(09-18-2019 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 06:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I thought about my response and would like to add to it...

In addition to 1950's (or 1970's or 1990's) healthcare being dirt cheap, so too would 1970's cars or TVs or computers or even food options. You didn't USED to be able to buy fruit in the winter, you know? Hotels and movie theaters used to ADVERTISE that they had Air Conditioning... and very few 18yr olds used to go rent their own apartments, buy cars, fly to other countries for vacations etc etc etc

As generations pass, the expectations continually rise for the next generation. This isn't unique to your generation nor mine... That's not the cost of living... it's the cost of an increasing standard of living.

Just have to look at real costs over time to see how things have changed with respect to affordability. Costs of card have remained relatively neutral, along with apparel and household furnishings.

While you’re right that increase in quality (for lack of a better word) has increased, at the same time the costs to produce those increases has sometimes increased (see TV technology). So I don’t think it’s so easy to say that cars would be appreciably cheaper without X, because the cost of X may be inconsequential.

https://howmuch.net/articles/price-chang...t-20-years

Actually put your thinking cap on. That is actually baked straight into the definition of real wage. Flat means there is no relative change when indexed for inflation. Inflation is the change in cost of a 'pile of things'.

So you are now bitching that it takes the same relative work to but a hamburger or a car than it did not just 20 years ago that you seemingly like to fking cherry pick to fix it into your 'young people now are screwed' caterwaul, but actually 50 years?

I mean, think about what it takes to do a rising real wage? It kind of really only happens when you have the only factory in town and enjoy the entire fruits of all the people. Kind of like the US between 1940 and 1955.

It means that you are running along so unopposed in the market that you will have such an excess of production that everyone (literally) is employed and the only way to more localized work is to poach your already higher paid neighbors.

Do you *really* think that has existed at any time since, oh, say, the early 1960s? That is, when the flat real wage came into play. I mean globalization shot that ideal right out of the sky, and the only way to boost real wages is to somehow create full employment, massive more local demand for employment, and all without tipping into massive inflation.

When you figure that one out, please do tell. You would get a fing Nobel for that if you could implement that.

Yeah, this is why I stopped contributing and will now.

I am explicitly not doing what you suggest I am in bold.

(09-18-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 06:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I thought about my response and would like to add to it...

In addition to 1950's (or 1970's or 1990's) healthcare being dirt cheap, so too would 1970's cars or TVs or computers or even food options. You didn't USED to be able to buy fruit in the winter, you know? Hotels and movie theaters used to ADVERTISE that they had Air Conditioning... and very few 18yr olds used to go rent their own apartments, buy cars, fly to other countries for vacations etc etc etc

As generations pass, the expectations continually rise for the next generation. This isn't unique to your generation nor mine... That's not the cost of living... it's the cost of an increasing standard of living.

Just have to look at real costs over time to see how things have changed with respect to affordability. Costs of card have remained relatively neutral, along with apparel and household furnishings.

While you’re right that increase in quality (for lack of a better word) has increased, at the same time the costs to produce those increases has sometimes increased (see TV technology). So I don’t think it’s so easy to say that cars would be appreciably cheaper without X, because the cost of X may be inconsequential.

https://howmuch.net/articles/price-chang...t-20-years

Actually put your thinking cap on. That is actually baked straight into the definition of real wage. Flat means there is no relative change when indexed for inflation. Inflation is the change in cost of a 'pile of things'.

So you are now bitching that it takes the same relative work to but a hamburger or a car than it did not just 20 years ago that you seemingly like to fking cherry pick to fix it into your 'young people now are screwed' caterwaul, but actually 50 years?

I mean, think about what it takes to do a rising real wage? It kind of really only happens when you have the only factory in town and enjoy the entire fruits of all the people. Kind of like the US between 1940 and 1955.

It means that you are running along so unopposed in the market that you will have such an excess of production that everyone (literally) is employed and the only way to more localized work is to poach your already higher paid neighbors.

Do you *really* think that has existed at any time since, oh, say, the early 1960s? That is, when the flat real wage came into play. I mean globalization shot that ideal right out of the sky, and the only way to boost real wages is to somehow create full employment, massive more local demand for employment, and all without tipping into massive inflation.

