Work Hard And All Will Be Well, Maybe Not [Pic]

Submitted by: Jonix 5 years ago in

The Great Depression might not be known as THE Great Depression for much longer.
There are 50 comments:
Male 759
You know what else happened between 1947 and 1979? We were the only industrialized country that hadn`t been bombed into the stone age during WWII.

It`s easy to have a 119% growth when you`re the only one left standing.
0
Reply
Male 2
ummm where are the unemployment stats?? not to start an argument but... basic microeconomics tells us that as the average hourly wage increases then unemployment increases as firms are not able to keep as many assets. if the wages rose at the same rate in the first half, yall would be unemployed and americas gdp would be in the poos
0
Reply
Male 33
Who compiled the data?
0
Reply
Female 7
Emerging technologies is a major factor, no doubt. But the fact that companies lay off employees that are no longer needed (and outsource) while providing more goods and services doesn`t make sense with the great gap between productivity and wages. If major corporations save money for having less employees while, at the same time, gaining by producing more, more efficiently, why is it that the value of products continue to rise while a great majority of worker compensation remains pretty stagnant? It`s not a matter of `living beyond means` so much as the cost of living going up. More output, less input, and where`s the difference? Debt.
0
Reply
Male 186
There has been a great deal a automation and applied technologies since 1979. This more than anything may lead to income disparities. Businesses are doing more with less. Think about that next time you choose a self checkout at the grocery store.
0
Reply
Male 3,619
TL;DR
0
Reply
Female 74
FoSchizle, the graphs are based on income.
The first one shows "Avg. Hourly Wage." The one below that gives the "income ranges," and the one below that shows the "share of national income..." The graphic doesn`t address wealth distribution at all. Increasing debt would also not explain why income has remained more-or-less the same for 40 years.
0
Reply
Female 7
Thank you, jadedtortois, you make a lot of sense. lol
0
Reply
Male 330
I don`t understand why people always use wealth as a stat on these things... wealth accumulates, so of course the gap is going to get bigger. Income is a better stat to use, in which case the gap isn`t quite as large (it`s still big, mind you).

Also... debt? Maybe has something to do with people living way beyond their means, not that their salaries haven`t gone up. I mean, seriously. Yes, there are people that legitimately can`t make it on their salary, but the large proportion of our debt is because people buy houses and cars and technology that they can`t afford, or go to schools like Harvard and come out with loads of debt when they could just got to a state school and get an almost equal education for a fraction of the cost.

Yes, there are cases of the top execs in the country being greedy, but it isn`t nearly as bad as people think it is
0
Reply
Male 38
Capitalism: God’s way of determining who is smart and who is poor.’ Ron Swanson`s Pyramid of Greatness
0
Reply
Female 779
Also, from reading the below comments.

Whats hard to understand? What you don`t know look up. You guys really can`t be that stupid... right?

Oh well.
0
Reply
Female 779
I found this extremely interesting, reading this plus doing some quick research along with it = I learnt a lot :)
0
Reply
Male 4,902
tl;dr
0
Reply
Female 74
I don`t know, xiquiripat. I mean, we`re not even taking into account the considerable amount of working citizens who suddenly transformed into lazy beggar hippies. These people saturate the working environment today which explains the "average" wage stagnation. All the productivity must be coming from the top 1% since their income increased dramatically. It only makes sense. The democratic socialists obviously don`t mention this "entitlement generation" in their propaganda so that it promotes their socialist agenda.

</sarcasm>
0
Reply
Male 167
But it will all trickle down!
0
Reply
Male 2,422
"Please note that this graphic was presented by "The State of Working America" by the Economic Policy Institute, which is a highly liberal think tank funded by unions and who`s director is a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, so their objectivity is questionable"

That doesn`t make the data wrong anymore than something from FOX is wrong simply because it comes from FOX. Basic LSAT logic.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
Ahyemi-"It`s fair to assume these graphs are an accumulation of results from years of research"

Why would one assume that? It`s very simple to create a graph. At Berkley it`s even possible to plot the curve then find the data to match. It`s just as easy for it to be an accumulation of years of bias.

Ahyemi-"So someone did all the work for you; you`re welcome."

