Does ageing explain America’s disappointing wage growth?

if you have any idea what the point of that pure gibberish is please let us know

 

Inequality started skyrocketing in 1981, long before the aging population was a factor.

 

Work ethic, collecting welfare, working a capitalist job, etc. did not all suddenly start in 1981.



Something else happened that year.

 

People didn't suddenly stop preparing themselves to be competitive, or stop getting educated or skilled in 1981.



Something else happened that year.

 

100% of the answer for any person who is questioning their wages, or their wealth, etc. lies in that person alone! Each of us make 100% of the decisions in our life which determines our incomes and other factors. Government does not make them! Politics does not make them! Just look in the mirror to find the person who makes 100% of the decisions. Government can never solve people's personal problems. Each person must take personal steps to achieve whatever it is they desire in life and their desires cannot exceed their potential. This is such a fundamental concept which has been in place since the beginning of time! Those who whine or blame others or look to government to solve their problems will watch the world pass them by. Stupid charts like the one above will never solve a single problem...

 

The economy has shifted toward cheaper labor abroad and lower prices on goods, both from that and from government subsidies. I think that's what's driving wages down.

 

yes, the liberal welfare culture was taking hold, liberal policies where shipping our jobs offshore, liberals were inviting in illegals to take remaining jobs and bid down wages, and liberal budget deficits were exploding.

 

30 million illegals will certainly drive wages down as will the liberal taxes unions and regulations that drove 20 million jobs to China where wages are soaring for obvious reasons.

 

???? a person alone cant invited in 30 million illegals to take our jobs and bid down wages!!! This is something liberals do, obviously!!!!

 

Much has been written about the reduced labor force participation rate in the aftermath of the Recession—that is the percentage of people not working who are not counted as unemployed.

Some have simply argued this is probably due to argue this is probably due to demographic changes, namely the aging of the workforce. However, economics professor at John Jay College J.W. Mason has compiled data and published a paper that disagrees.

To examine the case, Mason conducted a "shift-share analysis", basically a counterfactual taking the employment rate of various categories of people from 2007, and projecting them onto current, older demographic realities. So measured, demographics explains about 40 percent of the decline in labor force participation.


However, the American population is not just getting older, it's also getting more educated—a factor which is associated with greater labor force participation. If you include education as a demographic variable, the aging-based decline in the labor force almost totally vanishes. "All else equal, older people are less likely to be employed, and educated people are more likely to be employed. Over the past decade or two, these two factors have essentially canceled one another out," Mason writes.

What that means is there has to be some other cause to the lower labor force participation rate.

The paper also examined real per capita GDP over time and found that from 1947 to 2007 it grew in a very linear fashion, but after 2007 it has not kept pace with the trend. According to Mason, this suggests the economy has drifted far from maximum economic output. When he broke out the decline in economic production, he found about half of it comes from the decline in labor force participation.​

 

THE US HAS THE WORLD'S HIGHEST TERTIARY-EDUCATION FEES

I'd like to see his justification for that excuse.

Go here:
Profile of the labor force by educational attainment

Note that all the data-lines for educational attainment are comparatively flat in the cycle 1992 to 2016. Note that about 27% of students have "some schooling or an Associates Degree" and 24% have a Bachelor's Degree.

Then ask yourself why the stats are so low.

My answer: Because a Tertiary Education in the US is so effing-expensive* ... !

*Meaning this:


PS: I asked my dental-surgeon how much his post-graduate education fees cost him in France. He answered: Just schooling fees were $1500 per year! Room 'n board were extra.

 

how nice that your dentist ripped off the taxpayers. It is very inefficient to have everyone ripping off everyone else because then nobody cares about the value of anything and the overall standard of living goes down not up. This is why France is so poor in fact much like Arkansas In terms of per capita income and Arkansas is about our poorest state.

 

Nope, that 'award' goes to the English!

 

Reagan isn't normally considered a liberal, but if you say so.

 

You mean nothing in terms of policies, laws, regulations, or the actions of organizations can possibly ever have an effect on the earning potential of workers as a group? That doesn't even make sense.

I appreciate you don't like the facts the charts show, and thus you summarily ignore them as "stupid", but your thesis, besides being illogical, doesn't address the facts. It's a baseless scapegoating of working people to justify redistribution of more and more of America's growth income and wealth to the rich and away from the working people who help create it.

Working Americans didn't suddenly start making decisions en masse to stop sharing in the earnings growth in 1981.



Something else happens that year, and if you look into it, you'll see plenty of reasons involving government and industry decisions and policies that contributed to wage stagnation for American workers while more and more of the nation's wealth and income went to the wealthy.

But time and again you've shown your not interest in the truth.

 

70% of the economy is spending. The working middle classes are the engine of spending.

Since the "Reagan trickle down revolution" working middle class incomes have stagnated while virtually all the economic growth has gone to the top 10%, and mostly top 1% and above.

Working middle class people could continue for a while on credit cards and the equity from their homes, but those substitutes are only temporary.

 

This is true Reagan is normally considered one of the great great conservative presidents in American history. And??

 

USA has the lowest fees given that anyone can get a college education free online today. Georgia Tech a very good stem school gives more online stem degrees than on campus degrees.

 

Thank goodness that the top 10% are making such a contribution to the nation's income. Without them, we'd have no growth in our income at all.

 

Online provision cannot replicate the quality, and rates of return, of face to face. Let's not play pretend

 

Georgia Tech would argue the exact oppositeAnd with a savings of $400,000 it’s an idea a new idea and lots and lots of room for improvement so the idea of a college education being yet another welfare program is officially dead and buried. Sorry to rock your old world once again

 

Present me with one empirical study that finds rates of return are comparable.

The Open University has provided online courses for yonks. They are mainly for part time mature students. Even then, face to face provision is a crucial part. Bit obvious really!

Wonder how many silver spoon types think "I won't bother going to Oxbridge, I'll just have a few MOOC clicks". None?

 

Reagan was president and instituted his Reagan "trickle down" revolution in 1981, which is when middle class workers' wages began stagnating while virtually all the economic growth wen to the top incomes.

Reagan's policies were fabulously successful at making the richest richer.

His policies were an utter failure at anything trickling down.

 

Circular argument. And baseless speculation.