• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

It is the point. It's really not surprising you both have missed it, which is why I took the liberty of showing a graph. The percentage changes regarding has dropped and risen all within the past 5 years. There is no decrease, it's stagnant. Labour cost has not decreased from it's trend, at all. Labour Cost are higher than they've ever been along with Corporate Profits. The notion that one recent quarter changes anything is pretty nonseasonal.

You're very wrong.

But there is. If I can't, and my buying power is less, than it has dropped. But move on to the other points, if you can. ;)
 
Wages have not fallen. At all.

nelp.jpg
 
Ok, So then explain what the "transformation" that today's progressive liberals are searching for then.

Ideologues of both sides don't see the big picture. The pendulum here tends to swing back and forth. We get into real trouble each time one side wins it all. And it has happened both ways more than a few times. Republicans lost because they got all the power and abused it. Democrats have done the same. The push and pull needs to be there, but it needs to be somewhat civil (which is missing today). It is in the compromises that our best work is found.

Other than that, I'm not sure I can answer your question, as Im not speaking of any transformation. I concede both sides have their zealots. But by and large, moderates win the day most often. So, the extremes are of little concern (outside of them poisoning the well so to speak).
 
You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, on one side you say wages did not fall and time stood still, wages are increasing......and on the other side you say labor costs (wages) are "stagnate".

Your "point" keeps changing.

Now I see where the problem lies: its your comprehension. I don't know what you think unit labour cost are but they're not wages. Not just wages anyway. Its employee compensation divided by per output. It involves direct cost (wages, capital, inventory) and indirect cost (Utilities, maintenance, etc) Employee compensation (wages and salary accruals) are a completely different metric.

What I said was employee compensation has not fallen. Which they have not. I also said that time has stood still for unit labour cost, which basically means they are stagnant. Take the time to re-read what I said, as nothing as been altered or changed.

So thanks. We can conclude that you've wasted a great deal of time.
 
Last edited:
Employment compensation has not fallen and there is no downward trend.

While it is certainly true that real labor market compensation is not trending downward, it has not regained previous highs when factoring for inflation (i use GDP deflator).

fredgraph.png


In terms of total economic output, wages have been on a the downward trend for some time now.

fredgraph.png
 
While it is certainly true that real labor market compensation is not trending downward, it has not regained previous highs when factoring for inflation (i use GDP deflator).

fredgraph.png


In terms of total economic output, wages have been on a the downward trend for some time now.

fredgraph.png

Yes. Its already been establish that wages have not kept up with inflation. The general premise is that corporations are more profitable because employee compensation has been lowered, which isn't what happened.

If you want to discuss the value of employee compensation, that's another thing entirely. Wages are worth less not because employees are make less, not because employees are not making enough, but because the real value of wages has fallen. This cannot be fixed by increasing wages, but curing inflation, which most people believe does not exist.
 
Now I see where the problem lies: its your comprehension. I don't know what you think unit labour cost are but they're not wages. Not just wages anyway. Its employee compensation divided by per output. It involves direct cost (wages, capital, inventory) and indirect cost (Utilities, maintenance, etc) Employee compensation (wages and salary accruals) are a completely different metric.

What I said was employee compensation has not fallen. Which they have not. I also said that time has stood still for unit labour cost, which basically means they are stagnant. Take the time to re-read what I said, as nothing as been altered or changed.

So thanks. We can conclude that you've wasted a great deal of time.
Productivity has increased, what caused the declines 2009 to 2012 was the decline in wages....IN REAL TERMS. Both, the labor costs and the real decline in salaries bear this out.
 
Yes. Its already been establish that wages have not kept up with inflation. The general premise is that corporations are more profitable because employee compensation has been lowered, which isn't what happened.

If you want to discuss the value of employee compensation, that's another thing entirely. Wages are worth less not because employees are make less, not because employees are not making enough, but because the real value of wages has fallen. This cannot be fixed by increasing wages, but curing inflation, which most people believe does not exist.
Oh hell, inflation has been low for some time, wages (especially for the lower quintiles as I showed) have not increased enough to even keep pace with inflation....SO OF COURSE THEY ARE IN REAL TERMS LOWER......and in the meantime productivity has increased and corporations are seeing record profits while CEO compensation increases.

FFS, stop being such a corporate lackey, quit arguing AGAINST your own interests.
 
And just to add some more fuel to the fire, wages for the top quintiles are not representative of total income since a large percentage is made up of investment income....

Real+Incomes+by+Quintile+2.png
 
Productivity has increased, what caused the declines 2009 to 2012 was the decline in wages....IN REAL TERMS. Both, the labor costs and the real decline in salaries bear this out.

That's nice and all, but that really has nothing to do with the wages employers pay their employees. Your issue is with the value of the wages, not the nominal amount.

