I've seen a lot of bernie fags share this graph as proof of "hurr durr evil 1% exploiting le proletariats"

Depends on how pants on head retarded you get with it. From 1812~1979 we operated on a protectionist economy. Look up the American School. This is actually something we know how to do.

What has happened over the last ~40 years is we opened up global labor markets while hampering our own product markets, and imported millions of workers to work as slaves. All the while implementing greater and greater entitlements, with an aging population in the brink of collecting those entitlements. It's all coming to a head now. We're on the edge. Something's going to break.

What I don't get is why wages shouldn't be stagnant. Other than keeping pace with inflation (which I'm not even sure is an employer's responsibility), why would pay increase for doing the same work?
Someone who loads barrels on to a truck is doing a 250% better job than the person 30 years prior?
That doesn't make any sense.

Or Donald Trump will save us all.

According to the chart in the OP, yes that is the case.

The problem isn't so much that we are globalizing, it's the fact that none of the savings incurred by globalization is being passed on to the rest of society.

Automation. Look up the great decoupling.

Ok, I don't fucking buy it then.
I pulled 250% out of nowhere, I'm guessing it's even more.
Maybe just an inflationary thing.

You said it in your post my guy.
>inflation

Who's responsibility should it be "to keep pace with inflation?" Not saying I know (or anyone should be "responsible"), but you posed a question. Should it be the government's responsibility? Government intervention seems to exacerbate inflation/economy problems. If employers don't keep pace with it, eventually they get workers that don't work out very well. I think we are seeing that now. I mean, this is complicated and in-depth thing, and a lot of factors I'm not gonna delve into now, but if employers want to let the economic sphere around their employees stagnate in the name of "better business" and let the government pick up the slack (welfare, charity, and other programs), then can you see how this could be an unsustainable problem created by employers?

Someone who loads barrels is doing the same work. But if the business is charging 250% more for barrel transportation, and expenses are increasing 100 to 400%, and everything else is changing, why is letting wages stagnate an acceptable solution?

>the business is charging 250% more for barrel transportation
Why?
Have they accelerated the speed or convenience with which barrels are delivered (by using a faster vehicle, for example)?
And if so, what do the loaders have to do with that increase in production?

The computer

Let me give you an example

In the early 90s, computers were very rare for small businesses.

We used an electric typewriter at my business to do invoices. It used to take for fucking ever to do invoices.

Now, I can do 8 hours worth of invoices and paper work in 1 hour in word and excel

>won't protectionism just hurt economies in the long run?
Protectionism made England a superpower a long time ago, and the USA a superpower more recently. Care to find me an approach with better results?

We allow rich people to have more than everyone else on the premise that them being richer makes everyone richer. If this arrangement isn't maintained, there is no justification for letting the rich have more than everyone.
P

That exponential increase in technological discovery.
More types of gadets to make.

Also recycled product like cars,housing, video games, antiques etc... that tend to change hands often compound the gdp .

Think about how many luxury car brands there are compared to regular Joe car brands. If that doesn't show you the rich just get richer i dont know what will.

No, it's on the premise that "we" don't allow things, "we" have rights, including the right ti property

Outsourced to lower wages + automation gains

Anyone with 10 minutes of exposure to 1970's and 80's geopolitics knows what happened

I couldn't take anybody who views this linearly seriously. There have been so many economic paradigm shifts tht you cannot base an argument off a single thing like this.

>We allow rich people to have more
You what?

Well 'we' also have the right to vote to redistribute said property, which with happen with increasing fervour if the current path continues.

Yes we allow it, by not electing people like Bernie Sanders. Imagine what would happen if the citizenry voted people like Bernie Sanders into every seat in congress. Quite literally we permit the wealthy to stay that way, primarily because in the past this has worked well for everyone. If it stops working voting behaviour will change.

>citizenry
>behaviour
You have a say in whether Bernie Sanders is elected?

That and automation.

Women and robots ruined working.

I know you're baiting, but it's sad that this is what Reddit actually believes

I don't really go on reddit, nor do I like Bernie. But its pretty clear that what I've said is true.

>Fish next to hook picture

That's the best you're gonna get

No, you don't. You can vote to raise taxes on money coming in, but you can't sieze assets for redistribution. Fuck, it's like you idiots have never read a history book. Your ideas don't end well for anyone involved

They're not my ideas, you're a retard. I'm warning you what is going to happen if the US keeps on as it has of late, not endorsing it. Fuck you lards are thick. Fuck it enjoy your socialist utiopia.