When you figure that one out, please do tell. You would get a fing Nobel for that if you could implement that.

Yeah, this is why I stopped contributing and will now.

I am explicitly not doing what you suggest I am in bold.

I wonder how he thinks electing a Democrat will help the problem he perceives? We have had Democrats in the WH, and Democratic control of Congress lots of times in that time period. I remember the Carter years.

Too bad he could not stand the heat, and like so many other liberals before him, has abdicated the field of battle for a spot in in the ramparts. I would have liked to hear his answer.

Maybe just make it easier to stay at home? make it harder to be successful financially? Good plan.

Republicans are creating jobs. That is their answer. They are helping business grow. Dems want to punish business. Just ask Warren.

Funny the Libs want more civility. I have been civil, but they are running from me anyway. The Libs I saw questioning Lewandowski were anything but civil.

(09-18-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 08:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad is the proponent of the "nothing has changed...ever" school of economic thought.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

From Lad's link.

That data doesn’t account for inflation. The link I provided showed graphs that used the data and did account for inflation.

You sure put a lot of faith in inflation. That graph shows wages up 28.2% in the 10 years plus on the graph.

Now find me something that says inflation is up 28.2% for the same period.

OO - it would probably help your arguments if you actually looked at data. The annual inflation rate over the last 10 years was 1.54% (I think - I did the math mentally). Using that average rate, and compounding it year over year, that is a 16.5% increas based on inflation. But I’ve been talking about decades, not just the last decade, which starts in the middle of the Great Recession (and in a year with deflation) when wages were suppressed. You can run the 20 year numbers - too early for that mental math.

As I said to Tanq, a 3% increase in real wages in 20 years is pretty darn flat. If you want to argue that it isn’t, feel free to.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/in...ion-rates/

Yeah, I have been looking at data, but your sneering superiority is noted.

One article I noted showed that over the exact same period as the graph, inflation was a cumulative 21.2% - lees that the 28.2%, Not sure what stagnation means to an engineer, but it mean to me that wages stayed the same.

Another that I looked at tracked the inflation year for year. For the the three years of Trump's administration, inflation has been steadily down: 1.9, 1.7, 1.5. Wages are steadily up, as noted elsewhere, an average of 2.7%. The lines are diverging. Again, not my idea of stagnation.

But in the end, what does it matter? The stagnation you brought up was an excuse for modern kids to not leave home, to stay with mom and pop. I don't see how that plays. I can't see some 25 YO lying on the couch moaning that it is takes as much in labor to buy a hamburger as it did 45 years ago.

"Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult." - post 8872

And remember, I was there 45 years ago. They weren't lying on the couch then. I wasn't lying on the couch then. But I am glad to hear (thanks!) that I had it easier than kids today. I guess that excuses their ignorance. Such a tough life.

Your thesis would make my dad puke.

I don't see where I said that my analysis excuses anyone from the millenial of Gen Z generations from working hard. All it does it point out a fact that has significant support - I can keep pulling up more articles that support it if you would like me to.

We can look at the data at hand and comment on it, without jumping to conclusions about what I am trying to suggest about my cohort and their motivations. But it seems like you prefer making this a culture war instead and trying to put words in my mouth. Ironically, I think my cohort is incredibly motivated and generally hard working, but I at least recognize that the hand we've been dealt as two generations has some issues that need to be addressed.

I'm sorry that your dad would puke because someone uses hard data collected over 50 years to make an evaluation of the current state of the country, that has been guided by your generation...

Catch y'all on the flip side.

I dont think you understand the definition of real wages and its inherent relationship to costs, either rising or falling.

(09-18-2019 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think you understand the definition of real wages and its inherent relationship to costs, either rising or falling.

I think I do.

Certain costs increase faster or slower as compared to inflation, no?

(09-18-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 06:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I thought about my response and would like to add to it...