No thanks. Only fools and the lazy allow people do their research for them. Of course, I could see how you would love for someone to do the work for you. It means much less thinking. I find it interesting that this was on the OPINION section of the NYTimes.

Please note that this graphic was presented by "The State of Working America" by the Economic Policy Institute, which is a highly liberal think tank funded by unions and who`s director is a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, so their objectivity is questionable. (that`s a little researc
0
Reply
Female 7
@MeGrendel

It`s fair to assume these graphs are an accumulation of results from years of research, all the important information placed nicely on a graph that is easy for anyone to understand just by looking... So someone did all the work for you; you`re welcome. If you really cared that much, you`d be doing the research yourself, but I highly doubt you`ll be doing any of that since all the information you wanted can be received by simply contacting the the creator, which Jonix was nice enough to provide you. I have a feeling, however, that you won`t be doing any of that, so I will disregard any complaint you may have about how `inaccurate` or `out-of-context` this post is.
0
Reply
Male 626
Yes, yes, the economy sucks, occupy wall street and all that. It`s sad when your escape from boredom brings you back to even more boredom.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
Jonix-"most of those terms could be learned by reading a high school textbook"

There are many different uses of the word `Productivity`. It can be a measure of the efficiency of production. (i.e. a chainsaw will make you more productive than a handsaw will). Or a measure of overall output, no matter the efficiency (i.e. more workers means more output). He does not define it.

Also, Productivity can be used to measure the output/efficiency of a person, or a population.

Nor did he cite where he got his numbers.

Jonix-"Here is the page..."

Still no definitions, but a cite. So that`s better. And I see that it`s from a research artilcle by someone at University of California, Bezerkly. It can now be considered useless crap.

Ahyemi-"Were there more `context` provided, the point will be lost"

More likey, the more `context`, the easier it would be for someone to realize that he`s making crap up
0
Reply
Male 525
...Is it too much of me to ask you to do the same?
0
Reply
Male 525
Altaru: "The picture, and it`s point, is invalid because you`re too lazy/retarded to understand it without the author holding your hand?"

No, that`s not what I meant.

My first post was a joke; it was kind of like a "spelling error=argument invalid" comment. Clearly, a spelling error does not make an argument invalid--the ideas that it`s trying to convey could be legitimate.

However, a spelling error DOES show carelessness and shows that the author didn`t take pride in his work. Same goes with labeling axes.

The information that the author is trying to convey might be legitimate, but not labeling axes shows carelessness and apathy. If the author is too careless or apathetic to label the axes, then he can`t expect me to show a higher level of interest in his graph than he did.

Also, even though I frequently disagree with people on this website, I NEVER insult them or take them out of context...
0
Reply
Female 74
"To be a true graph, the following terms and theory behind them should be defined (as used in the graph):
-Productivity.
-Avg. Hourly Compensation.
-Avg. Hourly Wage.
-Household dept (that one, at least in fairly simple)
-And how does he translate `value of goods and services` into `productivity`."

Given that most of those terms could be learned by reading a high school textbook on economics, I really don`t know what to tell you.

Here is the page the graph is on with sources written at the bottom of it. You can contact them if you need more specifics.
0
Reply
Female 7
@MeGrendel

There is not enough information in the world to satisfy anyone, unless, of course, it supports what YOU think... Were there more `context` provided, the point will be lost and no one would look at it anyway.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
Jonix-"Are you suggesting that the "missing context" may be that..."

I`m not suggesting anything. I`m stating that the graphs need more context and more definition. Without that the graph could be useless at best, and missleading at worst (which is probably the reason why in this case).

What is he defining `productivity` as? Individual or collective? Hourly are annual?

Why does is one graph comprised from 1947 to present, the second from 1913 to present and another compares 1975 to 2008?

To be a true graph, the following terms and theory behind them should be defined (as used in the graph):
-Productivity.
-Avg. Hourly Compensation.
-Avg. Hourly Wage.
-Household dept (that one, at least in fairly simple)
-And how does he translate `value of goods and services` into `productivity`.
0
Reply
Female 74
@MeGrendel

Are you suggesting that the "missing context" may be that we`re currently selling things for a hell of a lot less than their actual monetary value?
0
Reply
Male 8,560
patchgrabber-"In any case a little more clarity would go a long way."

