Increases in economic production is the reason we have such high living standards compared to the 1800s.
Why do leftists pretend that "muh workers" "muh unions" were responsible for increasing living standards when they were a small portion of the economy.
>b-b-but why are living standards decreasing nowadays
Because economic production is actually DECREASING thanks to CENTRAL BANKING and government interventionism.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
cep.lse.ac.uk
twitter.com
>muh gold standard is why i'm not a winner
t. Butthurt Redneck
>muh central banking is a jew conspiracy to... um... er...provide more stable growth rates?
...
Its not so much the Gold standard, but rather what passed along side the Gold standard.
So what passed along side Gold standard that EVERYONE felt? Nixon wage control. Nixon SPECIFICALLY ordered wages stagnation with Executive Order 11615.
The whole country froze as a result. This was known as Nixon shock. Conservatives have always wanted a wage stagnation, this is why they push free market solutions and at the same time when they are in control, slowly destroy unions who push for wage increase.
How does this prove or disprove anything I am saying?
This mostly applies to the third world.
You're the redneck you corporate shill.
Living standards for the average american have declined since the 60s.
You used to be able to support and entire family including your wife on a single job.
Now that's impossible.
Actually the pre-federal reserve era was more stable.
The recessions that did happen were the result of government intervention in the banking sector anyway.
Sweden had the best example of free market banking, they had it for 100 years and it worked wonders and made them incredible rich.
kys
>Executive Order 11615
Government price controls?
How is this the free market?
Unions are bad btw and need to be destroyed.
Fuck labour cartels.
Anyone that supports central banking needs a bullet in the head.
>he seriously thinks a single employee has the same power as a board of executives who have billions of dollars at their disposal and can legally fuck you over by abusing the justice department and economically make you bend over backwards
No I don't believe this.
What is your point brainlet?
I bet you believe capitalists can somehow magically dictate prices and that the labour market doesn't exist.
It's incredible how dumb and brainwashed you people are.
Labour market exist. But its existence spans outside the bounds of the US. Labor market exist in China/Pakistan/Bangladesh.
How do you plan to enforce free market there?
>muh single wage earners
Correlation does not imply causation, you uneducated pleb.
That's the fault of the 1960s Sexual Revolution, not of Central Banking which started in 1913.
When you had women entering the workplace by the millions, wages became stagnant, because the labor supply basically doubled.
>According to Warren and Tyagi, it now takes two incomes to provide what one income provided 30 years ago.
>Literally has non-equivalent charts, like the number of cars.
>Doens't even attempt to adjust for the fact that things like housing and insurance are qualitatively better than they were in the 70s, or that the tax rates have changed.
Who are these idiots?
Quality of life would be lot better in the 60s. You can literally have a wife, 2 children, a job without a college degree and still fully pay for a 2 story house by the time you're 25.
You really need to go back to the third grade and learn how to read, given that your post has nothing to do with what I said, and the chart you're defending is talking about the 70s compared to now, not the 60s.
Alternatively, you can save the education system a lot of money and effort and just hang yourself.
>Why do leftists pretend that "muh workers" "muh unions" were responsible for increasing living standards
because they are pandering to them in order to be elected
T. Shekelmckikeburg
Total compensation (wages + bennies) is continuing to increase.
Also correlation you see in your chart does not imply correlation, the supposed correlation I have read elsewhere about inflation and fiat currency is insufficient to explain it, it is a business standard to increase prices and wages to match inflation and banks set interest rates above inflation thus making the effect negligible. However evil fiat currency is, this isn't the reason.
The reason people are spending more on mortgages is because people are buying McMansions with air conditioning, double glazing and a conservatory.
his point is that unions are needed for collective bargaining, seemed pretty obvious to me
Even with your biased chart, its still decreasing
>biased
If someone's welfare check increases from $100 to $110 while their wages remain at $100, how much does their total income increase? If we only looked at wages, like in OP's chart, we would say their income has not increased. If we looked at both bennies and wages, like in my chart, we would say they have increased by $10. By factoring in both bennies and wages we are more accurate. The goal is to be accurate, there is no bias.
Here is the source, you can see for yourself they thoroughly analyse everything to improve accuracy.
cep.lse.ac.uk
>its still decreasing
Technically it is not decreasing. What you mean is it is decreasing relative to productivity. This is normal because a business would not invest in productivity improvements if it did not get a share of the increase in productivity.
You're showing your politics here instead of an actual argument.
Explain how I am showing my politics. I have only stated a sequence of facts and logic.