In addition to 1950's (or 1970's or 1990's) healthcare being dirt cheap, so too would 1970's cars or TVs or computers or even food options. You didn't USED to be able to buy fruit in the winter, you know? Hotels and movie theaters used to ADVERTISE that they had Air Conditioning... and very few 18yr olds used to go rent their own apartments, buy cars, fly to other countries for vacations etc etc etc

As generations pass, the expectations continually rise for the next generation. This isn't unique to your generation nor mine... That's not the cost of living... it's the cost of an increasing standard of living.

Just have to look at real costs over time to see how things have changed with respect to affordability. Costs of card have remained relatively neutral, along with apparel and household furnishings.

While you’re right that increase in quality (for lack of a better word) has increased, at the same time the costs to produce those increases has sometimes increased (see TV technology). So I don’t think it’s so easy to say that cars would be appreciably cheaper without X, because the cost of X may be inconsequential.

https://howmuch.net/articles/price-chang...t-20-years

Actually put your thinking cap on. That is actually baked straight into the definition of real wage. Flat means there is no relative change when indexed for inflation. Inflation is the change in cost of a 'pile of things'.

So you are now bitching that it takes the same relative work to but a hamburger or a car than it did not just 20 years ago that you seemingly like to fking cherry pick to fix it into your 'young people now are screwed' caterwaul, but actually 50 years?

I mean, think about what it takes to do a rising real wage? It kind of really only happens when you have the only factory in town and enjoy the entire fruits of all the people. Kind of like the US between 1940 and 1955.

It means that you are running along so unopposed in the market that you will have such an excess of production that everyone (literally) is employed and the only way to more localized work is to poach your already higher paid neighbors.

Do you *really* think that has existed at any time since, oh, say, the early 1960s? That is, when the flat real wage came into play. I mean globalization shot that ideal right out of the sky, and the only way to boost real wages is to somehow create full employment, massive more local demand for employment, and all without tipping into massive inflation.

When you figure that one out, please do tell. You would get a fing Nobel for that if you could implement that.

Yeah, this is why I stopped contributing and will now.

I am explicitly not doing what you suggest I am in bold.

Yes you are. Your original comment stated 'stagnant wages and rising costs' and that was the root cause of young people's economic problems. Those words are direct quotes.

The original claim you made is that real wages are falling for such people.

The data you put up seems to contradict that.

Then you say you always meant real wages are stagnant.

That defintionally means that people can buy the same bundle of goods and services for an average hour wage. That is *not* what you originally said. In the slightest.

You do a great 'mix and match' there, but one that is definitionally stupid.

I am really sorry that your data doesnt support your thesis. And you go into your patented lad 'cha cha cha'.

I suggest you look at your original sentence, and your later claim. There is a very large definitional discrepancy in them. And now you get pissed when you are faced with that problem. Got it.

And yes, your comment about the 'woe is me millenials' does exactly what I put there. That is the definition of 'flat real wages'. It means the amount of time worked to get a hamburger is flat. But somehow you have redefined 'flat real wages' as the same thing as 'stagnant wage + rising costs' (i.e. your generational problem). That *isnt* a definition of 'flat real wages'. But now you change the issue from 'stagnant wage + rising costs' and insisting that your sermon is on 'flat real wages'. You seemingly jump at random between the very different ideas.

And yes, when you do that jump, I get very frustrated when you pull that. Perhaps you actually look at what you wrote, and very specifically note the disparity in what you wrote at the two points.

(09-18-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think you understand the definition of real wages and its inherent relationship to costs, either rising or falling.

I think I do.

Certain costs increase faster or slower as compared to inflation, no?

great, we'll do this in baby steps.

Do you understand that your original sentence said "Millenials are so woe is me because there are stagnant wages and rising costs"?

And your answer is actually incorrect. Real wages is the level of average wage indexed to inflation. It compares wages from one year to another in real dollars. Period. Not 'certain costs increase faster or slower', that has nothing to do with it. It is simly one number compared to another, and indexed to a real constant dollar metric.

(09-18-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That data doesn’t account for inflation. The link I provided showed graphs that used the data and did account for inflation.

You sure put a lot of faith in inflation. That graph shows wages up 28.2% in the 10 years plus on the graph.

