In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Chief Justice John Roberts has asked same-sex marriage proponents to respond to an emergency request from Virginia to halt a circuit court ruling letting gay couples marry in the state.
Roberts, who handles such requests for the region, gave a deadline of Monday at 5 p.m. for the response, according to SCOTUSblog.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to halt its ruling. If a "stay" is not granted by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages will be allowed to move forward as of next Thursday in Virginia.
Granting a stay is largely a procedural matter. The Supreme Court is expected to have the final word on the larger question of whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
On August 16 2014 04:21 RCMDVA wrote: Wow. Didn't expect for the police to have a QuickTrip video of Mike Brown stealing $50 worth of cigars and pushing the store owner. (guy who got shot in Ferguson, MO)
And now we know why Obama stayed quiet on this one.
So stealing 50 bucks worth of cigars justify an execution without trial ?
On August 16 2014 04:07 Crushinator wrote:
On August 16 2014 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:
On August 16 2014 00:30 Crushinator wrote: [quote]
Productivity has more components than human capital, and it is not required for wages and productivity to be perfectly correlated for education to be a worthwhile investment. Increasing human capital investment is an incredibly succesful method of reducing poverty, crime, and all sorts of other social costs. People who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds benefit the most from increased human capital investment due to diminishing returns (meaning additional units of education are more valuable if you have had little). Not only can this be understood intuitively, it has been shown so many times emperically it really isn't worth debating.
You forgot the part where he said education was competitive. If you give a bachelor degree to everyone, it will increase human capital and productivity, but it can have no or almost no impact on income distribution as long as the distinctions between class or groups stays the same (all the rich get a master to distinguish themselves). It has been done in France actually, with the 80% bachelor goal from Mitterand. Our labor productivity is one of the best of the world, but inequality and poverty are rising (despite a social safety net and a huge welfare program). Things are much more complicated in real life than in the "intuitive understanding" of the market.
I am not particularly interested in debating the disparity between labor productivity and wages, since the issue is indeed complex. However, the idea that education is ineffective in reducing poverty and social problems is just absurd. Massive investment in human capital is how countries like south korea and taiwan have been able to graduate from third world low-labor cost economies with no natural resources to prosperous high skill economies, for example.
Competition, or lack thereof, is exactly why higher levels of education result in more favorable returns to labor. Higher levels of education result in higher levels of specialisation, or heterogeneity, as opposed to the homogenous and easily exploitable homogenous labor offered by unskilled laborers. Heterogeneity in this sense allows workers to gain in monopoly power in their labor markets (less competition).
"Human capital" is the new flavor of the decade for economists, after R&D in the 90s. I believe that policies that seeks to reduce poverty and income disparities are the most effective - policies that favor education for the poorests, maybe, but for a big part just simple policies that effectively redistribute wealth from richest to the poorest. I'm not very "educated" about the korean miracle, but I'm pretty sure that kind of policies existed at some point, and played a role. As a teacher myself I believe "education" is for a big part a hoax (a way to class people and permit distinction) - for exemple, experience is really important to be productive and it is always discarded in contemporary societies. Human capital is a lot bigger than education by the way : investing in infrastructures and health services is part of "human capital". The concept in itself is very vague to understand what happen in reality - for exemple if you look at boss' press, one of the major concern of firm in the occidental world is to find good workers, considering that - despite a global increase in "education" - it is harder and harder to find good workers.
In sociology there is a lot of work about relative frustration (like Why men rebel from T. Gurr), from this perspective achieving higher education for the poorest neighborhood, but without objective chance to get to higher positions and income would result not in less violence but more. My response is a bit messy because that's a very broad topic and I don't have the patience to be structured in my answer.
I do think education is often overemphasized when it comes to solving social problems and it certainly is not the only answer, but it to me it seems strange to attribute no importance to it at all, especially because it contradicts most emperical evidence. Achieving higher education but no opportunity to make use of it would indeed be quite a tragic situation, but is this really what happens in the real world? On the whole becoming more skilled, and making use of it would result in less frustration, even in the absence of higher wages because people value being competent at a difficult task, and being less replaceable (not a sociologist but I would think this is true, no?).
The issue is that many of those that are stuck in poverty and high crime areas can't even get to the higher educational part, despite having all the opportunity required to do so (on paper). Meanwhile, of those that HAVE that education, many of them are struggling to make wages comparable of a high school graduate of 20 years ago. The "specialized" world you talked about earlier doesn't exist for a Starbucks barista with a college degree. Getting better educated may increase US productivity, but that apparently isn't reflected in median US incomes.
No, productivity has gone up and so has income.
Income gains among the non 1% have stalled since the 80s, while productivity gains continue to climb.
Not true, I've made many posts on this. For example:
The 1% have done much better than average, but incomes have risen over a wide swath of the population.
And you think you're graph prove that what we were talking about is wrong ? lol + Show Spoiler +
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
I really don't understand this whole education/job issue...
Every single person in my graduating college class had a job offer before they graduated. All of them paying at least $60k/year and most paying a fair bit more. Almost nobody had a large amount of debt between scholarships/relatively cheap schooling (20-25k per year for in state). You can easily get a good paying job out of college without much debt. It's just people think you have to go to one of the ridiculously expensive schools in order to get an education/job, and they choose majors that don't have a good job outlook.