Lmao no friend, the government will never seize rich people's assets and redistribute them. That's absurdly illegal. Grow up

>You can vote to raise taxes on money coming in, but you can't sieze assets for redistribution
And actually you can. Progressive wealth tax, with a max rate of 100% on wealth above [x].

>max rate of 100%
I can see Americans supporting this.
Wait.

>absurdly illegal.
I don't see anything in the constitution which rules it out.

No country has ever made this work in practice.

Fact is a little protectionism and income inequality is a good thing overall, Britain did this historically and the US and China do it now.

Countries that tried it the other way include Venezuela and France, both of which are fucked.

Its right there in the 5th amendment, buddy
>nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

>If you build it, they will stop coming

Kek.

I thought Veeky Forums would be better than that but it seems like nobody managed to figure out why the graph is misleading as fuck.
The real problem is- HOURY COMPENSATION- this ignores all changes non wage compensation people recieved in that time-maternity leave, dental and medical care etc etc etc.

Seriously this. We had a good thread on here a while back when we decided that the work women leave behind in the home (raising the next generation) is something that simply will not be picked up by men who are displaced by women entering the workforce.

I suppose working on spreadsheets is far more important that childbearing for women these days.

Are you asking why inflation occurs?

People saying automation are fucking retards.
Automation has steadily increased since the 1700-hundreds. It didn't "begin" or drastically change at any point in time.

>Total productivity factor is a lie
>The 'unkown' component is illegal immigration
>MIND EXPLODED

No one said it started in 1973. By the same token the rich did not suddenly start exploiting the poor in 1973. That shit is even older than Adam Smith and his damned pins.

Looking for a trigger event in 1973 is probably a red herring. I'd like to see that graph charted before the alleged exact correlation. The apparent effect is down to a range of factors mentioned already, including increasing automation.

>No one said it started in 1973
There's a clear change in trends in the graph in 73. Therefore there must have been a clear change in something that caused it. Saying automation implies there was a clear change in automation in 73. There wasn't.
>including increasing automation.
The increase in automation was bigger in the early 1800's than in the 1970-80's. You're looking at a single data point and doing ad hoc rationalization. This is stupid. Trying to explain some unsourced internet-graph to begin with is stupid

productivity has decreased in the last 40 years

meant to say that productivity growth has decreased

o, that's not what I'm asking.
The other poster posted examples of the business charging more for different aspects (transportation, etc), and justified paying higher wages based on that.
Not on any productivity increase by those receiving higher wages, just wages gained due to increased productivity elsewhere in the business.

>The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.

BUILD THE WALL

>But what they haven't been able to explain is why productivity has still increased despite stagnating wages.
Because the Neoliberal era came into force with widespread deregulation, privatisation, tax cuts for rich, regressive taxes for poor, trade liberalisation and destruction of unions.

By pursuing those policies, the vast majority of income goes upwards towards profits/rents and not towards wages.

That doesn't even match up with the graph retard. I can tell why populism appeals to you.

Same goes for you. What you're saying would result in a gradual divergence over atleast a decade. Not a sharp split over 1-2 years

Learn some historical context. That act is recognized as the beginning of a shift in immigration policy that accelerated in the 70s, when the waves of illegals began.

Clearly you don't know about the stagflationary era of the 70s. The reforms were radical. They led to a huge change in economic results. Unemployment rose massively and inflation fell massively. It happened extremely quickly.

>automation
But automation IS what has increased productivity.
Productivity has increased progressively and constantly just like automation.

>the beginning of a shift in immigration policy that accelerated in the 70s
see 1. None of what you said happened exclusively during 72-73.
2. Then you must explain why the graphs don't converge later when unemployment and inflation returned to more normal levels

>But automation IS what has increased productivity.
Yes, but you're also saying that specifically in 73 something with automation happened that caused wages to stagnate for the next decades. This is wrong

>Yes, but you're also saying that specifically in 73
>You're
No, not me.

This will help with the immigration bit.

rt.com/viral/344019-us-immigration-map-video/

Outsourcing plus an influx of immigrants. The labor pool is over saturated with slave labor. Labor prices stagnated while real property appreciated and stock markets rose.