Now find me something that says inflation is up 28.2% for the same period.

OO - it would probably help your arguments if you actually looked at data. The annual inflation rate over the last 10 years was 1.54% (I think - I did the math mentally). Using that average rate, and compounding it year over year, that is a 16.5% increas based on inflation. But I’ve been talking about decades, not just the last decade, which starts in the middle of the Great Recession (and in a year with deflation) when wages were suppressed. You can run the 20 year numbers - too early for that mental math.

As I said to Tanq, a 3% increase in real wages in 20 years is pretty darn flat. If you want to argue that it isn’t, feel free to.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/in...ion-rates/

Yeah, I have been looking at data, but your sneering superiority is noted.

One article I noted showed that over the exact same period as the graph, inflation was a cumulative 21.2% - lees that the 28.2%, Not sure what stagnation means to an engineer, but it mean to me that wages stayed the same.

Another that I looked at tracked the inflation year for year. For the the three years of Trump's administration, inflation has been steadily down: 1.9, 1.7, 1.5. Wages are steadily up, as noted elsewhere, an average of 2.7%. The lines are diverging. Again, not my idea of stagnation.

But in the end, what does it matter? The stagnation you brought up was an excuse for modern kids to not leave home, to stay with mom and pop. I don't see how that plays. I can't see some 25 YO lying on the couch moaning that it is takes as much in labor to buy a hamburger as it did 45 years ago.

"Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult." - post 8872

And remember, I was there 45 years ago. They weren't lying on the couch then. I wasn't lying on the couch then. But I am glad to hear (thanks!) that I had it easier than kids today. I guess that excuses their ignorance. Such a tough life.

Your thesis would make my dad puke.

I don't see where I said that my analysis excuses anyone from the millenial of Gen Z generations from working hard. All it does it point out a fact that has significant support - I can keep pulling up more articles that support it if you would like me to.

We can look at the data at hand and comment on it, without jumping to conclusions about what I am trying to suggest about my cohort and their motivations. But it seems like you prefer making this a culture war instead and trying to put words in my mouth. Ironically, I think my cohort is incredibly motivated and generally hard working, but I at least recognize that the hand we've been dealt as two generations has some issues that need to be addressed.

I'm sorry that your dad would puke because someone uses hard data collected over 50 years to make an evaluation of the current state of the country, that has been guided by your generation...

Catch y'all on the flip side.

What is the fact that has significant support? Please state it clearly, so we can debate (or agree) in unison.

My dad would puke because he was a Depression guy. he actually had to work, sometimes two or three jobs, to put himself through high school. I don't see that anymore. He would puke because of all the whining of this generation, YOUR generation. Poor babies. maybe the government can make it easy.

Sure is hard for me to see how we (you and me) got from the topic of people passing/not passing the citizenship test to a topic of how tough it is today economically for younger people. I don't think it is that tough. Jobs are opening up. Wages are outpacing inflation. Unemployment is down. Sounds great to me. Sorry you think that is a tough life. Sounds better than five years ago. Sounds better than 50 years ago, when I was in that age group.

Define your "cohort". Rice educated young people? McDonald's workers? unemployment takers? All of the above? None of the above. Lad, i don't doubt you are a hard worker. YOU. Not at all sure about those people who apply at my old plant and don't show up for the first day. Wait a minute, I AM sure. they are not.

(09-18-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That data doesn’t account for inflation. The link I provided showed graphs that used the data and did account for inflation.

You sure put a lot of faith in inflation. That graph shows wages up 28.2% in the 10 years plus on the graph.

Now find me something that says inflation is up 28.2% for the same period.

OO - it would probably help your arguments if you actually looked at data. The annual inflation rate over the last 10 years was 1.54% (I think - I did the math mentally). Using that average rate, and compounding it year over year, that is a 16.5% increas based on inflation. But I’ve been talking about decades, not just the last decade, which starts in the middle of the Great Recession (and in a year with deflation) when wages were suppressed. You can run the 20 year numbers - too early for that mental math.