Take it up with the BLS or the Fed.
 
Oh hell, inflation has been low for some time, wages (especially for the lower quintiles as I showed) have not increased enough to even keep pace with inflation....SO OF COURSE THEY ARE IN REAL TERMS LOWER......and in the meantime productivity has increased and corporations are seeing record profits while CEO compensation increases.

Inflation is low if you believe the CPI. There are many metrics which contradicts it. My personal favorite is the Big Mac Index.

i95y.png

Inflation can also be measured by the cost of making dollars. But there is plenty of inflation if you know where to look. If I'm right, inflation is close to where it was during the 70's of 7% - 10% annualised. Regardless, real wages really has zero to do with the amount employees are paid. If the minimum wage was $3 or $4 dollars more, employees would be making the same type of wages they were making during the 60's or 70's in real terms. The problem is not the lack of wages (obviously), but the value these wages are worth.

FFS, stop being such a corporate lackey, quit arguing AGAINST your own interests.

I don't have a particular interest group. All I really care about is making money. Why is this wrong?
 
Yes. Its already been establish that wages have not kept up with inflation.

No, wages have not kept up with productivity! Firms are more profitable because the reliance on capital has taken precedence. Hence, the balance between the return on capital/labor has been shifted.
 
Inflation is low if you believe the CPI. There are many metrics which contradicts it. My personal favorite is the Big Mac Index.

The big mac index is good for determining what cities have high costs of living. Far too myopic to be a quality inflation indicator (the implicit price deflator is my default metric).
 
The big mac index is good for determining what cities have high costs of living. Far too myopic to be a quality inflation indicator (the implicit price deflator is my default metric).

The Big Mac Index uses some of the methodology the original CPI (as original as 1980) uses. It's also used on a PPP by country, not just by city. Since the 80's it's been in perfect line with the CPI, until the 2000's. Either something is wrong at McDonald's or something is wrong with the CPI.
 
Last edited:
No, wages have not kept up with productivity! Firms are more profitable because the reliance on capital has taken precedence. Hence, the balance between the return on capital/labor has been shifted.

Productivity is measured in monetary terms. It's really not a good indicator of how productive the nation really is.
 
The Big Mac Index uses some of the mythology the original CPI (as original as 1980) uses. It's also used on a PPP by country, not just by city. Since the 80's it's been in perfect line with the CPI, until the 2000's. Either something is wrong at McDonald's or something is wrong with the CPI.

It is too myopic of a metric. Emerging markets will continue to provide the excess demand necessary to push prices upward. In ten years, China will possess the largest middle class in the world. They are going to want their share of gasoline, hamburgers, and pork bellies!
 
Productivity is measured in monetary terms. It's really not a good indicator of how productive the nation really is.

Nope! Productivity is measured in output per hour worked. A particularly good indicator of how efficient a particular nation is.
 
It is too myopic of a metric. Emerging markets will continue to provide the excess demand necessary to push prices upward. In ten years, China will possess the largest middle class in the world. They are going to want their share of gasoline, hamburgers, and pork bellies!

I don't think it's nearsighted at all. It's not completely in line with the CPI, then again, it's not suppose to be.

Could have sworn China already had the largest middle class in the world. The consumer base in China is growing. It already has the largest mobile phone market, projected to have the largest luxury car market and largest oil consumption in 4 years. China already has the demand, all that is needed is the currency. Sooner or later the will stop debasing their currency and pull America's phony economy from right under it. Until then, I'm buying Chinese Yuan.
 
That's nice and all, but that really has nothing to do with the wages employers pay their employees. Your issue is with the value of the wages, not the nominal amount.

Take it up with the BLS or the Fed.
You can keep playing the game of ignoring inflation and trying to play a time lord......in fact you have to to make your point "stand".....but for the rest of us, we live in the real world, not your fantasy construct.
 
Nope! Productivity is measured in output per hour worked. A particularly good indicator of how efficient a particular nation is.

Some people like to measure productivity with GDP, so I wasn't sure what you were going for. America works more hours, but more hours doing what exactly? What exactly are Americans producing to make America more 'productive?'
 
Last edited:
I asked for a primary source. And the only reason I ask because I can't find where this data is myself, but until I gather it, I guess I'll take your word for it.
It is right there in the links, so much for your convoluted point.
 
You can keep playing the game of ignoring inflation and trying to play a time lord......in fact you have to to make your point "stand".....but for the rest of us, we live in the real world, not your fantasy construct.

I haven't ignored it. It's been brought up too many times for me to ignore. It may be true that employees are making less in real terms, but this doesn't have much to do with how employees are paid. The fact is employees are not being paid less. The value of their wages are just worth less. I also do not deny that it is a problem. It's not a problem for me, but it's a problem...

That is all.
 
Back
Top Bottom