In regards to needing an education to get a decent job: Where I am currently working none of the hourly employees (~300 people) have a college degree and the lowest wage is about $22/hr, with the exception of summer help high school students. These jobs offer large amounts of overtime and don't require any particular skills besides being willing to work shift hours, coming in if necessary when called, and the ability to learn/show improvement over time.
On August 16 2014 04:21 RCMDVA wrote: Wow. Didn't expect for the police to have a QuickTrip video of Mike Brown stealing $50 worth of cigars and pushing the store owner. (guy who got shot in Ferguson, MO)
And now we know why Obama stayed quiet on this one.
So stealing 50 bucks worth of cigars justify an execution without trial ?
On August 16 2014 04:07 Crushinator wrote:
On August 16 2014 01:00 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] You forgot the part where he said education was competitive. If you give a bachelor degree to everyone, it will increase human capital and productivity, but it can have no or almost no impact on income distribution as long as the distinctions between class or groups stays the same (all the rich get a master to distinguish themselves). It has been done in France actually, with the 80% bachelor goal from Mitterand. Our labor productivity is one of the best of the world, but inequality and poverty are rising (despite a social safety net and a huge welfare program). Things are much more complicated in real life than in the "intuitive understanding" of the market.
I am not particularly interested in debating the disparity between labor productivity and wages, since the issue is indeed complex. However, the idea that education is ineffective in reducing poverty and social problems is just absurd. Massive investment in human capital is how countries like south korea and taiwan have been able to graduate from third world low-labor cost economies with no natural resources to prosperous high skill economies, for example.
Competition, or lack thereof, is exactly why higher levels of education result in more favorable returns to labor. Higher levels of education result in higher levels of specialisation, or heterogeneity, as opposed to the homogenous and easily exploitable homogenous labor offered by unskilled laborers. Heterogeneity in this sense allows workers to gain in monopoly power in their labor markets (less competition).
"Human capital" is the new flavor of the decade for economists, after R&D in the 90s. I believe that policies that seeks to reduce poverty and income disparities are the most effective - policies that favor education for the poorests, maybe, but for a big part just simple policies that effectively redistribute wealth from richest to the poorest. I'm not very "educated" about the korean miracle, but I'm pretty sure that kind of policies existed at some point, and played a role. As a teacher myself I believe "education" is for a big part a hoax (a way to class people and permit distinction) - for exemple, experience is really important to be productive and it is always discarded in contemporary societies. Human capital is a lot bigger than education by the way : investing in infrastructures and health services is part of "human capital". The concept in itself is very vague to understand what happen in reality - for exemple if you look at boss' press, one of the major concern of firm in the occidental world is to find good workers, considering that - despite a global increase in "education" - it is harder and harder to find good workers.
In sociology there is a lot of work about relative frustration (like Why men rebel from T. Gurr), from this perspective achieving higher education for the poorest neighborhood, but without objective chance to get to higher positions and income would result not in less violence but more. My response is a bit messy because that's a very broad topic and I don't have the patience to be structured in my answer.
I do think education is often overemphasized when it comes to solving social problems and it certainly is not the only answer, but it to me it seems strange to attribute no importance to it at all, especially because it contradicts most emperical evidence. Achieving higher education but no opportunity to make use of it would indeed be quite a tragic situation, but is this really what happens in the real world? On the whole becoming more skilled, and making use of it would result in less frustration, even in the absence of higher wages because people value being competent at a difficult task, and being less replaceable (not a sociologist but I would think this is true, no?).
The issue is that many of those that are stuck in poverty and high crime areas can't even get to the higher educational part, despite having all the opportunity required to do so (on paper). Meanwhile, of those that HAVE that education, many of them are struggling to make wages comparable of a high school graduate of 20 years ago. The "specialized" world you talked about earlier doesn't exist for a Starbucks barista with a college degree. Getting better educated may increase US productivity, but that apparently isn't reflected in median US incomes.
No, productivity has gone up and so has income.
Income gains among the non 1% have stalled since the 80s, while productivity gains continue to climb.
Not true, I've made many posts on this. For example:
The 1% have done much better than average, but incomes have risen over a wide swath of the population.
And you think you're graph prove that what we were talking about is wrong ? lol + Show Spoiler +
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
still a gap, but it isn't huge. Also, some of the gap is due to higher depreciation rates and 'imputed' income to homeowners.
LOL You're taking a graph that goes back to 1947 to make it seem like the gap is "not huge". Awesome. That's like 50 pts gap (at least) with 1947 at base 100.
On August 16 2014 04:21 RCMDVA wrote: Wow. Didn't expect for the police to have a QuickTrip video of Mike Brown stealing $50 worth of cigars and pushing the store owner. (guy who got shot in Ferguson, MO)
And now we know why Obama stayed quiet on this one.
So stealing 50 bucks worth of cigars justify an execution without trial ?
On August 16 2014 04:07 Crushinator wrote: [quote]
I am not particularly interested in debating the disparity between labor productivity and wages, since the issue is indeed complex. However, the idea that education is ineffective in reducing poverty and social problems is just absurd. Massive investment in human capital is how countries like south korea and taiwan have been able to graduate from third world low-labor cost economies with no natural resources to prosperous high skill economies, for example.