Yes, you are implying that, maybe you don't ever realize it. If you want to explain OPs shitty internet graph with automation then what I said follows

That shows a smooth growth retard nothing dramatic about 72-73 specifically. Same goes for outsourcing. I also like how you get your "facts" from some fucking news video instead of an actual source

I am only explaining the increase in productivity.
Why the wages have kept stagnant is a mystery to me.
What do YOU think is the reason anyway?

There is no sharp split. You're looking at one person's gauge of "productivity" and "wage growth." The numbers they used for wages were probably recorded a little differently starting in '73. Notice how the productivity index continues a gtadual ascent

>I am only explaining the increase in productivity.
Well then you should read more carefully next time. Because that's not what the post you first quoted was about.
>What do YOU think is the reason anyway?
I don't know, it's a shitty unsourced /pol/-tier graph to begin with. So trying to explain it is stupid since it might as well be bullshit.

>There is no sharp split.
Yes there is
>probably recorded a little differently starting in '73.
1. Why don't you actually find out instead of making desperate ad hoc assumptions?
2. If that's the cause, then you contradict your own shit about it being just down to "immigrunts n liberols"

stupid me forgot pic

I gave you the visual. That "news source" sourced it's "facts" from DHS. If you weren't such a colossal faggot you would have seen it. Christ almighty you're a stupid fuck. You've been given multiple pieces to the puzzle. All of it boils down to an over abundance of labor.

As you can see in pic fucking related, there was a sharp increase in women in the workforce ~1973 with no corresponding decrease in men in the workforce. In 1965 the immigration act changed the way we accepted immigrants, instead of quotas we focused on allowing families to be brought over. Which you can clearly see in the animated map I gave here There has also been increased automation, especially since the 1990s, and increased outaourcing since te 2000s. There is no one factor. It's a combination of all factors. But if you need to pin it to 72~73, that's when women entered the workforce en masse, effectively doubling our labor pool in a very short time span.

>sourced it's "facts" from DHS.
Which is one of the places you could have gone. Instead you went to some shitty animated second hand source. My point stands.
>You've been given multiple pieces to the puzzle.
None of which fit
>there was a sharp increase in women in the workforce ~1973
lol
>In 1965 the immigration act changed the way we accepted immigrants
Which still doesn't line up with the graph retard
>There has also been increased automation
Not at a larger rate in the early 70's specifically retard
>There is no one factor
I've been trying to tell people that
>if you need to pin it to 72~73, that's when women entered the workforce en masse
You own graph tells you you're wrong

lol i messed up again

Yeah that 10m increase of personnel into the workforce is nothing.

>Source: EPI analysis of unpublished Total Economy Productivity data from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Labor Productivity and Costs program, wage data from the BLS Current Employment Statistics, BLS Employment Cost Trends, BLS Consumer Price Index, and Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts

epi.org/publication/collective-bargainings-erosion-expanded-the-productivity-pay-gap/

But we're talking the change relative to the preceding and succeeding years retard. There was an even bigger increase of women in the 80's. You can't even read a simple graph.

So according to this report, the change is mainly due to the weakened position of labor unions in collective bargaining. I.E. You were wrong all along as just I said.
Thank you.

You really can't into, can you? There were more jobs in the 80s. There were more jobs in the 90s. The market was able to accommodate new workers, up to a point. I wasn't giving you the answer in that article, I was sourcing the graph for you because your a complete fuckup.

Wages stagnated as productivity increased due to an over abundance of labor in the market. Labor is just like any other commodity. When there is a surplus, costs of labor is low. When there is a deficit, costs are high. Where did the increased source of labor come from? Immigration, women entering the workforce en masse, and outsourcing.

TFA was wrong. Loss of collective bargaining is not the cause of stagnated wages, it is the effect. No boss is willing to negotiate wages with unions, when there are scabs willing to cross the picket lines or its financially viable to send the work to another country.

>The market was able to accommodate new workers, up to a point.
And that point was specifically 73 because you say so with only speculation as a basis.
>I wasn't giving you the answer in that article,
No, but the people who did the report are literally 100 times more qualified and base their findings on 100 times more data than you. So taking you more seriously than them is kinda retarded. Especially since you don't even cite any sources or actual numbers
>I was sourcing the graph for you because your a complete fuckup.
reverse image searching or whatever you did isn't hard. I could obviously have found it If I wanted

Trickle down economics worked great for China didn't it? Passed our wealth right on down to them.

