It's not survival of the fittest at all. Let's go historical to illustrate the point.... Folk today see the Luddites as anti technology. In fact they were highly skilled and at the forefront of technology. They chose direct action because of wage reductions and significant reduction in living standards. They're essentially an example of the flawed nature of capitalism, where gains from technical progress are unfairly skewed in favour of employer.
Both the employer and employee benefit. Without the employer benefitting, there will be no employees. And, those who cannot compete will disappear over time...survival of the fittest...
100% impossible of course, if unfair workers would quit and work for employer who was being most fair or become employers themselves.
1) USA is world's policeman( last hope for freedom on earth) and savior of civilization on earth so needs huge military 2) getting stolen medical and education makes the French lazy wine and cheese slugs which is why Silicon Valley is in USA and why France has per capita GDP less the Arkansas about our poorest state.
That productivity and wages are increasingly divorced shows otherwise. That the Luddites demonstrate that this isn't a new phenomena gives the game away somewhat...
Patent sarcasm. You really do not know the first principles of debating: You need to work very much on Item 3 above ...
I very much stand by my assertion that you have completely failed to address the opening post in this thread. If your contention is that the United States is much more unequal than other countries then you have provided plenty of evidence to support that view. The trouble is that the opening post in this thread contained a link to an Economist article which: Contained a graph comparing GDP growth to per capita household income growth Showed that in the US and Canada per capita household income growth outstripped GDP growth Showed that in several major EU countries, the reverse was true Opined that household income (and I suppose by extension per capita household income) was a better measure of personal financial wellbeing than GDP You clearly thought the article sufficiently important or significant to warrant a thread so what was is about that data that you found so compelling, and what do you think that it showed ? As far as I can see, that particular data sends a mixed message in that the countries with the greatest levels of inequality (the US and UK) are at opposite ends of the measure chosen by the Economist.
Fancy referring to one empirical study that finds Chinese wages reflect productivity levels? Good luck.
Why must productivity and wages parallel each other? Higher productivity means greater prosperity and higher compensation but there's nothing that demands wages need to match productivity gains...
Sounds like you don't understand supply and demand. Labour demand is given by productivity criteria, by definition.
So...when technology and automation eliminated the need for most of the phone operators, technology that obviously made communications more productive, that the sudden higher supply of ex-phone operators as compared to demand for these workers, did not tend to lower their potential wages?
Want to answer your question? Draw yourself a downward sloping demand and upward sloping supply. Manipulate accordingly!
does the old world libcommie feel in his heart that skyrocketing Chinese wages are due to increasing or decreasing productivity levels?? Sad!
it's the iron law of capitalism that requires wealth to be spread. As a workers get more productive employers earns more money and can then afford to pay more for workers. If they don't someone will and thus take away all the best workers. Under Republican capitalism a employer must offer the best jobs and products possible just to survive.
maybe at first but there is still work to be done and those who are retrained for it will extract more pay from employers who have higher earners with which to compete for workers. This is why minimum wage is $10. not $1.
So you cant actually refer to one study that finds Chinese worker wages reflect productivity. Gosh, what a surprise!
Right! That's about as far as you can see! Because it is as far as you want to see. Moving right along ...
Well that's what the article showed. The US had the greatest growth in household income per person compared to GDP growth, the UK had the lowest growth in household income per person compared to GDP growth. What more was there to see ? Why are you so reluctant to talk about an article that you linked to, and quoted from, in the first post in this thread ?
Love the argument about nothing! All we know is that GDP, being nothing more than an accounting measure, is a poor measure. GDP growth, for numerous reasons, can coincide with reductions in living standards. Naff all can be said about income inequality across The Economist's prattle. There are too many variables at play. There is no mixed message.
It's the DISTRIBUTION of income that matters, not the magnitude! See the Gini Index here: Look at the upper four lines in the graphic. Only Brazil and Mexico have higher indices. Do you get it ... ? PS: What does the Gini Index measure ? This:
Yes, I get that the US is unequal, and that compared to other developed economies it is exceptionally so. The GINI index measures inequality and depending on whether it is applied to income or wealth it is a measure of income or wealth inequality. I'm trying to understand how any of this relates to the Economist article you linked to and quoted in the first post in this thread which: Compared the rate of household income per person growth to GDP growth in six economies Pointed out that in the US and Canada the rate of household income per person growth exceeded GDP growth and that in the EU countries the opposite was true Stated that household income growth was a better measure of financial well being than GDP growth
Point is productivity greatly increased yet wages went down due to over supply of labor in that industry. Like I keep saying...wages do not need to parallel productivity...