Competition, or lack thereof, is exactly why higher levels of education result in more favorable returns to labor. Higher levels of education result in higher levels of specialisation, or heterogeneity, as opposed to the homogenous and easily exploitable homogenous labor offered by unskilled laborers. Heterogeneity in this sense allows workers to gain in monopoly power in their labor markets (less competition).
"Human capital" is the new flavor of the decade for economists, after R&D in the 90s. I believe that policies that seeks to reduce poverty and income disparities are the most effective - policies that favor education for the poorests, maybe, but for a big part just simple policies that effectively redistribute wealth from richest to the poorest. I'm not very "educated" about the korean miracle, but I'm pretty sure that kind of policies existed at some point, and played a role. As a teacher myself I believe "education" is for a big part a hoax (a way to class people and permit distinction) - for exemple, experience is really important to be productive and it is always discarded in contemporary societies. Human capital is a lot bigger than education by the way : investing in infrastructures and health services is part of "human capital". The concept in itself is very vague to understand what happen in reality - for exemple if you look at boss' press, one of the major concern of firm in the occidental world is to find good workers, considering that - despite a global increase in "education" - it is harder and harder to find good workers.
In sociology there is a lot of work about relative frustration (like Why men rebel from T. Gurr), from this perspective achieving higher education for the poorest neighborhood, but without objective chance to get to higher positions and income would result not in less violence but more. My response is a bit messy because that's a very broad topic and I don't have the patience to be structured in my answer.
I do think education is often overemphasized when it comes to solving social problems and it certainly is not the only answer, but it to me it seems strange to attribute no importance to it at all, especially because it contradicts most emperical evidence. Achieving higher education but no opportunity to make use of it would indeed be quite a tragic situation, but is this really what happens in the real world? On the whole becoming more skilled, and making use of it would result in less frustration, even in the absence of higher wages because people value being competent at a difficult task, and being less replaceable (not a sociologist but I would think this is true, no?).
The issue is that many of those that are stuck in poverty and high crime areas can't even get to the higher educational part, despite having all the opportunity required to do so (on paper). Meanwhile, of those that HAVE that education, many of them are struggling to make wages comparable of a high school graduate of 20 years ago. The "specialized" world you talked about earlier doesn't exist for a Starbucks barista with a college degree. Getting better educated may increase US productivity, but that apparently isn't reflected in median US incomes.
No, productivity has gone up and so has income.
Income gains among the non 1% have stalled since the 80s, while productivity gains continue to climb.
Not true, I've made many posts on this. For example:
The 1% have done much better than average, but incomes have risen over a wide swath of the population.
And you think you're graph prove that what we were talking about is wrong ? lol + Show Spoiler +
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
On August 16 2014 04:46 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] So stealing 50 bucks worth of cigars justify an execution without trial ?
[quote] "Human capital" is the new flavor of the decade for economists, after R&D in the 90s. I believe that policies that seeks to reduce poverty and income disparities are the most effective - policies that favor education for the poorests, maybe, but for a big part just simple policies that effectively redistribute wealth from richest to the poorest. I'm not very "educated" about the korean miracle, but I'm pretty sure that kind of policies existed at some point, and played a role. As a teacher myself I believe "education" is for a big part a hoax (a way to class people and permit distinction) - for exemple, experience is really important to be productive and it is always discarded in contemporary societies. Human capital is a lot bigger than education by the way : investing in infrastructures and health services is part of "human capital". The concept in itself is very vague to understand what happen in reality - for exemple if you look at boss' press, one of the major concern of firm in the occidental world is to find good workers, considering that - despite a global increase in "education" - it is harder and harder to find good workers.
In sociology there is a lot of work about relative frustration (like Why men rebel from T. Gurr), from this perspective achieving higher education for the poorest neighborhood, but without objective chance to get to higher positions and income would result not in less violence but more. My response is a bit messy because that's a very broad topic and I don't have the patience to be structured in my answer.
I do think education is often overemphasized when it comes to solving social problems and it certainly is not the only answer, but it to me it seems strange to attribute no importance to it at all, especially because it contradicts most emperical evidence. Achieving higher education but no opportunity to make use of it would indeed be quite a tragic situation, but is this really what happens in the real world? On the whole becoming more skilled, and making use of it would result in less frustration, even in the absence of higher wages because people value being competent at a difficult task, and being less replaceable (not a sociologist but I would think this is true, no?).
The issue is that many of those that are stuck in poverty and high crime areas can't even get to the higher educational part, despite having all the opportunity required to do so (on paper). Meanwhile, of those that HAVE that education, many of them are struggling to make wages comparable of a high school graduate of 20 years ago. The "specialized" world you talked about earlier doesn't exist for a Starbucks barista with a college degree. Getting better educated may increase US productivity, but that apparently isn't reflected in median US incomes.
No, productivity has gone up and so has income.
Income gains among the non 1% have stalled since the 80s, while productivity gains continue to climb.
Not true, I've made many posts on this. For example:
The 1% have done much better than average, but incomes have risen over a wide swath of the population.
