Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm going to post a chart you've seen a million times before (the myth of wage stagnation) [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)21. Looks like hourly compensation stagnated particularly from the mid-70's to the mid-90's,
then again from about '02 to '08.
Seems that the only periods since 1970 in which the rise in hourly compensation even came close to the rise in productivity was 1974-77 and 1995-02. The 1980's and early 90's were a particularly terrible period, as was 2002-08. There must be a lesson there.
Recursion, I must say that using charts and statistics to try to question that what people think they KNOW to be true (or false) about something, whether it is wage stagnation or climate change, is a perilous effort. If my view of politics and the world is tied to a certain set of beliefs, you will have a difficult time convincing me through charts and statistics that I need to make fundamental change in my beliefs.
I don't think we know what a genuinely shared prosperity in the US would look like because it hasn't happened yet, and if we need a New New Deal to get there, it's going to have to be so fundamentally and structurally different than the original one, to avoid the great disparities listed above, as to be nearly unrecognizable.
I don't agree. The New Deal set a standard for "genuinely shared prosperity" even though it did not reach women and minorities. I would argue that much of the divergence of hourly compensation from productivity came from the increasing abandonment of the New Deal. Resurrecting the New Deal and linking it to modern civil rights legislation, which did not exist in the 1930's and 40's, could produce a "genuinely shared prosperity" that includes minorities and women.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
122 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm going to post a chart you've seen a million times before (the myth of wage stagnation) [View all]
Recursion
Jul 2015
OP
LOL. "Before the early 1970s, the only group that was seeing their income increase was white males"
PSPS
Jul 2015
#1
And women who worked as a housekeeper part time weren't counted in wage surveys
Recursion
Jul 2015
#4
Absolutely. And teachers (the career track for girls too upscale to be "just secretaries" ) ...
hedda_foil
Jul 2015
#6
And the average house was a lot smaller, had fewer bedrooms and bathrooms. And many families
raccoon
Jul 2015
#78
Which leads to the conclusion that a single earner could support a family today
Recursion
Jul 2015
#87
Thanks. The "aww, poor, whiny white guys" angle isn't an answer to the obvious wage problem. n/t
Beartracks
Jul 2015
#66
Socialism (in the real Marx sense) is probably the best way to do a universal income
Recursion
Jul 2015
#104
No, people just make a lot of assumptions about me. I've posted more about minimum income than trade
Recursion
Jul 2015
#109
I live and work in a city where 10,000 people die from waterborne illnesses every year
Recursion
Jul 2015
#114
I can see that. But even those gains have been below what they SHOULD have been.
Beartracks
Jul 2015
#119
Thanks. I don't need to look at any charts to know the OP is bullshit. I live in 2015 reality and I
GoneFishin
Jul 2015
#111
It's insulting for Democrats to have this RW trash pushed on us day after day. nt
Zorra
Jul 2015
#80
It's always helpful to know where you are coming from. If you worked an hourly labor job
B Calm
Jul 2015
#15
The average UNIX administrator salary is $92,000, do you think that's what hourly employees
B Calm
Jul 2015
#20
Looks like hourly compensation stagnated particularly from the mid-70's to the mid-90's,
pampango
Jul 2015
#21
I'm curious how that can be since real median income for men is higher now than say 1960
Recursion
Jul 2015
#28
There are, I think, many factors such as declines in pensions for 401 K's and such for an example.
mmonk
Jul 2015
#34
Also, the greater the income gap between the richest and the typical American family is,
mmonk
Jul 2015
#36
The 20:20 ratio is a much better way to determine the effects of income inequality in terms of
mmonk
Jul 2015
#45
So? At best this shows a time old employer tactic: "bring in cheaper workers"
Tom Rinaldo
Jul 2015
#30
Interesting perspective. So is the denominator in first graph total paid working hours?
lostnfound
Jul 2015
#35
It would be hard to argue that expanding the labor pool didn't push wages down
Recursion
Jul 2015
#39
I just think that supporting the fabulously wealthy Corporate-backed candidate is the solution...
Romulox
Jul 2015
#59
I'm glad you know the names of several cities in Michigan, but this is all a bit random.
Romulox
Jul 2015
#70
What were you proposing I rebut? I missed your point, except you object to my presence.
Starry Messenger
Jul 2015
#71
Pretty much-- along with the standard divide and conquer appeal to identity politics and
Marr
Jul 2015
#89
Might also have to do with white men monopolizing "skilled" work for much of America's history
YoungDemCA
Jul 2015
#67
No, I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming white men held a monopoly on higher paying fields
Recursion
Jul 2015
#84
OH good. You've taken up with the Troy University set with this latest hilarity.
HughBeaumont
Jul 2015
#83