• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s Pay

Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

David_N said:
According to excon,
Click to expand...
Stop with the personal bs.
I am not the subject of the debate.


David_N said:
the employers are the ones who've caused all of the productivity gains, because, somehow, the employers who have been reaping the benefits of workers productivity have invented all of the technology with their own bare hands.
Click to expand...
Productivity is in relation to the product which does not belong to the employee.
It is not the "workers" productivity, it is the business's.
It is the workers labor which is payed for, and in the case of making the job easier, they are not laboring any more or even harder.


David_N said:
Hmm.. I want to see how you justify what has been happening.
Click to expand...
iLOL

Already done. Labor has been compensated for. The worker isn't entitled to anything more than that.


David_N said:
Keep worshiping trickle down voodoo.
Click to expand...
D'oh!
Stop with the inanity.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Excon said:
Stop with the personal bs.
I am not the subject of the debate.


Productivity is in relation to the product which does not belong to the employee.
It is not the "workers" productivity, it is the business's.
It is the workers labor which is payed for, and in the case of making the job easier, they are not laboring any more or even harder.
Click to expand...
Employees do the majority of the work in a business, they create the products.
YOU DON'T GET IT. You seriously don't get it.
For decades following the end of World War II, inflation-adjusted hourly compensation (including employer-provided benefits as well as wages) for the vast majority of American workers rose in line with increases in economy-wide productivity. Thus hourly pay became the primary mechanism that transmitted economy-wide productivity growth into broad-based increases in living standards.
Click to expand...
Why is it different now? Skewed bull**** that favors the rich, and not the working people.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Excon said:
Stop with the personal bs.
I am not the subject of the debate.


Productivity is in relation to the product which does not belong to the employee.
It is not the "workers" productivity, it is the business's.
It is the workers labor which is payed for, and in the case of making the job easier, they are not laboring any more or even harder.


iLOL

Already done. Labor has been compensated for. The worker isn't entitled to anything more than that.


D'oh!
Stop with the inanity.
Click to expand...

Already done. Labor has been compensated for. The worker isn't entitled to anything more than that.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it, or you do, and can't accept that something major happened that has led to workers being spit on.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Chomsky said:
Are you losing it?

Workforce productivity has more than doubled since the '70's!


View attachment 67191306


Source: Wikipedia - 'Workforce Productivity'
Click to expand...

You're assuming that our economy is derived of industry. And in the typical regional economy today, it's not. Industry simply does not drive our economies. In fact, most of that money filters to the top and is either held offshore or is reinvested here. But it doesn't necessarily go back into the economy in the form of industry. All economies, btw, are regional. They might attract global wealth but the economy itself is regional.
 
Last edited:
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

betuadollar said:
This references industrial productivity. Only.

Just to give you an example, your local telephone repairman: In the 70s that guy took seven or eight calls a day; today he takes one, two at the most. And because the company he works for has been sliced and diced, perhaps multiple times, his union no longer possesses the leverage it once had. He is simply less valuable to the market. People in general simply do not produce like they used to. In fact if you surveyed the market and asked what the "protestant work ethic" is nine out of ten would have no idea what you're talking about. Combine that with the lack of leverage and labor is going to make proportionately less.
Click to expand...
I see nothing in my source that defines it as specific to industrial production, only:

"Workforce productivity is the amount of goods and services that a worker produces in a given amount of time."

N.B. the word "services".

Nor have I seen any sources from you, besides personal anecdotal assertions.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

David_N said:
YOU DON'T GET IT. You seriously don't get it.
Click to expand...
No, I get it.
I also get that you don't get it.


David_N said:
Employees do the majority of the work in a business, they create the products.
Click to expand...
No. The product belongs to the business. The workers labor belonged to them until they traded it for monetary compensation.

What they created with that labor which they traded does not belong to them at all.


David_N said:
Why is it different now? Skewed bull**** that favors the rich, and not the working people.
Click to expand...
The politics of division. What a shame.
It favors the employer (who may be rich) because it is the employer who paid for it.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

9278.jpg
9279.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 9310.jpg
    9310.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 46
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

David_N said:
You still don't get it, or you do, and can't accept that something major happened that has led to workers being spit on.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
What happened is that employers made the jobs easier. You do not pay more because you made the job easier.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Excon said:
Wrong.
What happened is that employers made the jobs easier.
Click to expand...

This was the case up until the productivity stopped benefiting workers in any meaningful way, so why is it now that the employers reap all of the benefits? Trickle down voodoo.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Excon said:
Wrong.
What happened is that employers made the jobs easier. You do not pay more because you made the job easier.
Click to expand...

The job was also "made easier":
For decades following the end of World War II, inflation-adjusted hourly compensation (including employer-provided benefits as well as wages) for the vast majority of American workers rose in line with increases in economy-wide productivity. Thus hourly pay became the primary mechanism that transmitted economy-wide productivity growth into broad-based increases in living standards.
Click to expand...
So why, since 1973:
Since 1973, hourly compensation of the vast majority of American workers has not risen in line with economy-wide productivity. In fact, hourly compensation has almost stopped rising at all. Net productivity grew 72.2 percent between 1973 and 2014. Yet inflation-adjusted hourly compensation of the median worker rose just 8.7 percent, or 0.20 percent annually, over this same period, with essentially all of the growth occurring between 1995 and 2002. Another measure of the pay of the typical worker, real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers, who make up 80 percent of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2 percent between 1973 and 2014. Again, the lion’s share of this growth occurred between 1995 and 2002.
Click to expand...
You're arguing in defense of trickle down voodoo. Not even worth addressing.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Chomsky said:
I see nothing in my source that defines it as specific to industrial production, only:

"Workforce productivity is the amount of goods and services that a worker produces in a given amount of time."