And you think you're graph prove that what we were talking about is wrong ? lol + Show Spoiler +
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
On August 16 2014 05:15 Crushinator wrote: [quote]
I do think education is often overemphasized when it comes to solving social problems and it certainly is not the only answer, but it to me it seems strange to attribute no importance to it at all, especially because it contradicts most emperical evidence. Achieving higher education but no opportunity to make use of it would indeed be quite a tragic situation, but is this really what happens in the real world? On the whole becoming more skilled, and making use of it would result in less frustration, even in the absence of higher wages because people value being competent at a difficult task, and being less replaceable (not a sociologist but I would think this is true, no?).
The issue is that many of those that are stuck in poverty and high crime areas can't even get to the higher educational part, despite having all the opportunity required to do so (on paper). Meanwhile, of those that HAVE that education, many of them are struggling to make wages comparable of a high school graduate of 20 years ago. The "specialized" world you talked about earlier doesn't exist for a Starbucks barista with a college degree. Getting better educated may increase US productivity, but that apparently isn't reflected in median US incomes.
No, productivity has gone up and so has income.
Income gains among the non 1% have stalled since the 80s, while productivity gains continue to climb.
Not true, I've made many posts on this. For example:
The 1% have done much better than average, but incomes have risen over a wide swath of the population.
And you think you're graph prove that what we were talking about is wrong ? lol + Show Spoiler +
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
On August 16 2014 04:21 RCMDVA wrote: Wow. Didn't expect for the police to have a QuickTrip video of Mike Brown stealing $50 worth of cigars and pushing the store owner. (guy who got shot in Ferguson, MO)
And now we know why Obama stayed quiet on this one.
So stealing 50 bucks worth of cigars justify an execution without trial ?
On August 16 2014 04:07 Crushinator wrote: [quote]
I am not particularly interested in debating the disparity between labor productivity and wages, since the issue is indeed complex. However, the idea that education is ineffective in reducing poverty and social problems is just absurd. Massive investment in human capital is how countries like south korea and taiwan have been able to graduate from third world low-labor cost economies with no natural resources to prosperous high skill economies, for example.
Competition, or lack thereof, is exactly why higher levels of education result in more favorable returns to labor. Higher levels of education result in higher levels of specialisation, or heterogeneity, as opposed to the homogenous and easily exploitable homogenous labor offered by unskilled laborers. Heterogeneity in this sense allows workers to gain in monopoly power in their labor markets (less competition).
"Human capital" is the new flavor of the decade for economists, after R&D in the 90s. I believe that policies that seeks to reduce poverty and income disparities are the most effective - policies that favor education for the poorests, maybe, but for a big part just simple policies that effectively redistribute wealth from richest to the poorest. I'm not very "educated" about the korean miracle, but I'm pretty sure that kind of policies existed at some point, and played a role. As a teacher myself I believe "education" is for a big part a hoax (a way to class people and permit distinction) - for exemple, experience is really important to be productive and it is always discarded in contemporary societies. Human capital is a lot bigger than education by the way : investing in infrastructures and health services is part of "human capital". The concept in itself is very vague to understand what happen in reality - for exemple if you look at boss' press, one of the major concern of firm in the occidental world is to find good workers, considering that - despite a global increase in "education" - it is harder and harder to find good workers.
In sociology there is a lot of work about relative frustration (like Why men rebel from T. Gurr), from this perspective achieving higher education for the poorest neighborhood, but without objective chance to get to higher positions and income would result not in less violence but more. My response is a bit messy because that's a very broad topic and I don't have the patience to be structured in my answer.
I do think education is often overemphasized when it comes to solving social problems and it certainly is not the only answer, but it to me it seems strange to attribute no importance to it at all, especially because it contradicts most emperical evidence. Achieving higher education but no opportunity to make use of it would indeed be quite a tragic situation, but is this really what happens in the real world? On the whole becoming more skilled, and making use of it would result in less frustration, even in the absence of higher wages because people value being competent at a difficult task, and being less replaceable (not a sociologist but I would think this is true, no?).
The issue is that many of those that are stuck in poverty and high crime areas can't even get to the higher educational part, despite having all the opportunity required to do so (on paper). Meanwhile, of those that HAVE that education, many of them are struggling to make wages comparable of a high school graduate of 20 years ago. The "specialized" world you talked about earlier doesn't exist for a Starbucks barista with a college degree. Getting better educated may increase US productivity, but that apparently isn't reflected in median US incomes.
No, productivity has gone up and so has income.
Income gains among the non 1% have stalled since the 80s, while productivity gains continue to climb.
Not true, I've made many posts on this. For example:
The 1% have done much better than average, but incomes have risen over a wide swath of the population.
And you think you're graph prove that what we were talking about is wrong ? lol + Show Spoiler +
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
still a gap, but it isn't huge. Also, some of the gap is due to higher depreciation rates and 'imputed' income to homeowners.
LOL You're taking a graph that goes back to 1947 to make it seem like the gap is "not huge". Awesome. That's like 50 pts gap (at least) with 1947 at base 100.
I think the graphs do a good job of showing the underlying theme regardless of the severity.
