no regulation whatsoever - factories were very dangerous before safety regulations were put in effect, for example - but they don't need Big Brother hanging over their shoulder and demanding so much money from them.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
You've not shown any reason to assume that the increase in productivity is due to anything the employees did, rather than by capital expenditures by the business owners. For example, if I run a landscaping business my employees will be more productive if I give them a riding mower than a push mower, but why should I increase my workers' salaries because I spent money giving them better equipment?

LOL, and you haven't showed you invested any money, especially in the good old US of A.
 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
You've not shown any reason to assume that the increase in productivity is due to anything the employees did, rather than by capital expenditures by the business owners. For example, if I run a landscaping business my employees will be more productive if I give them a riding mower than a push mower, but why should I increase my workers' salaries because I spent money giving them better equipment?

To take your example even farther if riding lawn mowers make that much difference in profits then more business will do it and prices should go down for law mowing services as more businesses compete for business.

Edit- this would mean if the industry is healthy and competitive that even with technology increases profits should remain relatively the same.
 
Last edited:

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally Posted by Vic
The OP's graph fails to account for the considerable increase in the value of employee benefit packages since the 70s. Factor those in, and total compensation has increased at pace with productivity. So the graph is simply misleading. Like they say: lies, damned lies, and statistics.


Pray tell what are these tremendous benifits of which you speak?

You certainly wouldn't be refering to health care benifits which are costing people more and more money out of their own pockets, now would you?

s'matter? Cat got your tongue?
 
D

Deleted member 4644

If you look at charts like this one:
productivity_wages_graph.gif


Up until about 20 years ago wages were pretty much in line with productivity and increased each year , then all of a sudden wages stopped increasing yet business was able to produce more and prices for goods increased. Basically business benefited while the workers got shafted. I think that has to do with the economic problems more than anything else. People had to borrow to buy the same things they had before because wages lost pace with cost.

So what caused it to occur ? I heard some people say it was computers and automation that allowed factories to turn out more and need less skilled workers so there was no need to increase wages . The problem with that is in some countries they have kept the wages increasing over the years even though they have modernized the factories and production. So what is it we are not doing ?

There is actually one correct, credited answer: Globalization

It is a MATHEMATICAL FACT that U.S. wages must decline with increasing globalization.

Think of it this way: If the U.S. makes all the computers in the world, it doesn't matter what it costs to make a computer in India -- they don't or can't do it, so the U.S. "price" for computers (including the labor price) is the only number that matters.

However, with globalization, the labor market is now global.

Multi-National companies no longer ask "How much do I have to pay a worker in California to build the computer." Instead, they ask, "What is the cheapest location with trained workers?"

Thus, U.S. wages are now based on a global competition system, and U.S. labor is no longer eligible for a price premium because we are no longer the only option.

Another mathematical fact is that it will not get "better" in the U.S. UNTIL GLOBAL WAGES RISE to something near the "old" U.S. average, which might happen sometime in the next 100 years or so, assuming things go fairly smoothly.

It was probably inevitable -- both democrats and republicans were clamoring for globalization for decades. The republicans are probably more to blame, if only because some democrats are union democrats, and unions were about the only voice against globalization that there was.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
The election of Reagan and women entering the workforce in great numbers. With two worker households, companies can pay much lower wages. It used to be a man could support a family on just his salary.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Up until about 20 years ago wages were pretty much in line with productivity and increased each year , then all of a sudden wages stopped increasing yet business was able to produce more and prices for goods increased. Basically business benefited while the workers got shafted. I think that has to do with the economic problems more than anything else. People had to borrow to buy the same things they had before because wages lost pace with cost.

So what caused it to occur ? I heard some people say it was computers and automation that allowed factories to turn out more and need less skilled workers so there was no need to increase wages.

Answer: Global Labor Arbitrage

Basically, when the supply of labor--caused by foreign outsourcing, H-1B and L-1 visas, and mass immigration--increases relative to the amount of capital available and/or the demand for labor, wages, the price point, must decrease.

This means that because there are more laborers in the market relative to the amount of resources and wealth-producing machinery that employers--business owners--can keep a larger percentage of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth creation as profit. In other words--because lots of people are willing to work for less, workers receive a smaller share of the pie. This is also sometimes known as a "Race to the Bottom".

With the collapse of socialism in India and China and the opening of those markets and other markets, literally billions of people were added to the labor force, many of whom are college educated. Since the United States has done nothing to protect its markets, goods and services are being produced overseas for domestic U.S. consumption while foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas are being imported to work for lower wages, displacing Americans from their jobs. The U.S. also allows mass immigration--both legal and illegal--which places downward pressure on wages for blue collar and low-wage employees.

Now try this experiment in your head. Imagine if there weren't any barriers to the flow of labor or capital and the U.S. economy merged with the economies of India, China, and Mexico, adding over 2.5 billion impoverished people to the U.S. population. What do you think would happen to Americans' standard of living? It would average out with the standards of living in India, China, and Mexico, and since most of those people are impoverished, it means that your average American would end up impoverished.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell.

Since large businesses and the wealthy benefit from what is, in effect, a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy class, our pathetic politicians, the news media, and our intellectuals, all of whom have been bought and paid for, have refused to mention or in any way acknowledge that Global Labor Arbitrage in any form is a problem. It was discussed a little bit in 2004 during the Kerry campaign but that talk was quickly quieted.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Alternatively we could keep Unions and the entire business goes under. Then everything moves offshore and we have to import it. Brilliant idea sir!

Why not just keep the unions and whatever higher quality of life and standard of living they bring and just ban all imports?