I agree, and that was my point.

The graph the Average Hourly Wage was up only 7% from 1980-now. BUT, he does not say what he bases that on. In real numbers, it went from ~$6.63 an hour to ~$19.52. That`s a wee bit more than 7%.

Annual income from 1980 to now more than tripled in real dollars ($12,530 to $41,674). In adjusted dollars is still went up more than 50% ($27,206 ti $41,674).

It`s easy to take one graph out of context and say we`re doing great! (or other).




See, according to this graph everything is hunky dory. Of course, I gave no context.
0
Reply
Female 74
I can`t be sure, but it looks like Productivity is defined as the "the value of goods and services per worker." As in "rising [productivity] meant rising pay."
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: 1947 does seem ambiguous, but it`s not necessarily a case of cherry-picking. Perhaps reliable data were not available until then. In any case a little more clarity would go a long way.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
GhettoNinja-"It must feel great to oversimplify everything with one or two sentences."

About the same as it does to present a biased argument with one or two oversimplified (and cherry-picked) graphs.
0
Reply
Male 886
Not everyone affected by the economic collapse is guilty of having "lived beyond their means".

It must feel great to oversimplify everything with one or two sentences.

I am assuming that you folks don`t go further with your simple posts because you don`t want to expose yourselves as the morons you are.
0
Reply
Male 174
The real point of this is that they changed the rules of the game to benefit those at the top.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
Slmmhmmr161-"Stop Living Beyond Your Means."




FOUL!!! You`re not allowed to bring common sense into a discussion on i-a-b!
0
Reply
Male 240
lol the bottom part looks like :\
0
Reply
Male 8,560
morimacil123-"everyone else can glance at it and see that average productivity per worker per hour went up a lot"

Actually, the `productivity` line does not specify that it is the average per worker per hour. (or are you hinting that, as compared to a worker in 1947, people on average is four times as productive?) In fact, it does not define `productivity` at all.

Not to mention, the baseline of 1947 is ambiguous. Why 1947? Why not 1900? Why not 1776?

Why does one part of the graph use 1947 as a `baseline`, and yet another uses 1913? Can you say `cherry-picking`?
0
Reply
Male 606
Stop Living Beyond Your Means.
0
Reply
Male 439
i`m sorry im not that intellegent
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Ah, I forgot...

That`s typical conservative logic.

Never mind then, keep being an ignorant slave for the top class. It`s all you`re good for anyway.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]The fact that the axes aren`t clearly labelled makes it difficult to read.

If the author can`t be bothered to make sure that the reader can clearly understand what he`s trying to say, then I can`t be bothered to read the poster.[/quote]
So...

The picture, and it`s point, is invalid because you`re too lazy/retarded to understand it without the author holding your hand?
0
Reply
Male 171
It seems you are the only one who is having trouble understanding the graph, pretty much everyone else can glance at it and see that average productivity per worker per hour went up a lot, while average compensation per worker per hour didnt go up by nearly as much.

Its normal if you dont understand the graph though. After all, you clearly state that you cant be bothered to read the poster, so it would be hard to understand it without reading it.
0
Reply
Male 525
The fact that the axes aren`t clearly labelled makes it difficult to read.

If the author can`t be bothered to make sure that the reader can clearly understand what he`s trying to say, then I can`t be bothered to read the poster.
0
Reply
Male 39,958

I didn`t need a graph to know the poor got poorer, the rich got richer, and the middle class became poor.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Sounds plausible, but I`d still like a source for the numbers.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
M_Archer - you so funny
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Sure Archer, ignore the facts and big picture based on a minor detail.

Aren`t you the one that loves to point out fallacies in other peoples` arguments?
0
Reply
Male 26
I can pick all the points from history that support my argument and ignore the others too!
0
Reply
Male 270
Last days of the American Empire.


Enjoy the Show.
0
Reply
Male 815
....only on the top graph archer, and nonetheless the statistics are still correct?
0
Reply
Male 525
Axes not clearly labelled--entire picture is invalid.
0
Reply
Female 74
Link: Work Hard And All Will Be Well, Maybe Not [Pic] [Rate Link] - The Great Depression might not be known as THE Great Depression for much longer.
0
Reply