The majority of people are working harder/being more productive and getting compensated less for their efforts/production, while the top 'earners' are gathering a growing share of the wealth generated by the increased productivity.
On August 16 2014 05:34 aksfjh wrote: [quote] The issue is that many of those that are stuck in poverty and high crime areas can't even get to the higher educational part, despite having all the opportunity required to do so (on paper). Meanwhile, of those that HAVE that education, many of them are struggling to make wages comparable of a high school graduate of 20 years ago. The "specialized" world you talked about earlier doesn't exist for a Starbucks barista with a college degree. Getting better educated may increase US productivity, but that apparently isn't reflected in median US incomes.
No, productivity has gone up and so has income.
Income gains among the non 1% have stalled since the 80s, while productivity gains continue to climb.
Not true, I've made many posts on this. For example:
The 1% have done much better than average, but incomes have risen over a wide swath of the population.
And you think you're graph prove that what we were talking about is wrong ? lol + Show Spoiler +
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
What do you want to prove ? My graph is in real term too you know.
Did you read my post??
Where do you want to go ? There's a 50 pts gap, it's huge, in your graph. Secondary my graph is about non supervisionary workers, because everybody knows there is an inflation in higher wage, especially in the US - your graph being an "average" (or a median ? who knows) of all "compensation per hour" doesn't take that into account (to my knowledge).
Plus I don't want to go too deep into this, but you're just wrong. Everything is wrong, for exemple talking about the bottom 99% and "real" (and not nominal) value is not necessarily a good think because inflation have asymetric impact on income. Plus, since then new goods appears that now are necessities in our society - internet ? how do you find job without it now I wonder ? transportation ? All that also have an impact on revenu that is asymetric (more likely higher on lower income) and non taken into consideration when you look at the increase in "compensations" over the last 60 years.
On August 16 2014 07:39 Chewbacca. wrote: I really don't understand this whole education/job issue...
Every single person in my graduating college class had a job offer before they graduated. All of them paying at least $60k/year and most paying a fair bit more. Almost nobody had a large amount of debt between scholarships/relatively cheap schooling (20-25k per year for in state). You can easily get a good paying job out of college without much debt. It's just people think you have to go to one of the ridiculously expensive schools in order to get an education/job, and they choose majors that don't have a good job outlook.
In regards to needing an education to get a decent job: Where I am currently working none of the hourly employees (~300 people) have a college degree and the lowest wage is about $22/hr, with the exception of summer help high school students. These jobs offer large amounts of overtime and don't require any particular skills besides being willing to work shift hours, coming in if necessary when called, and the ability to learn/show improvement over time.
I don't know when you graduated or where, or what your major was, but it doesn't really matter. Your experience is not necessarily representative. Underemployment, unemployment, and the cost of education are all real issues whether or not you've experienced them. Let's not forget 20k/yr is a lot of money for a student from a low income family especially if you fail to graduate.
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
What do you want to prove ? My graph is in real term too you know.
Did you read my post??
Where do you want to go ? There's a 50 pts gap, it's huge, in your graph. Secondary my graph is about non supervisionary workers, because everybody knows there is an inflation in higher wage, especially in the US - your graph being an "average" of all "compensation" doesn't take that into account.
?? I didn't deny a gap. You're either having a hard time reading my posts or you aren't reading them at all. I used the phrase "small" because the gap is much smaller than in your graphs. Subjectively, I think it is small anyways as it only represents a few percent of GDP.
Secondly, it is misleading to post productivity with non-supervisory median wages. The link between productivity and income is with total compensation for all workers, not wages for non-supervisory. Additionally, the link needs to use the same deflators for them to be correct.
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
What do you want to prove ? My graph is in real term too you know.
Did you read my post??
Where do you want to go ? There's a 50 pts gap, it's huge, in your graph. Secondary my graph is about non supervisionary workers, because everybody knows there is an inflation in higher wage, especially in the US - your graph being an "average" of all "compensation" doesn't take that into account.
?? I didn't deny a gap. You're either having a hard time reading my posts or you aren't reading them at all. I used the phrase "small" because the gap is much smaller than in your graphs. Subjectively, I think it is small anyways as it only represents a few percent of GDP.
Secondly, it is misleading to post productivity with non-supervisory median wages. The link between productivity and income is with total compensation for all workers, not wages for non-supervisory. Additionally, the link needs to use the same deflators for them to be correct.
You remember that in the same post I also posted another graph with 4 curve and each different scenario, each showing a gap ? You just quoted the one that you wanted to criticise right ? And can you tell me what's a big gap for you ? 50 pts is "small", so what's big ? 100 ? How can you judge that the gap is small or big ?
And it's not misleading because you can't evaluate the productivity of non supervisionary workers alone since productivity per group or per anything doesn't exist since production is a social activity you know. You can talk to no end about the statistics and everything else (because all statistical artifacts are rather rash picture of reality), and then there is the fact, there is a gap - bigger than anything since 1950 so I will use the term "huge" gap because I want to, just like you use to term "small" because you want to - and a stagnation of the bottom 25 % wages since 20 years.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday for abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for state prosecutors investigating public corruption — making the possible 2016 presidential hopeful his state's first indicted governor in nearly a century.