Typical uninformed proletariat rant about the guys that get paid more. And, might I add, typical lack of content and supporting facts to the comment as well. What more would I expect from someone on the internet...

Do you really think those guys are the equivalent of rock stars or top athletes and almost completely irreplaceable? I bet that if those same jobs were offered for a mere $500,000/year without bonuses or other perks other than standard insurance benefits and that if only the top 5% of all MBA holders by IQ were eligible that we could form a huge line of volunteers, probably consisting of more than 100 times the amount of positions available.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Sad to see such rampant class envy in this society, especially since you're probably part of a very large group of people with class envy with very little understanding of the real world and how things work.

What's wrong with class envy if the people legitimately believe that they are getting screwed by the wealthy class and that the wealthy class is engaged in class warfare against them?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
And the more we play that game the more we lose our middle class. How long can this go on until only the doctors, lawyers, ploiticians, and business leaders are the only ones who can afford health care and save for retirement?

Actually, doctors and lawyers--working stiffs--will get fucked too. Their businesses and their income depend on having a strong economy where people can afford to pay for health care and where businesses need legal services and where people have wealth to squabble over. Widespread and abundant economic activity is the best friend a lawyer ever had.
 
Last edited:
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Alternatively we could keep Unions and the entire business goes under. Then everything moves offshore and we have to import it. Brilliant idea sir!

If you hadn't noticed, executive pay didn't skyrocket till Sarbanes-Oxley was passed.
http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...yvsBK6_z44vVXHJHXA_20060607,00.html?mod=blogs
"blah blah WSJ Rupert Murdoc blah blah", the article raises valid points.

Deal with SarbOx, pay comes back down. Don't, and Executive's butts are on the line for things guys 4 levels of management removed do to cook the books. Gotta have compensation when your head is on the line should the company go belly up through no fault of your own.

Typical uninformed proletariat rant about the guys that get paid more. And, might I add, typical lack of content and supporting facts to the comment as well. What more would I expect from someone on the internet...
Why not just keep the unions and whatever higher quality of life and standard of living they bring and just ban all imports?



Do you really think those guys are the equivalent of rock stars or top athletes and almost completely irreplaceable? I bet that if those same jobs were offered for a mere $500,000/year without bonuses or other perks other than standard insurance benefits and that if only the top 5% of all MBA holders by IQ were eligible that we could form a huge line of volunteers, probably consisting of more than 100 times the amount of positions available.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in your second part, but as for the first part, look at what trade protectionism has done to every country that's tried it. In the short term businesses flourish because Americans are forced to buy American products, in the long term all Americans lose because we are forced to buy crap like GM, Chrysler, etc. It's misallocation of resources on the most basic level-- simple economics-- if there's a more efficient method of driving yourself somewhere, you should use the most efficient method [IE the car that drives for 350k miles not the car that struggles to hit 175k]. Then, that improvement enables households to spend the money that they would have had to spend on another car, on other things to improve their standard of living.

The other reason trade is good for all parties involved is it allows specialization. If you are very good at making reliable cars [Japan] then you can trade those cars with someone who is very good at making software and IT solutions [America], for their software and IT solutions.

I hope you were trolling with that question :/
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
What's wrong with class envy if the people legitimately believe that they are getting screwed by the wealthy class and that the wealthy class is engaged in class warfare against them?

That's not envy, though. It's a moral concern for opposing the excessive concentraqtion of wealth.

The calling it envy is propaganda - a lie to defend the excess concentration of wealth.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally Posted by Vic
The OP's graph fails to account for the considerable increase in the value of employee benefit packages since the 70s. Factor those in, and total compensation has increased at pace with productivity. So the graph is simply misleading. Like they say: lies, damned lies, and statistics.




s'matter? Cat got your tongue?

Don't expect much response. I asked for any data from people who claimed with benefits it 'kept up with growth' - not a word.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
So, you're OK with sharing the middle class's wealth/prosperity with the rest of the WORLD. But you're NOT OK with sharing the middle/uppermiddle/rich's wealth/prosperity with the rest of their own countrymen (healthcare)? What kind of patriot are you? Please explain this confounded conundrum, if you can.
No actually I favor USA protectionism. I could give a shit less about the poor of the world. A car that has no engine can't take you anywhere....
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Not really. It's the only way the financial elite can maximize their own incomes, build their own international empires at the expense of their countrymen... Having Uncle Sam borrow money to pay entitlements is obviously better than paying decent wages yourself, right? Particularly when he's borrowing from you...

Bill Gates has accomplished great things that would not have been accomplished if his fortunes were taken and redistributed by our government.

Historically, (USA) Wealth distribution gets corrected when it gets to far out of balance.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
The graph shows the average. YOU decide where you want to ride. On the peaks, or in the valleys.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Bill Gates has accomplished great things that would not have been accomplished if his fortunes were taken and redistributed by our government.

Historically, (USA) Wealth distribution gets corrected when it gets to far out of balance.

Ignoring the rest of the post, I just want to to note "redistribute" is an official buzzword in the right wing cult dictionary. Anything the goverment does is based on "redistributing" and has cooties, to oppose.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Ignoring the rest of the post, I just want to to note "redistribute" is an official buzzword in the right wing cult dictionary. Anything the goverment does is based on "redistributing" and has cooties, to oppose.

Well, I guess I will just take an exception to your note as there is no such thing as a right wing cult dictionary. As for ignoring the rest of the post, I can understand why you would do that, as you don't even have the intellectual ability to understand it, let alone respond to it.