As I said to Tanq, a 3% increase in real wages in 20 years is pretty darn flat. If you want to argue that it isn’t, feel free to.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/in...ion-rates/

Yeah, I have been looking at data, but your sneering superiority is noted.

One article I noted showed that over the exact same period as the graph, inflation was a cumulative 21.2% - lees that the 28.2%, Not sure what stagnation means to an engineer, but it mean to me that wages stayed the same.

Another that I looked at tracked the inflation year for year. For the the three years of Trump's administration, inflation has been steadily down: 1.9, 1.7, 1.5. Wages are steadily up, as noted elsewhere, an average of 2.7%. The lines are diverging. Again, not my idea of stagnation.

But in the end, what does it matter? The stagnation you brought up was an excuse for modern kids to not leave home, to stay with mom and pop. I don't see how that plays. I can't see some 25 YO lying on the couch moaning that it is takes as much in labor to buy a hamburger as it did 45 years ago.

"Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult." - post 8872

And remember, I was there 45 years ago. They weren't lying on the couch then. I wasn't lying on the couch then. But I am glad to hear (thanks!) that I had it easier than kids today. I guess that excuses their ignorance. Such a tough life.

Your thesis would make my dad puke.

I don't see where I said that my analysis excuses anyone from the millenial of Gen Z generations from working hard. All it does it point out a fact that has significant support - I can keep pulling up more articles that support it if you would like me to.

We can look at the data at hand and comment on it, without jumping to conclusions about what I am trying to suggest about my cohort and their motivations. But it seems like you prefer making this a culture war instead and trying to put words in my mouth. Ironically, I think my cohort is incredibly motivated and generally hard working, but I at least recognize that the hand we've been dealt as two generations has some issues that need to be addressed.

I'm sorry that your dad would puke because someone uses hard data collected over 50 years to make an evaluation of the current state of the country, that has been guided by your generation...

Catch y'all on the flip side.

What hand is that? You first make the comment about 'stagnant wages and rising costs'. That may actually be an issue.

Then you pull out data that pretty much flatly contradicts that -- data that shows 'flat real wages'. Kind of hard to gin up an issue about 'stagnant wages and rising costs' with all the evidence pointing to 'flat real wages'.

Then you change course again, and state that your your entire issue is about 'flat real wages', when in fact your entire first issue was 'stagnant wages and rising costs.'

Okay we get it --- you are butthurt. First about 'falling real wages' for your generation. Then on to 'flat real wages' overall.

At this point I have no effing clue what your point is; first you rant about one thing, then when the data that you pull out doesnt seem to indicate that, you change your position completely.

Finally, you really dont seem really clued in to the what has to happen at the macro scale to gain 'rising real wages', and since you ***** about 'flat real wages', *and* seemingly about 'falling real wages' (that dont seem borne out at all in the data), obne surmises you will *only* be happy with 'rising real wages.'

Something that hasnt happened in 65 years or so. So instead of ranting about the lack of rising wages, put your thinking cap on and ponder *what* environment is the only environment one can have 'rising wages'.

There are three.

First, since the US does not hold the rest of the world by leaps and bounds economically, the events that led to the great real wage rise between 1940 ad 1955 arent going to happen.

Second, we arent coming from a 'sticks and stones' economy that is another precursor for a rise. Contra example: China. The transformation of that economy has resulted in such a rise. How do you suggest we effectuate that type of 'transformation'?

The third is where a once decent real wage has tanked because of depression or other financial shock. The recovery post Depression is a perfect example of that.

So please do tell how to get to rising real wages in your world? I mean, that is the *only* acceptable outcome to you, but none of the preconditions really exist. But it makes great rant points when one can point to 'flat real wages'. Flat real wages arent really an issue for an apex-level economy in this globalist world.

If you stop and think about it, that is.

So, you have bounced all over the map over what your angst is. I pointed that out. OO pointed that out. You keep claiming that isnt what you said.

It *is* what you said. Your words say that explicitly. If that wasnt what you meant to type, then dont get mad at us for using your exact words.

Tanq - where did I ever talk about falling wages?