A special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he promised publicly to nix $7.5 million over two years for the public integrity unit, which is run by Travis County District Rosemary Lehmberg's office. Several top aides to the Republican governor appeared before grand jurors in Austin, including his deputy chief of staff, legislative director and general counsel. Perry himself wasn't called to testify.
He was indicted by an Austin grand jury on felony counts of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. Maximum punishment on the first charge is five to 99 years in prison. The second is two to 10 years.
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
What do you want to prove ? My graph is in real term too you know.
Did you read my post??
Where do you want to go ? There's a 50 pts gap, it's huge, in your graph. Secondary my graph is about non supervisionary workers, because everybody knows there is an inflation in higher wage, especially in the US - your graph being an "average" of all "compensation" doesn't take that into account.
?? I didn't deny a gap. You're either having a hard time reading my posts or you aren't reading them at all. I used the phrase "small" because the gap is much smaller than in your graphs. Subjectively, I think it is small anyways as it only represents a few percent of GDP.
Secondly, it is misleading to post productivity with non-supervisory median wages. The link between productivity and income is with total compensation for all workers, not wages for non-supervisory. Additionally, the link needs to use the same deflators for them to be correct.
You remember that in the same post I also posted another graph with 4 curve and each different scenario, each showing a gap ? You just quoted the one that you wanted to criticise right ? And can you tell me what's a big gap for you ? 50 pts is "small", so what's big ? 100 ? How can you judge that the gap is small or big ?
Both your graphs deserve criticism for the same reasons. As for calling the gap small, did you not notice where I said "subjectively"??
And it's not misleading because you can't evaluate the productivity of non supervisionary workers alone since productivity per group or per anything doesn't exist since production is a social activity you know.
Your logic is completely backwards here. If you can't measure the productivity of non-supervisory workers alone than you shouldn't be posting their compensation along with a graph of productivity.
edit:
You can talk to no end about the statistics and everything else (because all statistical artifacts are rather rash picture of reality), and then there is the fact, there is a gap - bigger than anything since 1950 so I will use the term "huge" gap because I want to, just like you use to term "small" because you want to - and a stagnation of the bottom 25 % wages since 20 years.
Bottom 25% of income has risen. I wouldn't call that stagnation, unless you want to look at simple gross wages. I don't think that's a particularly meaningful stat though.
A key to understanding this growth of income inequality—and the disappointing increases in workers’ wages and compensation and middle-class incomes—is understanding the divergence of pay and productivity. Productivity growth has risen substantially over the last few decades but the hourly compensation of the typical worker has seen much more modest growth, especially in the last 10 years or so. The gap between productivity and the compensation growth for the typical worker has been larger in the “lost decade” since the early 2000s than at any point in the post-World War II period. In contrast, productivity and the compensation of the typical worker grew in tandem over the early postwar period until the 1970s.
You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
What do you want to prove ? My graph is in real term too you know.
Did you read my post??
Where do you want to go ? There's a 50 pts gap, it's huge, in your graph. Secondary my graph is about non supervisionary workers, because everybody knows there is an inflation in higher wage, especially in the US - your graph being an "average" of all "compensation" doesn't take that into account.
?? I didn't deny a gap. You're either having a hard time reading my posts or you aren't reading them at all. I used the phrase "small" because the gap is much smaller than in your graphs. Subjectively, I think it is small anyways as it only represents a few percent of GDP.
Secondly, it is misleading to post productivity with non-supervisory median wages. The link between productivity and income is with total compensation for all workers, not wages for non-supervisory. Additionally, the link needs to use the same deflators for them to be correct.
You remember that in the same post I also posted another graph with 4 curve and each different scenario, each showing a gap ? You just quoted the one that you wanted to criticise right ? And can you tell me what's a big gap for you ? 50 pts is "small", so what's big ? 100 ? How can you judge that the gap is small or big ?
Both your graphs deserve criticism for the same reasons. As for calling the gap small, did you not notice where I said "subjectively"??
And it's not misleading because you can't evaluate the productivity of non supervisionary workers alone since productivity per group or per anything doesn't exist since production is a social activity you know.
Your logic is completely backwards here. If you can't measure the productivity of non-supervisory workers alone than you shouldn't be posting their compensation along with a graph of productivity.
You can talk to no end about the statistics and everything else (because all statistical artifacts are rather rash picture of reality), and then there is the fact, there is a gap - bigger than anything since 1950 so I will use the term "huge" gap because I want to, just like you use to term "small" because you want to - and a stagnation of the bottom 25 % wages since 20 years.
Bottom 25% of income has risen. I wouldn't call that stagnation, unless you want to look at simple gross wages. I don't think that's a particularly meaningful stat though.
1 - I subjectively consider that all men are pink. 2 - The logic is not backwards, it's just that there are no statistical artefact to specifically evaluate what we are talking about so we purposefully use a deficient one but better than all compensation of all workers. It's often the case in social science : using imperfect data. 3 - I specifically said wage. I consider it very meaningful for political reasons.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday for abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for state prosecutors investigating public corruption — making the possible 2016 presidential hopeful his state's first indicted governor in nearly a century.