>reverse image searching or whatever you did isn't hard. I could obviously have found it If I wanted
Obviously

>No, but the people who did the report are literally 100 times more qualified
Literally?

>And that point was specifically 73
Not 73. See

>Literally?
At least yeah. How many papers do you have published in journals? Can you even do basic linear regressions?
>Not 73
The entire point of my posting all along has been pointing out dummies like you failing to describe why the graph in OP diverges sharply specifically at 1973.

While you're busy doing your armchair speculation I actually read the report. They don't specify the 1973 divergence either, but link to a further report which I'm reading now.
epi.org/files/2012/ib342-unions-inequality-middle-class-wages.pdf

So you're saying everyone is wrong, but have no evidence and claim you are right about something, but you never actually made any claims. Quality shitposting

We did describe it. You dismissed it out of hand.

Worse than that. He's saying our explanations don't exist.

The truth is it's probably a bit of all the answers in this thread.

Automation, computers, cheap Mexicans. These are all things that add to productivity while depressing wages and all took hold in the 70s

We also changed our monetary system at that time.

>So you're saying everyone is wrong
Yes
>have no evidence and claim you are right about something
No, I've said several times I don't know why the graph looks the way it does.
>but you never actually made any claims
The claims I made were that other people were wrong. Which I've backed up

>You dismissed it out of hand
No, You're trying to explain something that specifically happened in 1973, with something that happened in 1965, or something that happened gradually over several decades. Even a kid understands this is wrong.
What's worse, YOU are dismissing an actual report backed up by actual data, done by actual scientists out of hand. Instead we should listen to your unsourced speculation. You are incredibly arrogant, stupid or both.
>probably a bit of all the answers in this thread.
It's probably not since the people with the actual data and actual qualifications did not mention any of your claims

I am X/f7Khra BTW. My IP is dynamic

They're not scientists. They're a think tank focusing on labor issues. Their bias is pro-union. The demise of unions isn't the cause of our economic woes. That's just fucking retarded.

1. You're still dismissing it out of hand retard.
2. You're wrong
>David Cooper joined the Economic Policy Institute in 2011. He conducts national and state-level research [outside of the think tank]
>Prior to joining EPI, [Lawrence] Mishel held a number of research roles, including a fellowship at the U.S. Department of Labor.
>Education: Ph.D., Economics, University of Wisconsin at Madison

>Their bias is pro-union
Do you want this to be like tumblr where you can just call someone racist and dismiss them? Point out specifically where in the two reports they draw faulty conclusions due to bias.
>The demise of unions isn't the cause of our economic woes
1. The issue is specifically the gap in productivity and wage growth since 1973
2. I'm not convinced myself either. But someone has to be incredibly stupid to take your unsourced speculation more serious than "an actual report backed up by actual data, done by actual scientists"

Further more, searching for academic publications on "specifically the gap in productivity and wage growth since 1973" results several independent publications, including actual scientific research papers (not just reports) pointing to unionization being a key factor.
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=721006122086125029004121102102103025089057026076017028009124041039085075084113021085098111029026043003096101109012018095098097000123092103068083010014015010068093014116115091073&EXT=pdf

ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_191726.pdf

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9485.2011.00543.x/abstract;jsessionid=BA1620C1DEA3ACA766D50822A698F517.f03t03?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

rrp.sagepub.com/content/28/2/77.short

But I guess this is just part of some conspiracy agenda, just like everything that doesn't agree with your feelings

>None of what you said happened exclusively during 72-73.
So what? It happened over many years and the outcomes changed over many years. What don't you understand here?

>Then you must explain why the graphs don't converge later when unemployment and inflation returned to more normal levels

Unamployment never did converge to it's normal full employment level of the post-war period. It's remained extremely high over the last 40 years.
Why do you keep insisting on this "gradual divergence" nonsense? Was the 2008 financial crisis a "gradual divergence"? Was the Asian financial crisis a "gradual divergence? Was the social bloc breakdown and ensuing shock therapy a "gradual divergence"?

>So what?
It doesn't explain why the graph has a sharp split
>Unamployment never did converge to it's normal full employment level of the post-war period
There were both higher (much higher) and lower unemployment and inflation rates before 1973, yet wage and productivity growth remained linked. You can't rely on them to explain the split, as you tried in >Why do you keep insisting on this "gradual divergence"
Because that's obviously what you would see if the things the caused the gap happened over decades.
>Was the 2008 financial crisis a "gradual divergence"? [...]
Not even sure what you're trying to say here. Obviously none of those had a dramatic effect on the gap in the graph

kek

They're not scientists. Economists are sociologists. Unless you're going to start calling Trump a scientist because he has a degree in economics (and anthropology) and thinks about shit all day as his job, I'd suggest you drop that line. Their job is to sit around and think shit up in the employ of a pro-union organization. That does not make anyone a scientist.

