It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Growth of Real Hourly Compensation for Production and Productivity, 1948–2011

page: 1
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   



We have a political system of two parties a duopoly, but infact it may be that our government has become a monopoly ran by the corps lobbyists and bought with their masters money. The chart above shows the influence of corporate power and its effects on the citizens of the US of A and it would seem there is no difference which political party is in office.


Is America in the throes of a class war?

Look at the chart and decide for yourself. It’s all there in black and white, and you don’t need to be an economist to figure it out.



It all began in the 1970s, that’s when everything started going down the plughole. Once wages detached from productivity, the rich progressively got richer. They used their wealth to reduce taxes on capital, role back critical regulations, break up the unions, install their own lapdog politicians, push through trade agreements that pitted US workers against low-paid labor in the developing world, and induce their shady Central Bank buddies to keep interest rates locked below the rate of inflation so they could cream hefty profits off gigantic asset bubbles. Now, 40 years later, they own the whole f*cking shooting match, lock, stock and barrel. And it’s all because management decided to take the lion’s share of productivity gains which threw the whole system off-kilter undermining the basic pillars of democratic government.


source




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Excellent point. Some people wonder why the Occupy Wallstreet movement was so strong so quickly. Well you don't have to think that hard about it. It's only going to get worse in the future.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

As long as you don't care about unemployment, minimum wages and union protectionism do keep a handful of well-placed lucky folks in better digs than anyone else. With the exception of the anomaly in 1996, the data bears that out.

Also, this chart is really only about youth unemployment so, I concede that it doesn't tell the whole story.


I suggest finding a better job if you are unsatisfied with your current employer and as long as your state has no minimum wage or labor unions, you should be ok.
edit on 8-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I have talked about this many times.

I am not going through it again, nobody ever listens.

The only way to fix this for good and stop all future recessions is simple.

Fix wages to a percentage of profits.

This way the worker stays in the loop.

As Walmart does better the worker does better, thus is given incentive to be productive for the company.

The rich no longer get to keep all the gains.

The economy as a whole prospers, as workers are the ones driving the economy by purchasing goods and services.

When they can only afford basic needs( Walmart workers) they can't purchase goods or services outside of the essential(many met only by welfare BTW).

There is no other simpler better way to do this.

Any company making over $100,000,000 in profits for the year must pay out at least $50,000,000 in payrole to hourly workers.

All the pay for managers and execs comes from the companies half, keeping exec bonuses and pay in check at all times.

This closes the income gap and guarantees prosperity for all.

As well as stops the vicious cycle of lowering pay to increase profits, which causes less people to buy goods and services, which lowers profits, which reduces pay to increase profits, which means less goods and services are purchased.... Etc.... Until recession or depression sinks in.

Seems easy enough to understand to me.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Looks like automation and technology own the means of production now.

Is there any comparisons that use "salaried" compensation?




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

a reply to: infinityorder

Fix wages to a percentage of profits.

This way the worker stays in the loop.



I would have hated to work for Radio Shack under those terms !!!




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The chart says productivity increased faster than wages, but does the chart take into account automation such as robotics?
Machines do much of the production that man power used to have to do.
Just curious..



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder

Excuse me, but are you suggesting; that the shareholders should be sharing part of their dividends with the lowly workers that do menial labor?




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder
....
Fix wages to a percentage of profits.
....
This closes the income gap and guarantees prosperity for all.

Sadly this simple idea fails to close the income gap or guarantee prosperity for anyone. It only locks in the current income disparity and forces people to continue to fight for a higher percentage of profits...just like they fought for higher wages before. However this system spreads out the business risks on to all the workers who do NOT get a voice in management. So a company's management that makes poor decisions drive workers into bankruptcy along with the company.

Odd when people don't listen...sometimes it means the idea doesn't work.
edit on 8-2-2015 by noeltrotsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: infinityorder

Excuse me, but are you suggesting; that the shareholders should be sharing part of their dividends with the lowly workers that do menial labor?





Do the average share holders help the economy as a whole, or simply hoard weath away stopping spending on goods and services from happening enmass?

For a hint to the answer...wallstreey fully recovered years ago, how about the average worker?

Screw wall street and the investors.

Yes I said that, and yes this will cost me in the 6 figures category because my 401k is invested in wallstreet.

It is the best thing for all though.

It will solve many social and economic problems overnight, and I will make that money back easily as the economy explodes under the strain of economic growth, not seen since the 50s.
edit on 8-2-2015 by infinityorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
What is so right about making money just because you have money? It just shows that money is more important then people and their labor.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Excellent point. Some people wonder why the Occupy Wallstreet movement was so strong so quickly. Well you don't have to think that hard about it. It's only going to get worse in the future.


While a lot of people were very negative about the Occupy protests, those protest are partially responsible for the economic discussions that are taking place today. Of course there are army's of lobbyists rushing around with suitcases full of Dollars to be used for preventing any change that may help the average citizen of the US of A.

More Profits!



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder


I agree; there should be laws requiring profit sharing with employees...

...and guarantees against job losses due to robotics / automation!





edit on 8-2-2015 by AlaskanDad because: / automation



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: infinityorder
....
Fix wages to a percentage of profits.
....
This closes the income gap and guarantees prosperity for all.

Sadly this simply idea fails to close the income gap or guarantee prosperity for anyone. It only locks in the current income disparity and forces people to continue to fight for a higher percentage of profits...just like they fought for higher wages before. However this system spreads out the business risks on to all the workers who do NOT get a voice in management. So a company's management that makes poor decisions drive workers into bankruptcy along with the company.

Odd when people don't listen...sometimes it means the idea doesn't work.


Walmart pays half its annual profits to hourly workers?

No?

OK then what was your point?

Mine was they would see an immediate pay raise.

Raising prices to increase profits would also raise worker pay at the same time....see how that works.

The already rich would no longer get to take all the gains from the workers labor, they would have to share it.

The workers would be in the economic loop at all times, not only the rich.

As is the current state.

The workers always losr the rich always gain at the expense if the worker.

Now both would rise and fall together.

Making the decisions to increase profits benefit the workers as well at all times.

All parties would gain and lose together.

All would be bound to strive for success.

Not just those that gain the most.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
It's enslavement when the productivity is not matched by the remuneration. There is a massive wage gap and it will not be getting any smaller anyday soon. When you depend on your Government for handouts of Benefits, whilst working 40+ hours all week, then it kind of speaks volumes about who are really in control.

This is a result of Reagan's and Thatcher's economic policies, whereby the Rich pay less into the system, whilst the rest of us are taking out of it, many many who are hard working people and some that work 4-5 different jobs, just to survive.

In the meantime, the corporations are making vast profits and rewarding the very people that make laws to ensure their accustomed understanding will continue, that's right, the Politicians.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
What is so right about making money just because you have money? It just shows that money is more important then people and their labor.


I agree, and my plan, though not perfect and needs further shaking out closes the gab very well.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: roadgravel
What is so right about making money just because you have money? It just shows that money is more important then people and their labor.


I agree, and my plan, though not perfect and needs further shaking out closes the gab very well.


I think you are on the right track. Reward drives productivity. People wonder why low paid workers have little incentive.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder
Walmart pays half its annual profits to hourly workers?

Walmart, and every other company would never give such a percentage. Like I said, you are just replacing '% profits' with 'wages' in the struggle between workers and companies. As well you're adding risk to workers that they never carried before because their pay would decrease with poor profits, where as before they kept enough to live on.



OK then what was your point?


Odd I needed to say that twice. I'll stop now as I don't think there is going to be an understanding between us on this issue.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   


Interesting is the fact that neither party is responsible, but in fact both that have helped the corps to bigger profits at the cost of the workers compensations.

FTA:


Yup, under Bush, the 1% captured a disproportionate share of the income gains from the Bush boom of 2002-2007. They got 65 cents of every dollar created in that boom, up 20 cents from when Clinton was President. Under Obama, the 1% got 93 cents of every dollar created in that boom. That’s not only more than under Bush, up 28 cents. In the transition from Bush to Obama, inequality got worse, faster, than under the transition from Clinton to Bush. Obama accelerated the growth of inequality.” (Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush, Matt Stoller, Naked Capitalism)

93 cents of every buck has gone to the 1 percenters under Obama. And you wonder why Wall Street loves this guy? It’s because he’s bent over backwards to make them richer, that’s why.

edit on 8-2-2015 by AlaskanDad because: typo



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
It's enslavement when the productivity is not matched by the remuneration. There is a massive wage gap and it will not be getting any smaller anyday soon. When you depend on your Government for handouts of Benefits, whilst working 40+ hours all week, then it kind of speaks volumes about who are really in control.

This is a result of Reagan's and Thatcher's economic policies, whereby the Rich pay less into the system, whilst the rest of us are taking out of it, many many who are hard working people and some that work 4-5 different jobs, just to survive.

In the meantime, the corporations are making vast profits and rewarding the very people that make laws to ensure their accustomed understanding will continue, that's right, the Politicians.






Exactly!!

In a system where workers are guaranteed a return on their investment of time and energy would benefit all.

Of course the company can decide to pay you more for being more valuable than me because you work harder and produce more.

That is not even an option.

But those doing all the profit generating work should obviously also enjoy the benefits of their labors and time.

Not just those with money to begin with.







 
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join