Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 44    Average: 3.9/5]
50 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 21037
Rating: 3.9
Category:
Date: 11/01/11 11:19 AM

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

  1. Profile photo of Jonix
    Jonix Female 18-29
    74 posts
    October 31, 2011 at 3:16 pm
    Link: Work Hard And All Will Be Well, Maybe Not - The Great Depression might not be known as THE Great Depression for much longer.
  2. Profile photo of M_Archer
    M_Archer Male 18-29
    525 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 11:28 am
    Axes not clearly labelled--entire picture is invalid.
  3. Profile photo of Burton_Ian
    Burton_Ian Male 18-29
    817 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 11:39 am
    ....only on the top graph archer, and nonetheless the statistics are still correct?
  4. Profile photo of Commentator
    Commentator Male 40-49
    270 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 11:43 am
    Last days of the American Empire.


    Enjoy the Show.
  5. Profile photo of bobbyjr
    bobbyjr Male 40-49
    25 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 11:47 am
    I can pick all the points from history that support my argument and ignore the others too!
  6. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 11:49 am
    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?
  7. Profile photo of spanerbulb
    spanerbulb Male 30-39
    1244 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 11:55 am
    M_Archer - you so funny
  8. Profile photo of Tiredofnicks
    Tiredofnicks Male 30-39
    5101 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 11:57 am
    Sounds plausible, but I`d still like a source for the numbers.
  9. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36172 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    I didn`t need a graph to know the poor got poorer, the rich got richer, and the middle class became poor.
  10. Profile photo of M_Archer
    M_Archer Male 18-29
    525 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:07 pm
    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.
  11. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:23 pm
    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.
  12. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    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.
    So...

    The picture, and it`s point, is invalid because you`re too lazy/retarded to understand it without the author holding your hand?
  13. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:27 pm
    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.
  14. Profile photo of kissmybim
    kissmybim Male 40-49
    439 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:27 pm
    i`m sorry im not that intellegent
  15. Profile photo of Slmmhmmr161
    Slmmhmmr161 Male 18-29
    606 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    Stop Living Beyond Your Means.
  16. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5864 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:53 pm
    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`?
  17. Profile photo of number1man
    number1man Male 13-17
    240 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    lol the bottom part looks like :\
  18. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5864 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:57 pm
    Slmmhmmr161-"Stop Living Beyond Your Means."




    FOUL!!! You`re not allowed to bring common sense into a discussion on i-a-b!
  19. Profile photo of krw888
    krw888 Male 50-59
    174 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 12:57 pm
    The real point of this is that they changed the rules of the game to benefit those at the top.
  20. Profile photo of GhettoNinja
    GhettoNinja Male 30-39
    886 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 1:15 pm
    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.
  21. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5864 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 1:30 pm
    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.
  22. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 1:36 pm
    @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.
  23. Profile photo of Jonix
    Jonix Female 18-29
    74 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    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 meant rising pay."
  24. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5864 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 2:09 pm
    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.
  25. Profile photo of Jonix
    Jonix Female 18-29
    74 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 2:34 pm
    @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?
  26. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5864 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    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`.
  27. Profile photo of Ahyemi
    Ahyemi Female 18-29
    7 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 3:03 pm
    @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.
  28. Profile photo of Jonix
    Jonix Female 18-29
    74 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 3:06 pm
    "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.
  29. Profile photo of M_Archer
    M_Archer Male 18-29
    525 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 3:25 pm
    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...
  30. Profile photo of M_Archer
    M_Archer Male 18-29
    525 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 3:26 pm
    ...Is it too much of me to ask you to do the same?
  31. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5864 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    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
  32. Profile photo of TheShgn2
    TheShgn2 Male 13-17
    626 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 4:17 pm
    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.
  33. Profile photo of Ahyemi
    Ahyemi Female 18-29
    7 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 4:51 pm
    @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.
  34. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5864 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 6:01 pm
    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
  35. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2423 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 7:16 pm
    "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.
  36. Profile photo of Cherrybawls
    Cherrybawls Male 18-29
    167 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 9:06 pm
    But it will all trickle down!
  37. Profile photo of Jonix
    Jonix Female 18-29
    74 posts
    November 1, 2011 at 9:26 pm
    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>
  38. Profile photo of xCYBERDYNEx
    xCYBERDYNEx Male 18-29
    4903 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 2:20 am
    tl;dr
  39. Profile photo of jadedtortois
    jadedtortois Female 18-29
    779 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 2:48 am
    I found this extremely interesting, reading this plus doing some quick research along with it = I learnt a lot :)
  40. Profile photo of jadedtortois
    jadedtortois Female 18-29
    779 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 2:51 am
    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.
  41. Profile photo of FuriousC
    FuriousC Male 30-39
    38 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 4:52 am
    Capitalism: God’s way of determining who is smart and who is poor.’ Ron Swanson`s Pyramid of Greatness
  42. Profile photo of FoSchizle
    FoSchizle Male 18-29
    323 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 7:08 am
    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
  43. Profile photo of Ahyemi
    Ahyemi Female 18-29
    7 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 7:19 am
    Thank you, jadedtortois, you make a lot of sense. lol
  44. Profile photo of Jonix
    Jonix Female 18-29
    74 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 8:05 am
    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.
  45. Profile photo of RecycleElf
    RecycleElf Male 18-29
    3622 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 8:09 am
    TL;DR
  46. Profile photo of ChrisP12
    ChrisP12 Male 40-49
    186 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 8:37 am
    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.
  47. Profile photo of Ahyemi
    Ahyemi Female 18-29
    7 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 9:51 am
    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.
  48. Profile photo of scoundrel1
    scoundrel1 Male 40-49
    33 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    Who compiled the data?
  49. Profile photo of hijklmno
    hijklmno Male 18-29
    2 posts
    November 2, 2011 at 8:12 pm
    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
  50. Profile photo of number43
    number43 Male 70 & Over
    759 posts
    November 6, 2011 at 7:55 am
    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.

Leave a Reply