>Point out specifically where in the two reports they draw faulty conclusions due to bias.

Ask the question "Why has collective bargaining power decreased?" What happened in 1973 to cause unions to take a shit and wages to flatline?

>The causes of falling union participation are hard to pinpoint but may be attributed to several factors, including the pressures of global trade, technological change, the shift away from domestic manufacturing and a tougher stance against unions from government and corporate leaders.
>global trade
>technological change
>the shift away from domestic manufacturing

mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/business/the-shrinking-american-labor-union.html

Oh shit, all things we've mentioned in this thread. Some things they missed:

>increased immigration of low wage workers since 1965 Imigration Act
>Women entering the work force en masse
>OSHA being formed (government does most of the work unions used to)
>change in monetary policy in 1972

I dismiss it because it's describing a symptom of our changing society, and not the cause. Excess labor depresses wages.

hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/books/LE/LEChapter4.pdf

1973 is the demarcation point when we statistically noticed the 10s of millions of low wage immigrants converging with te 10s of millions of women entering the market. If those trends hadn't increased over the years, in conjunction with increased automation and outsourcing, 1973 would have just been a blip on the line.

There's also that monitary issue.

So....if there is more $$$ for everybody, why are only the CEO's and investors getting it?

because the elites control information/media and the workers are too dumb to realize it and continue to trust said media.

>They're not scientists.
A scientists is someone who conducts research according to the scientific model. They do. Not that it's even relevant. It's ad hominem
>The causes of falling union participation [...]
So now you're saying union participation is the key factor in making wage growth "flatline". This is what they suggest in the report you just dissmissed. Did you get lost in your own argument?
The "global trade" and so on you're talking about are presented as reasons for "falling union participation" not "flatlinging wages".
>I dismiss it because it's describing a symptom of our changing society, and not the cause.
Again with the unsourced armchair speculation
>hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/books/LE/LEChapter4.pdf
This is just an introductory chapter from an econ 101 book. I have one of those myself. Meanwhile the people who actually went beyond high-school and got degrees disagree with you >the 10s of millions of low wage immigrants converging with te 10s of millions of women entering the market.
There wasn't any specially high increase in 1973 compared to 72,71,70,69,68,67... And then you add more unsourced armchair speculation

And also you qutoted
>Point out specifically where in the two reports they draw faulty conclusions due to bias.
And then you completely doged it and posted a newspaper article. Is even a 4 page report aimed at laymen too much for you to read?

>poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=721006122086125029004121102102103025089057026076017028009124041039085075084113021085098111029026043003096101109012018095098097000123092103068083010014015010068093014116115091073&EXT=pdf

FTA
>Recent literature has identified three interrelated factors as responsible for the decline in the labour shares: globalisation, technological progress, and product and labour market policies

>ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_191726.pdf

Discusses labor protection legislation and shows a negative impact on employment the more legislation is enacted.

>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9485.2011.00543.x/abstract;jsessionid=BA1620C1DEA3ACA766D50822A698F517.f03t03?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Paywalled

>rrp.sagepub.com/content/28/2/77.short
Paywalled but from the abstract:
>declining union ability to raise wages may explain as much as another 25%.

So decreasing union influence doesn't explain it.

>A scientists is someone who conducts research according to the scientific model.

They don't. They sit around and think about shit and look for research which confirms their bias, then they write papers on it. That's what think tanks get paid to do.

And I don't care about your dumbfuck bitching about ad hominem when you appeal to authority and move goalposts as you do.

>So now you're saying union participation is the key factor in making wage growth "flatline"

That's not what I'm saying you fucking idiot.

>Again with the unsourced armchair speculation

I sourced my speculation. You dismissed it because it doesn't meet your bullshit standards. Good job faggot. Are you going to do any thinking on your own?

>There wasn't any specially high increase in 1973 compared to 72,71,70,69,68,67... And then you add more unsourced armchair speculation

It's cumulative dipshit. As I explained. Do you have a. Issue reading an online post?