A special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he promised publicly to nix $7.5 million over two years for the public integrity unit, which is run by Travis County District Rosemary Lehmberg's office. Several top aides to the Republican governor appeared before grand jurors in Austin, including his deputy chief of staff, legislative director and general counsel. Perry himself wasn't called to testify.
He was indicted by an Austin grand jury on felony counts of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. Maximum punishment on the first charge is five to 99 years in prison. The second is two to 10 years.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday for abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for state prosecutors investigating public corruption — making the possible 2016 presidential hopeful his state's first indicted governor in nearly a century.
A special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he promised publicly to nix $7.5 million over two years for the public integrity unit, which is run by Travis County District Rosemary Lehmberg's office. Several top aides to the Republican governor appeared before grand jurors in Austin, including his deputy chief of staff, legislative director and general counsel. Perry himself wasn't called to testify.
He was indicted by an Austin grand jury on felony counts of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. Maximum punishment on the first charge is five to 99 years in prison. The second is two to 10 years.
In Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River, one of the longest in the northeast, male smallmouth bass are sprouting female egg cells in their testes. According to a United States Geological Survey report released in June, these intersex fish appear in water — both in this river and two others in the state — that has become saturated with estrogenic compounds, natural and artificial hormones in animal manure and, to a smaller degree, sewage.
Most troubling, biologists say, is that many of these bass, and scores of others, have visible signs of disease — black splotches on their skin and grotesque open sores.
“We do think some of the same feminization chemicals are causing immunosuppression,” said Vicki Blazer, a fish biologist for the USGS who helped write the report. “And that disease is having an effect on the population.”
Smallmouth bass, oval shaped and olive colored, are an immensely popular game fish that draws more than 100,000 anglers each year to the Susquehanna River, officials say, and anchor a statewide sportfishing industry with annual revenues of $3.4 billion. Scientists say bass are also a sensitive species whose health reflects the general state of a watershed as a whole. In the last decade, the number of smallmouth bass in the Susquehanna has dropped by roughly 40 percent. In July 2005, thousands of sick, dead fish clogged the river, most of them young smallmouth bass with lesions on their skin, and the outbreaks continue.
Late last month, John A. Arway, executive director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency and pleaded for its help in regulating agriculture.
“We’ve been trying to explain that the river is sick,” he said in an interview. “And the problem is not because of what we’re doing for the water. It’s because of what we’re doing for the land.”
On August 15 2014 04:59 Roswell wrote: Blacks kill white people at a much higher rate than the reverse and for black victims almost 90% of the offenders are black thttp://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/ttp://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/ttp://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/emselves. So who cares? If this policeman is a murderer then so be it, no need to start acting like this is the 1800s.
3127 were white offenders 2694 were black offenders
Yet blacks make up less than 10% of the population. Oh my god, we should start reversing our entire livelihoods and get all lame. I get that this is a policeman and things are different, but judging from theguardian it would appear unarmed blacks are being killed by the dozens every day by the great evil white people. Stupid shit to get riled up at. People are people. Race card is lamer than farcry 3s multiplayer
Don't be dumb. Over policing of black communities specifically in Missouri goes way beyond this one incident. Heres the data as collected by the States Attorney General s office. http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/
Oh, sorry I thought we were talking about homicides not if someone was speeding too fast. Fact remains, black on black homicide rates are absurd, (as are any where blacks are the offenders.) If you want to talk about which car insurance hispanics drive vs hawaiian then that is cool though.
This is a social and cultural issue, poorer people in urban areas tend to commit more crime, unfortunately blacks represent a great portion of those statistics. There are bigger evils happening in america than 4/20,000 homicides annually occurring where a controversial he said she said between a white offender and a black victim. For a country moving away from superstition it sure is funny that somehow someway "If a person kills a member of a different race, the evil neutrons and energy manifests itself greater, and that perpetrator must be punished more, thus sayeth the emperor of black people, the honorable and talented mr sharpton."
Except we weren't talking about homicide. At least I wasn't. I was talking about the way police treat black communities differently. That's what the Ferguson protests are about. A white policeman shooting an unarmed black teenager is just the incident that brought these long lingering racial tensions to the surface. It's not about white on black violence. It's about a white police force that treats the black community its supposed to be serving antagonistically. That's why the racial profiling data is relevant. It is hard evidence that black people are targeted by the mostly white police more aggressively than other racial groups. It's not like you need the data to know that though. For the people who live there, it's obvious. So yeah, Don't be dumb. You don't seem to get what this is about.
Or maybe you're just unclear in your point. Maybe you believe that racial profiling and aggressive policing of black neighborhoods is warranted and you're pointing to homicide statistics to make that point. I would disagree. I have different values.
Well you were the one randomly throwing in fucking driving arrests, when I was solely talking about homicides. I still think, no one should give a rats ass about this event. Its like hyping up a mediocre movie, you are only feeding the fire. By the time this event/trial ends, we will have 300 black on black homicides. But the narrative here would make a much better movie than those other deaths.
Ok. I'm confused. What exactly is your point? I already explained why those traffic stops are relevant to this discussion.
Best I can tell your position is: Because black people kill each other all the time nobody should care about this one time a white guy killed a black guy.