N.B. the word "services".

Nor have I seen any sources from you, besides personal anecdotal assertions.
Click to expand...

You don't need my personal assertions, all you have to do is open your eyes.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

betuadollar said:
You don't need my personal assertions, all you have to do is open your eyes.
Click to expand...

LOL. Of course, you don't have anything. :lamo
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

David_N said:
<edited for brevity>

The rest of the paper is very detailed and gives a great analysis of the problem. Trickle down voodoo does not work.
Click to expand...
It's been three decades plus, since President Reagan and the GOP started their great 'trickle down' experiment.

If it really worked, by now we'd be awash in good paying jobs & money!

So where's the jobs?

Where's the prosperity?
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

David_N said:
The job was also "made easier":

So why, since 1973:

You're arguing in defense of trickle down voodoo. Not even worth addressing.
Click to expand...
And?
iLOL

There came a top of what labor is worth.


If you think labor is worth more, please go out and start business and pay what you think is appropriate.
Let us know how that works out for you. iLOL
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Excon said:
And?
iLOL

There came a top of what labor is worth.


If you think labor is worth more, please go out and start business and pay what you think is appropriate.
Let us know how that works out for you. iLOL
Click to expand...

And now you're backed into a corner. You're now literally claiming that labor should never receive any more benefits because "it's been topped."
Explain that to other countries.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

betuadollar said:
You don't need my personal assertions, all you have to do is open your eyes.
Click to expand...
Why would you join a debate site, if you won't?

No sources = no credibility, my friend.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

David_N said:
And now you're backed into a corner. You're now literally claiming that labor should never receive any more benefits because "it's been topped."
Explain that to other countries.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Not at all.

It is your argument which is in the corner and can not get out.

Again.
If you think labor is worth more, please go out and start business and pay what you think is appropriate.
Let us know how that works out for you. iLOL​

You are not entitled to what the employer owns or has earned. Period.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Excon said:
iLOL
Not at all.

It is your argument which is in the corner and can not get out.

Again.
If you think labor is worth more, please go out and start business and pay what you think is appropriate.
Let us know how that works out for you. iLOL​

You are not entitled to what the employer owns or has earned. Period.
Click to expand...

It is your argument which is in the corner and can not get out.
Click to expand...
You've consistently dodged all relevant points made and simply keep restating that employees should not receive any productivity benefits. I doubt any conservatives on here would agree with that.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Chomsky said:
It's been three decades plus, since President Reagan and the GOP started their great 'trickle down' experiment.

If it really worked, by now we'd be awash in good paying jobs & money!

So where's the jobs?

Where's the prosperity?
Click to expand...

It's a misnomer... a political moniker, nothing more. All economics is trickle down. An equality of purchasing power cannot exist without the upside down economy, as the purchase of goods and services with borrowed money. Even then, it is "trickle down." Because money cannot be extended without credit.
 
Last edited:
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

David_N said:
You've consistently dodged all relevant points made and simply keep restating that employees should not receive any productivity benefits. I doubt any conservatives on here would agree with that.
Click to expand...

You have to make relevant points in order for any dodging to occur.
And thus far you haven't made any.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Excon said:
You have to make relevant points in order for any dodging to occur.
And thus far you haven't made any.
Click to expand...

I haven't made relevant points? Are you kidding me? You CONSISTENTLY ignore the fact that workers benefited from productivity until 1973. Other countries workers benefit from productivity much more then us.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

betuadollar said:
It's a misnomer... a political moniker, nothing more. All economics is trickle down. An equality of purchasing power cannot exist without the upside down economy, as the purchase of goods and services with borrowed money. Even then, it is "trickle down." Because money can be extended without credit.
Click to expand...
So now you've gotten off productivity, and onto 'trickle down'?

Trickle down, in the context of this discussion, refers to a political economic theory associated with the Reagan administration, and claims that putting more money into the hands of the wealthy (often through tax incentives) will result in greater prosperity for us all.

It hasn't worked, and I notice you focused on obfuscation by focusing on verbal definition, rather than addressing the fact of it's failure.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

David_N said:
Employees do the majority of the work in a business, they create the products.
YOU DON'T GET IT. You seriously don't get it.Why is it different now? Skewed bull**** that favors the rich, and not the working people.
Click to expand...
1. No, in a labor intensive business, that's true...but in a labor intensive business the vast majority of revenue goes to payroll/benefits...contrary to what you'd have us believe.

2. If you create software that automates a task that someone with 8 years experience and a 4 year degree use to do, and you can now do it with high school graduates with no experience.
Are you suggesting that's bad to develop such automation?
That we should just keep hiring the 8 year people because dogonit yay workers!
But not hire the high school grads...wait, boo workers?

You're implying that it's the 8 year experience worker that earned that automation difference, and not the person who owns the automation? What!?

The reason you believe people aren't getting it, I am going to suggest, is that it's because you don't get it. More specifically, you apparently have an agenda, and aren't basing this on real world experience.
 
Re: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s

Chomsky said:
Why would you join a debate site, if you won't?

No sources = no credibility, my friend.
Click to expand...

I think if you venture forth you will find that some significant number of people today are employed by small businesses. "Productivity" cannot be measured because in virtually all cases it is unreported. To prove an economy would require that we track every fraction of a cent from origin to destination over some significant period of time. I don't believe its possible to accurately access productivity. But I can tell you that the average worker is no where near as "productive" as they once were. Worse, in the context of mergers and acquisitions, and leveraged buyouts, no one is indispensable; in fact the work force is more often an easily dispensed with liability. And I can prove that much, that mergers and acquisitions were way up in 2014. False premise; your presentation is based on false premise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom