Current Events > No wage growth for the median worker since 1979, except from 1996-2001

(+) Yeah! (+)

And wages have actually decreased for the bottom 20% of workers



https://www.epi.org/publication/the-importance-of-locking-in-full-employment-for-the-long-haul/
---

So if wages are matching inflation, that would imply the value of most jobs has remained stagnant. Then the question is, what can the "same" paycheck get you in 2018 compared to 1979, and has that improved the quality of life of the average person?
---

With the chart being inflation-adjusted, this is pretty much what you would expect.
---

s0nicfan posted...

So if wages are matching inflation, that would imply the value of most jobs has remained stagnant.

Value in what sense? But this is a median, not a mean, so I think your premise here is sort of flawed. This just says the average worker didn't gain anything, and everyone below the average worker lost (marginally)

s0nicfan posted...

Then the question is, what can the "same" paycheck get you in 2018 compared to 1979, and has that improved the quality of life of the average person?

What about who gained and who lost, which is not evenly distributed, is that not a question?

DevsBro posted...

With the chart being inflation-adjusted, this is pretty much what you would expect.

seems like a recent trend driven by a lack of shared gains between labor and capital to me!
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So if wages are matching inflation, that would imply the value of most jobs has remained stagnant.

Value in what sense? But this is a median, not a mean, so I think your premise here is sort of flawed. This just says the average worker didn't gain anything, and everyone below the average worker lost (marginally)

No what it states is that the value of the average worker's skill has not changed. If the pay for a janitor hasn't changed in 40 years relative to inflation, that just means we as a society value a janitor's work at the same level. The idea that mundane jobs would appreciate in value is completely baseless.

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Then the question is, what can the "same" paycheck get you in 2018 compared to 1979, and has that improved the quality of life of the average person?

What about who gained and who lost, which is not evenly distributed, is that not a question?

If the average person can do more with their paycheck, why does it matter if the top workers can do even more than that? There's nothing to say that under a different system the average worker would be doing nearly as well, if not far wore, even if you dragged the 1% all the way down to minimum wage, so arguing a gap implies injustice is flawed. Both lines are going up. Why doesn't that matter more? It's not a closed system where a set amount of money is perpetually split between 2 groups.

Look at it this way: if we could choose total stagnation for all classes, or a small increase of quality of life for most people and a large increase for the very top.. which is better? Obviously "everyone's QoL gets equally better" is a nice goal, but that doesn't mean the latter is bad relative to the former, or even bad at all.
---

s0nicfan posted...

No what it states is that the value of the average worker's skill has not changed. If the pay for a janitor hasn't changed in 40 years relative to inflation, that just means we as a society value a janitor's work at the same level. The idea that mundane jobs would appreciate in value is completely baseless.

It's not baseless. We typically assume that as labor productivity increases, wages grow, which I agree is obviously untrue.

Do you have a non-circular definition of value here?

s0nicfan posted...

If the average person can do more with their paycheck, why does it matter if the top workers can do even more than that?

Can they? Yeah, we have better technology for cheaper prices, but I don't know that this is a meaningful gain to quality of life over that span. We have more convenience, but many of those quality of life metrics are not improving; we see more people dying from 'diseases of despair' today.

s0nicfan posted...

There's nothing to say that under a different system the average worker would be doing nearly as well, if not far wore, even if you dragged the 1% all the way down to minimum wage, so arguing a gap implies injustice is flawed. Both lines are going up. Why doesn't that matter more?

Well, to this point, it matters because the second chart is after transfers income (edit: it includes transfers, but not taxes, which is odd but apparently standard practice) and not wage income. So to the extent you view a robust welfare state as dragging the 1% down, there is a fundamental tension between that line going up and the fact that the gains to wages for labor are stagnant
---

Balrog0 posted...

It's not baseless. We typically assume that as labor productivity increases, wages grow, which I agree is obviously untrue.

Do you have a non-circular definition of value here?

Prove to me that the productivity of a janitor, or a coal miner, or a truck driver, or a gas station attendant, has increased meaningfully in the last 40 years. If the same guy is doing 10x the work using some sort of autonomous mop then you've got a case. Yes, you would expect wages to grow with productivity. Why do you assume every job on the market has gotten noticeably more productive? Where's the evidence for that? What if productivity has only meaningfully increased for the top 20% of jobs? Wouldn't that, in an of itself, justify the increasing gap?

Balrog0 posted...

Can they? Yeah, we have better technology for cheaper prices, but I don't know that this is a meaningful gain to quality of life over that span. We have more convenience, but many of those quality of life metrics are not improving; we see more people dying from 'diseases of despair' today.

If your argument is that the current economic model is a failure because of happiness then sure. That's different than whether or not the current economic model has objectively made people's quality of life better, whether they find joy in that or not. People are also unhappy when they're in bread lines.

Balrog0 posted...

Well, to this point, it matters because the second chart is after tax and transfers income and not wage income. So to the extent you view a robust welfare state as dragging the 1% down, there is a fundamental tension between that line going up and the fact that the gains to wages for labor are stagnant

Assuming a closed system. In a global economy, if the top 1% is bringing in more total "money" into the country, then the amount of money available for distribution is larger, meaning more is available for welfare programs. A trillion dollar economy giving away 1% to welfare is still worth more than a billion dollar economy giving away 50% to the people on the receiving end.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Prove to me that the productivity of a janitor, or a coal miner, or a truck driver, or a gas station attendant, has increased meaningfully in the last 40 years. If the same guy is doing 10x the work using some sort of autonomous mop then you've got a case. Yes, you would expect wages to grow with productivity. Why do you assume every job on the market has gotten noticeably more productive? Where's the evidence for that?

Why are you cherry picking any particular trade or industry? It's not a chart of whether janitors get paid more now than they used to, it's a chart of how much the average laborer makes now vs then. And on that metric, it is very clear that labor productivity has increased much more on average than their gains in wages have.

What about these numbers implies I assume 'every job on the market has gotten noticeably more productive'? Don't straw man me.

s0nicfan posted...

If your argument is that the current economic model is a failure because of happiness then sure. That's different than whether or not the current economic model has objectively made people's quality of life better, whether they find joy in that or not. People are also unhappy when they're in bread lines.

I'm not making an argument, exactly, you're the one saying that these issues don't matter because we can 'do more with our paycheck' and I am just questioning whether or not that is true. Put another way, the fact that it is easier for me to spend all day playing WoW doesn't necessarily mean I can 'do more' in a meaningful way with my paycheck now than I used to be able to.

That's not to dismiss the added comfort technology can bring to our lives, but to discount the increasing burden that things like housing, healthcare, and education place on people is also unfair.It's not simply about 'happiness' as I don't believe the diseases of despair I'm referring to, like suicide and drug and alcohol abuse, are driven primarily by simple unhappiness.

People are unhappy in breadlines, but that is a non-sequitur.

s0nicfan posted...

Assuming a closed system. In a global economy, if the top 1% is bringing in more total "money" into the country, then the amount of money available for distribution is larger, meaning more is available for welfare programs. A trillion dollar economy giving away 1% to welfare is still worth more than a billion dollar economy giving away 50% to the people on the receiving end.

Right, that's why I said to the extent you view a robust welfare state as dragging the 1% down. I don't view it that way, but many people seem to and easily conflate social safety nets with 'socialism' (granted that is becoming less true as there are more actual socialists around)
---

s0nicfan posted...

So if wages are matching inflation, that would imply the value of most jobs has remained stagnant. Then the question is, what can the "same" paycheck get you in 2018 compared to 1979, and has that improved the quality of life of the average person?

There are more expenses now than back in the 70s. The average worker's purchasing power has decreased. You know what people could regularly do in the 70s (aside from the stagflation era) that people can't right now? Save money.
---

Kineth posted...

The average worker's purchasing power has decreased. You know what people could regularly do in the 70s (aside from the stagflation era) that people can't right now? Save money.

lol right

there has been an explosion of consume debt in this same time frame, a lot of it actually happened when wages were increasing, though
---

Balrog0 posted...

Kineth posted...

The average worker's purchasing power has decreased. You know what people could regularly do in the 70s (aside from the stagflation era) that people can't right now? Save money.

lol right

there has been an explosion of consume debt in this same time frame, a lot of it actually happened when wages were increasing, though

Yeah, but Glass-Steagall was repealed around that time so those mortgage practices and the housing bubble was on the horizon.
---

Kineth posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So if wages are matching inflation, that would imply the value of most jobs has remained stagnant. Then the question is, what can the "same" paycheck get you in 2018 compared to 1979, and has that improved the quality of life of the average person?

There are more expenses now than back in the 70s. The average worker's purchasing power has decreased. You know what people could regularly do in the 70s (aside from the stagflation era) that people can't right now? Save money.

Look at the average house from the 70s, or even the "glorious" 50s, compared to today.
Where a two or three bedroom / one bath house used to be the norm, as was kids sharing a room, mcMansions have been a trend for a generation or so now. Giant house means giant debt.

Then, let's look at college. Easy student loans have done little but drive up the costs, while making a degree nigh-mandatory for any job beyond "janitor". Easy money plus mandatory degrees means 'mandatory' debt.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Look at the average house from the 70s, or even the "glorious" 50s, compared to today.
Where a two or three bedroom / one bath house used to be the norm, as was kids sharing a room, mcMansions have been a trend for a generation or so now. Giant house means giant debt.

This is itself symptomatic of the problem, though. Those to whom gains to wages are accruing use their newfound income to purchase larger houses in the suburbs where greenfield development is cheaper. As this housing stock ages, which takes decades, the prices lower enough that the lower income groups can move. This leaves the real tail of the desperately poor behind in inner-cities which become slums as these households with the ability to move do, which sets the stage for gentrification as the property values which were once high plummet, reversing the original process of suburbanization.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Then, let's look at college. Easy student loans have done little but drive up the costs, while making a degree nigh-mandatory for any job beyond "janitor". Easy money plus mandatory degrees means 'mandatory' debt.

Well I guess but what about countries where there isn't so much student loan debt?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Kineth posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So if wages are matching inflation, that would imply the value of most jobs has remained stagnant. Then the question is, what can the "same" paycheck get you in 2018 compared to 1979, and has that improved the quality of life of the average person?

There are more expenses now than back in the 70s. The average worker's purchasing power has decreased. You know what people could regularly do in the 70s (aside from the stagflation era) that people can't right now? Save money.

Look at the average house from the 70s, or even the "glorious" 50s, compared to today.
Where a two or three bedroom / one bath house used to be the norm, as was kids sharing a room, mcMansions have been a trend for a generation or so now. Giant house means giant debt.

Then, let's look at college. Easy student loans have done little but drive up the costs, while making a degree nigh-mandatory for any job beyond "janitor". Easy money plus mandatory degrees means 'mandatory' debt.

It's not nearly that simple and you neglect to include the whole "3 years of experience" requirement for entry level jobs which has devalued college degrees. The skyrocketing tuition costs are the issue though. I understand the barrier to entry/necessary debt idea, but I don't think it's necessary, especially if you're trying to foster a sturdy, healthy middle class and a vibrant economy. People are getting worked to the fucking bone here in this country for bullshit pay.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Well I guess but what about countries where there isn't so much student loan debt?

Europeans have this strange concept of working throughout university, instead of borrowing a fuckton of money to essentially do nothing but study and party for four or five years.
That may have been viable in the US, had easy money not bloated the costs so much, nor colleges felt compelled to build bigass stadiums or put up a new building named after some guy every few years, to justify the bloated costs into a death-spiral.

Kineth posted...

I understand the barrier to entry/necessary debt idea, but I don't think it's necessary, especially if you're trying to foster a sturdy, healthy middle class and a vibrant economy.

We really need to figure out how to desigmatize vocational training.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Europeans have this strange concept of working throughout university, instead of borrowing a fuckton of money to essentially do nothing but study and party for four or five years.

huh, are you sure that's the main difference?
---

Balrog0 posted...

huh, are you sure that's the main difference?

Some quick googling suggests that Europe's higher education is starting to emulate the US system while retaining the heavy subsidies, which may not end well.
https://www.theintelligencer.com/commentary/article/U-S-vs-Europe-in-higher-education-12487364.php

Let's watch and see.

s0nicfan posted...

The idea that mundane jobs would appreciate in value is completely baseless.

Wouldn't the basis be "They're more productive now" ?

Because they are.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The idea that mundane jobs would appreciate in value is completely baseless.

Wouldn't the basis be "They're more productive now" ?

Because they are.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

According to that, they define productivity as:

Productivity is simply the total amount of output (or income) generated in an average hour of work.

Which seems like a bad analogue to most jobs that aren't in manufacturing. See: my janitor question from above. If you define productivity as "the amount of work actually being done in an average hour of work" I sincerely doubt it has increased 75%.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Which seems like a bad analogue to most jobs that aren't in manufacturing. See: my janitor question from above. If you define productivity as "the amount of work actually being done in an average hour of work" I sincerely doubt it has increased 75%.

Dude, read the plot.

Net productivity is the growth of output of goods and services less depreciation per hour worked.

It applies equally well to both services jobs and manufacturing jobs. The definition is fine. It even includes income gains in the part of the definition you quoted!

You're hyper-focusing on janitors here. THAT is a poor analogue to the US labor pool.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Which seems like a bad analogue to most jobs that aren't in manufacturing. See: my janitor question from above. If you define productivity as "the amount of work actually being done in an average hour of work" I sincerely doubt it has increased 75%.

I mean, the same improvements in technology that have made our lives easier and more comfortable could plausibly allow us to be more productive in the same time frame
---

Balrog0 posted...

I mean, the same improvements in technology that have made our lives easier and more comfortable could plausibly allow us to be more productive in the same time frame

Seeing as they have, it seems very plausible indeed.

The better anti-labor argument would be that those technological advancements were in turn capital acquisitions by the company ownership (ie shareholders) and therefore gains in productivity resulting from them belong to the shareholders, not the workers using them.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The idea that mundane jobs would appreciate in value is completely baseless.

Wouldn't the basis be "They're more productive now" ?

Because they are.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

According to that, they define productivity as:

Productivity is simply the total amount of output (or income) generated in an average hour of work.

Which seems like a bad analogue to most jobs that aren't in manufacturing. See: my janitor question from above. If you define productivity as "the amount of work actually being done in an average hour of work" I sincerely doubt it has increased 75%.

Well it's increased more than 0%, regardless of your doubts.
---

Kineth posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The idea that mundane jobs would appreciate in value is completely baseless.

Wouldn't the basis be "They're more productive now" ?

Because they are.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

According to that, they define productivity as:

Productivity is simply the total amount of output (or income) generated in an average hour of work.

Which seems like a bad analogue to most jobs that aren't in manufacturing. See: my janitor question from above. If you define productivity as "the amount of work actually being done in an average hour of work" I sincerely doubt it has increased 75%.

Well it's increased more than 0%, regardless of your doubts.

Sure, I can buy that. I'm not arguing that there might not be some bias in how income has increased relative to productivity. I'm challenging the assertion that the growing gap is evidence of growing "unfairness" and whether or not a person being better off in terms of quality of life should be factored into the "value" of their wages.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Sure, I can buy that. I'm not arguing that there might not be some bias in how income has increased relative to productivity. I'm challenging the assertion that the growing gap is evidence of growing "unfairness" and whether or not a person being better off in terms of quality of life should be factored into the "value" of their wages.

it's not a result of "unfairness" because that's not really a definable term in labor economics

it's a result of the relative negotiating power of workers versus that of capital

and there's a bunch of reasons why that has changed
---

s0nicfan posted...

I'm challenging the assertion that the growing gap is evidence of growing "unfairness" and whether or not a person being better off in terms of quality of life should be factored into the "value" of their wages.

What the fuck metric do you think you should measure wages by? That's literally their main purpose.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Sure, I can buy that. I'm not arguing that there might not be some bias in how income has increased relative to productivity. I'm challenging the assertion that the growing gap is evidence of growing "unfairness" and whether or not a person being better off in terms of quality of life should be factored into the "value" of their wages.

it's not a result of "unfairness" because that's not really a definable term in labor economics

it's a result of the relative negotiating power of workers versus that of capital

and there's a bunch of reasons why that has changed

You say its not a result of unfairness but that's how the argument has always been presented. "These people are getting more money at a higher rate than me, and that's unfair." It doesn't consider the possibility that ANY improvement in either their wages or their access to QoL improvements may have only been made possible through work at those other levels which required a higher level of personal and economic investment.
---

Kineth posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I'm challenging the assertion that the growing gap is evidence of growing "unfairness" and whether or not a person being better off in terms of quality of life should be factored into the "value" of their wages.

What the fuck metric do you think you should measure wages by? That's literally their main purpose.

Since you clearly didn't read the topic, the very second post:
s0nicfan posted...

So if wages are matching inflation, that would imply the value of most jobs has remained stagnant. Then the question is, what can the "same" paycheck get you in 2018 compared to 1979, and has that improved the quality of life of the average person?

---

On the subject of janitors, NYT did an interesting case study on how companies' shift away from conglomeration and towards a focus on core competency has changed the opportunities for advancement for support staff workers directly

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-rising-inequality-consider-the-janitors-at-two-top-companies-then-and-now.html

s0nicfan posted...

You say its not a result of unfairness but that's how the argument has always been presented. "These people are getting more money at a higher rate than me, and that's unfair." It doesn't consider the possibility that ANY improvement in either their wages or their access to QoL improvements may have only been made possible through work at those other levels which required a higher level of personal and economic investment.

I'm saying unfair is a vague and meaningless term and that it's not useful to the discussion; looking at how structural changes impact workers is useful to the discussion because it identifies ways things can (or can't) change

What is "fair"? It means something different to everyone. Workers would say that fair is getting their pay increased commensurate with the growth of their productivity. Capital would say fair is getting the full return on their investment in their capital expenditures that enabled worker productivity to skyrocket.

I'm trying to point to the actual things that are happening that are causing the trend balrog0 has showcased to occur.
---

s0nicfan posted...

You say its not a result of unfairness but that's how the argument has always been presented. "These people are getting more money at a higher rate than me, and that's unfair."

I mean, you're the one who keeps framing it this way. If you think there's nothing problematic about lower wage workers increasingly having less income after accounting for inflation, your views are different than mine. I don't see why you need to invoke fairness for it to be concerning.

s0nicfan posted...

It doesn't consider the possibility that ANY improvement in either their wages or their access to QoL improvements may have only been made possible through work at those other levels which required a higher level of personal and economic investment.

Well, this kind of BS non-argument is probably why people are so comfortable framing it as being about fairness. That's how you're framing it here.

You're straight up saying, without making an argument to support it, that lower wage workers are some how dependent on higher wage workers for the gains to income that they haven't experienced, and for supposed quality of life improvements that we haven't really determined exist. And you're justifying the higher gains to income on this basis.

That is an argument about fairness, but a severely flawed one. Lower wage workers are dependent on people whose positions required more 'personal and economic investment' but that is a two-way street, so saying that the upper income earners 'deserve' more of the gains is kind of perverse

though in this specific case I would say the premise is flawed, wage earners aren't reliant on other wage earners, they are reliant on capital
---

Darkman124 posted...

On the subject of janitors, NYT did an interesting case study on how companies' shift away from conglomeration and towards a focus on core competency has changed the opportunities for advancement for support staff workers directly

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-rising-inequality-consider-the-janitors-at-two-top-companies-then-and-now.html

s0nicfan posted...

You say its not a result of unfairness but that's how the argument has always been presented. "These people are getting more money at a higher rate than me, and that's unfair." It doesn't consider the possibility that ANY improvement in either their wages or their access to QoL improvements may have only been made possible through work at those other levels which required a higher level of personal and economic investment.

I'm saying unfair is a vague and meaningless term and that it's not useful to the discussion; looking at how structural changes impact workers is useful to the discussion because it identifies ways things can (or can't) change

That's a totally fair point, that there are lots of "invisible" factors beyond wages such as benefits, upward mobility opportunities, etc that aren't usually tracked by these statistics. In Apple's case, though, Jobs famously made $1, so the gains from their efforts went primarily to shareholders as well as new middle class jobs through the explosive growth of their company. So if we're looking at Apple as a case study, a lot of people gained a lot of money at lower levels from the people at the very top gaining even more, while some people lost. So do we consider Apple's growth a net gain for society, or a net loss?
---

s0nicfan posted...

That's a totally fair point, that there are lots of "invisible" factors beyond wages such as benefits, upward mobility opportunities, etc that aren't usually tracked by these statistics. In Apple's case, though, Jobs famously made $1, so the gains from their efforts went primarily to shareholders as well as new middle class jobs through the explosive growth of their company. So if we're looking at Apple as a case study, a lot of people gained a lot of money at lower levels from the people at the very top gaining even more, while some people lost. So do we consider Apple's growth a net gain for society, or a net loss?

you do realize jobs was one of apple's largest shareholders, right?
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

That's a totally fair point, that there are lots of "invisible" factors beyond wages such as benefits, upward mobility opportunities, etc that aren't usually tracked by these statistics. In Apple's case, though, Jobs famously made $1, so the gains from their efforts went primarily to shareholders as well as new middle class jobs through the explosive growth of their company. So if we're looking at Apple as a case study, a lot of people gained a lot of money at lower levels from the people at the very top gaining even more, while some people lost. So do we consider Apple's growth a net gain for society, or a net loss?

you do realize jobs was one of apple's largest shareholders, right?

Yes, but that means his pay was more directly tied to performance than any other CEO. If anyone could make the argument that their pay relative to the people at the bottom was deserved, it would be the guy who stakes his entire paycheck on the company's performance.
---

principally, apple was people at the very top gaining a ton.

apple employs 123,000 total staff. given their market cap, that is actually a very low number of workers/company value. by comparison, CAT employs 97k and is worth less than a tenth of apple. GE employs 3x as many and is also worth about a tenth.

measuring 'net gain to society' is again a very vague and hard to define concept. but it's not a company's job to provide that. nor a CEO's job. their job is 'maximize shareholder value.' nothing more.

sometimes this hard to define 'gain to society' is produced. other times it is not.

you would have to weigh the suicides at their subcontractors' factories in to calculating their net value to society, btw.
---

Darkman124 posted...

principally, apple was people at the very top gaining a ton.

apple employs 123,000 total staff. given their market cap, that is actually a very low number of workers/company value. by comparison, CAT employs 97k and is worth less than a tenth of apple. GE employs 3x as many and is also worth about a tenth.

measuring 'net gain to society' is again a very vague and hard to define concept. but it's not a company's job to provide that. nor a CEO's job. their job is 'maximize shareholder value.' nothing more.

sometimes this hard to define 'gain to society' is produced. other times it is not.

you would have to weigh the suicides at their subcontractors' factories in to calculating their net value to society, btw.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/garydallen/2014/08/04/disappearing-numbers-mask-apple-retails-performance/
In 10 years, apple went from employing ZERO FTE retail store employees to 41,000. Does that get factored into the benefit of the company's growth to wages?

If Jobs' salary went up by 10x of their janitors, but Jobs work created 41,000 new FTE positions, why would we assume that his salary should have increased at the same rate as people at the bottom?
---

s0nicfan posted...

In 10 years, apple went from employing ZERO FTE retail store employees to 41,000. Does that get factored into the benefit of the company's growth to wages?

What are you even asking? The statistics are about the entire economy and you keep trying to hone in on stuff like janitors and apple.
---

s0nicfan posted...

In 10 years, apple went from employing ZERO FTE retail store employees to 41,000. Does that get factored into the benefit of the company's growth to wages?

sure, but do you actually see that as a big deal? in ten years, apple's value to shareholders increased from about 100 billion to >1 trillion. that is a much bigger deal. and that was me using 2008 highs, not 2008 lows.
---

Darkman124 posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-rising-inequality-consider-the-janitors-at-two-top-companies-then-and-now.html

but...

Perhaps the biggest indictment of the more paternalistic approach taken by an earlier generation of corporate behemoths is that, Kodak, despite having been an early innovator in digital photography, is a shell of its former self. After a bankruptcy and many years of layoffs, the company now has only 2,700 employees in the United States and 6,100 worldwide.

If your company is unsustainable and folds, nobody there has a job anymore.

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

In 10 years, apple went from employing ZERO FTE retail store employees to 41,000. Does that get factored into the benefit of the company's growth to wages?

What are you even asking? The statistics are about the entire economy and you keep trying to hone in on stuff like janitors and apple.

It's a use case. As the person that accused me of having "BS non-arguments" about vague concepts like fairness, I figured you would prefer we dive into a specific example to showcase the point I'm trying to make. We can go back to "the economy" if you're fine talking at that level again.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

In 10 years, apple went from employing ZERO FTE retail store employees to 41,000. Does that get factored into the benefit of the company's growth to wages?

sure, but do you actually see that as a big deal? in ten years, apple's value to shareholders increased from about 100 billion to >1 trillion. that is a much bigger deal. and that was me using 2008 highs, not 2008 lows.

That just strengthens my argument, though. The janitor didn't grow the value to shareholders by 10X, so why would their salary increase relative to Jobs' be the same?

EDIT: Although I'll acknowledge again as you've pointed out that it also doesn't justify the reduction in career mobility and benefits they have received.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

If you're company is unsustainable, nobody there has a job anymore.

For sure, although I expect Kodak's decline had more to do with a shrinking market sector that almost does not exist anymore (can we even name a company that was their competitor 30 years ago?) rather than a positive environment for workers.

The worker environment was not atypical at the time. Its removal was certainly part of modern corporate earnings optimization, though.
---

s0nicfan posted...

That just strengthens my argument, though. The janitor didn't grow the value to shareholders by 10X, so why would their salary increase relative to Jobs' be the same?

Again--don't hyperfocus on janitors. Jobs didn't grow the value to shareholders by 10x alone. Tech and retail workers did, both direct at apple and at their subcontractors, whose productivity was generally not rewarded. Some of the upper middle class design folks, certainly, did see rewards. Still not remotely comparable to Jobs'.

It doesn't strengthen your argument, it strengthens the janitor strawman. Which remains...a strawman.
---

s0nicfan posted...

It's a use case. As the person that accused me of having "BS non-arguments" about vague concepts like fairness, I figured you would prefer we dive into a specific example to showcase the point I'm trying to make. We can go back to "the economy" if you're fine talking at that level again.

Why are you using scare quotes for the term 'the economy'? I never didn't want to talk about 'the economy,' I just wanted to to make an argument to support your claim. And you're still not making that argument at all.
s0nicfan posted...

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

In 10 years, apple went from employing ZERO FTE retail store employees to 41,000. Does that get factored into the benefit of the company's growth to wages?

sure, but do you actually see that as a big deal? in ten years, apple's value to shareholders increased from about 100 billion to >1 trillion. that is a much bigger deal. and that was me using 2008 highs, not 2008 lows.

That just strengthens my argument, though. The janitor didn't grow the value to shareholders by 10X, so why would their salary increase relative to Jobs' be the same?

EDIT: Although I'll acknowledge again as you've pointed out that it also doesn't justify the reduction in career mobility and benefits they have received.

All of this is utterly irrelevant, and is still you being the one to focus in on the concept of fairness and who 'deserves' to make more money.

but the principle of competition that supposedly underpins our market economy should make who created what job meaningless in the long run, as businesses compete for labor which supposedly bids up the price as more each unit of labor can do more productive work

so the whole fact that you're asking which person in this one large corporation deserves to have most of the profits accrue to them is not just missing the point, but is indicative of the problem that these charts are pointing to -- the concentration of capital and corporate monopsony
---

s0nicfan posted...

That just strengthens my argument, though. The janitor didn't grow the value to shareholders by 10X, so why would their salary increase relative to Jobs' be the same?

Huh. I wonder what the 'communist' response to this would even be...

EDIT: Although I'll acknowledge again as you've pointed out that it also doesn't justify the reduction in career mobility and benefits they have received.

It's just simple division of labor. McDonalds doesn't do its own advertising, and I seriously doubt Heye & Partner makes its own cheeseburgers.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's just simple division of labor. McDonalds doesn't do its own advertising, and I seriously doubt Heye & Partner makes its own cheeseburgers.

Frankly, it's entirely possible Apple doesn't even do their own cleaning--she's either on a support staff alternate employee contract, different from what developers/retail staff are on, or she's an employee of a subcontractor hired to clean Apple's property. Both are common.
---

Balrog0 posted...

businesses compete for labor

Per the monopsony threads you've posted before, this is probably a major part of why it's not happening: they don't have to compete for labor anymore, except at the very high skills-end.
---

job creators
---

Balrog0 posted...

but the principle of competition that supposedly underpins our market economy should make who created what job meaningless in the long run, as businesses compete for labor which supposedly bids up the price as more each unit of labor can do more productive work

so the whole fact that you're asking which person in this one large corporation deserves to have most of the profits accrue to them is not just missing the point, but is indicative of the problem that these charts are pointing to -- the concentration of capital and corporate monopsony

So let me ask a question: why isn't the job creator's work considered labor? I've seen this argument appear in one form or another, that the people at the very bottom "labor" and the people at the top "take from labor" but a lot of people at the top work very hard, too. Why aren't their efforts counted as labor and thus wage increases for CEOs seen as competition for labor?
---

s0nicfan posted...

So let me ask a question: why isn't the job creator's work considered labor?

Who is 'the job creator'? Shareholders who invest money don't work, which is why they aren't considered labor. I agree the modern corporate form blurs the lines between labor and owner at times, but that is the source of the terminology.

s0nicfan posted...

've seen this argument appear in one form or another, that the people at the very bottom "labor" and the people at the top "take from labor" but a lot of people at the top work very hard, too. Why aren't their efforts counted as labor and thus wage increases for CEOs seen as competition for labor?

CEOs are included as wage earners in these figures, I believe, and probably account for most of the wage growth seen near the top of the income distribution.

It IS seen as competition for labor, but people can rightfully question why competition for labor is so concentrated at the top.
---

s0nicfan posted...

So let me ask a question: why isn't the job creator's work considered labor?

It is. But it's tiny relative to the whole.

The owner's labor comes with its own associated cost but in a relative sense there is an absolute maximum amount of labor that the owner is capable of doing (# hours of work in the week) and that is pretty much always dwarfed by the amount of labor done by his employees.

His entitlement to higher income is usually a result of his infusion of capital and assuming of risk, and most large business owners/CEOS are rich from their shares of ownership and not their salary.

The question is always "how much higher?" and the answer is always "However much he can get away with"...same as the workers. But the structural trends--both govt supported and in corporate structure/optimization--have created conditions that favor capital much moreso than labor.

I mean really, in a labor/capital discussion, you're not even looking at the CEO. You're looking at me. How much work have *I* done for the $4000 I've made on my shares of Apple since February?
---