My point was that people care about this incident because its representative of a larger issue about the how the police treat black people in Ferguson specifically, and Missouri more broadly. That traffic stop data is evidence of that police behavior. What don't you get?
I didnt know this young man was killed for a routine traffic stop. All you care about is the pointless aftermath. We dont know if this was racially charged, we just dont.
So you're either an idiot or a deliberate troll. Did you see me write that Michael Brown was killed for a traffic stop? Do you really not understand how racial profiling data is relevant to a discussion about police behavior with regards to race? Do you really believe the aftermath of this event is pointless?
It barely matters if the shooting was racially charged or not. That's not what this is really about. As I've explained. Where do you disagree? What aren't you following?
And yet waiting for evidence is appalling to ask for, why wait when you can judge right away? You do not know. You are still assuming things that have no basis in this case, (yet.)
This scenario is damning. At first this young man is portrayed as a saint by those protesting, and did no wrong. Accusing the common sense folk of being oblivious to the oh so important racial profiling, and regarding any other notion as meaningless or not worthy of discussion. Now we have shots of the young man clearly committing a crime, and instead of again waiting for more evidence, you all cast aside any idea of wrongdoing and instead blame the police for shooting him jokingly as a petty crime. I tell you, even if there was an iphone video of the young man reachin inside the cops car and punching the officer, you would still not see the truth. It wont matter how much evidence is thrown at your face, snapping you in the temples, because the narrative is and will always be too strong.
Common sense. Innocent until proven guilty. The same applies to the young victim.
Learn to follow a conversation. You're responding to things I have not written. This is something you've been doing. You're an idiot.
Why do you have to call me an idiot? This wasnt about racial profiling that we knew about at the time. The only thing Ive said is overreacting wont solve anything and we should wait till more evidence comes. Acting high and mighty works wonders for you though I see.
On August 16 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] You wrote that the bottom 99% have had their income stagnate since 1980. I think the chart I posted refuted that rather well.
As for the productivity-compensation gap, much of it is error from using different price deflators for productivity and income or ignoring benefits. The correct chart looks this:
What do you want to prove ? My graph is in real term too you know.
Did you read my post??
Where do you want to go ? There's a 50 pts gap, it's huge, in your graph. Secondary my graph is about non supervisionary workers, because everybody knows there is an inflation in higher wage, especially in the US - your graph being an "average" of all "compensation" doesn't take that into account.
?? I didn't deny a gap. You're either having a hard time reading my posts or you aren't reading them at all. I used the phrase "small" because the gap is much smaller than in your graphs. Subjectively, I think it is small anyways as it only represents a few percent of GDP.
Secondly, it is misleading to post productivity with non-supervisory median wages. The link between productivity and income is with total compensation for all workers, not wages for non-supervisory. Additionally, the link needs to use the same deflators for them to be correct.
You remember that in the same post I also posted another graph with 4 curve and each different scenario, each showing a gap ? You just quoted the one that you wanted to criticise right ? And can you tell me what's a big gap for you ? 50 pts is "small", so what's big ? 100 ? How can you judge that the gap is small or big ?
Both your graphs deserve criticism for the same reasons. As for calling the gap small, did you not notice where I said "subjectively"??
And it's not misleading because you can't evaluate the productivity of non supervisionary workers alone since productivity per group or per anything doesn't exist since production is a social activity you know.
Your logic is completely backwards here. If you can't measure the productivity of non-supervisory workers alone than you shouldn't be posting their compensation along with a graph of productivity.
edit:
You can talk to no end about the statistics and everything else (because all statistical artifacts are rather rash picture of reality), and then there is the fact, there is a gap - bigger than anything since 1950 so I will use the term "huge" gap because I want to, just like you use to term "small" because you want to - and a stagnation of the bottom 25 % wages since 20 years.
Bottom 25% of income has risen. I wouldn't call that stagnation, unless you want to look at simple gross wages. I don't think that's a particularly meaningful stat though.
1 - I subjectively consider that all men are pink. 2 - The logic is not backwards, it's just that there are no statistical artefact to specifically evaluate what we are talking about so we purposefully use a deficient one but better than all compensation of all workers. It's often the case in social science : using imperfect data. 3 - I specifically said wage. I consider it very meaningful for political reasons.
1 - You wrote: "How can you judge that the gap is small or big ?" Exactly. Calling it big or small is subjective, unless we can agree on some metric for determining the 'bigness' of the gap.
2 - Sure, using imperfect data can sometimes be OK but you should be upfront about it. Productivity and median non-supervisory wages aren't supposed to be linked. Posting a graph of them together as if they were supposed to be linked (as total productivity and total compensation are) seems misleading to me, if not downright wrong.
3 - Politically it is meaningful, especially when it comes to quick talking points, but from an economic standpoint not so much. Income matters much more than a subset of income.
EPT![[image loading]](http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/xbrown-robbery-stroe.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Dzg1QE4GTT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/Income%20groups.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/04/28/opinion/042812krugman2/042812krugman2-blog480.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s3.epi.org/files/2012/ib330-figureA.png.538)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Duoho7jmo9k/TzWMRTCWB6I/AAAAAAAAAmM/pWO4IEKqDdE/s1600/labor+income+2.JPG)