Look, I get that you're trying to make an issue that doesn't exist, and try and catch me in a gotcha, but it didn't happen. I've been pretty explicit about stagnant wages and rising costs. I then clarified for everyone that I was using real dollars, and already considering inflation into those comparisons. You take that to mean I was contradicting my original statement about stagnant wages and rising costs - but it doesn't, given that the wages and costs I highlighted (education, healthcare, and housing), when taking inflation into consideration, were flat and increasing (respectively). Sorry that you thought I was talking about wages or costs without respect to inflation, I clarified that long ago and have not bounced around at all.

And you can continue to jump onto OO's bandwagon and assign these emotions to my statements, that's your perogarive. It makes for good conversation.

(09-18-2019 12:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You sure put a lot of faith in inflation. That graph shows wages up 28.2% in the 10 years plus on the graph.

Now find me something that says inflation is up 28.2% for the same period.

OO - it would probably help your arguments if you actually looked at data. The annual inflation rate over the last 10 years was 1.54% (I think - I did the math mentally). Using that average rate, and compounding it year over year, that is a 16.5% increas based on inflation. But I’ve been talking about decades, not just the last decade, which starts in the middle of the Great Recession (and in a year with deflation) when wages were suppressed. You can run the 20 year numbers - too early for that mental math.

As I said to Tanq, a 3% increase in real wages in 20 years is pretty darn flat. If you want to argue that it isn’t, feel free to.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/in...ion-rates/

Yeah, I have been looking at data, but your sneering superiority is noted.

One article I noted showed that over the exact same period as the graph, inflation was a cumulative 21.2% - lees that the 28.2%, Not sure what stagnation means to an engineer, but it mean to me that wages stayed the same.

Another that I looked at tracked the inflation year for year. For the the three years of Trump's administration, inflation has been steadily down: 1.9, 1.7, 1.5. Wages are steadily up, as noted elsewhere, an average of 2.7%. The lines are diverging. Again, not my idea of stagnation.

But in the end, what does it matter? The stagnation you brought up was an excuse for modern kids to not leave home, to stay with mom and pop. I don't see how that plays. I can't see some 25 YO lying on the couch moaning that it is takes as much in labor to buy a hamburger as it did 45 years ago.

"Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult." - post 8872

And remember, I was there 45 years ago. They weren't lying on the couch then. I wasn't lying on the couch then. But I am glad to hear (thanks!) that I had it easier than kids today. I guess that excuses their ignorance. Such a tough life.

Your thesis would make my dad puke.

I don't see where I said that my analysis excuses anyone from the millenial of Gen Z generations from working hard. All it does it point out a fact that has significant support - I can keep pulling up more articles that support it if you would like me to.

We can look at the data at hand and comment on it, without jumping to conclusions about what I am trying to suggest about my cohort and their motivations. But it seems like you prefer making this a culture war instead and trying to put words in my mouth. Ironically, I think my cohort is incredibly motivated and generally hard working, but I at least recognize that the hand we've been dealt as two generations has some issues that need to be addressed.

I'm sorry that your dad would puke because someone uses hard data collected over 50 years to make an evaluation of the current state of the country, that has been guided by your generation...

Catch y'all on the flip side.

What hand is that? You first make the comment about 'stagnant wages and rising costs'. That may actually be an issue.

Then you pull out data that pretty much flatly contradicts that -- data that shows 'flat real wages'. Kind of hard to gin up an issue about 'stagnant wages and rising costs' with all the evidence pointing to 'flat real wages'.

Then you change course again, and state that your your entire issue is about 'flat real wages', when in fact your entire first issue was 'stagnant wages and rising costs.'

Okay we get it --- you are butthurt. First about 'falling real wages' for your generation. Then on to 'flat real wages' overall.

At this point I have no effing clue what your point is; first you rant about one thing, then when the data that you pull out doesnt seem to indicate that, you change your position completely.

Finally, you really dont seem really clued in to the what has to happen at the macro scale to gain 'rising real wages', and since you ***** about 'flat real wages', *and* seemingly about 'falling real wages' (that dont seem borne out at all in the data), obne surmises you will *only* be happy with 'rising real wages.'

Something that hasnt happened in 65 years or so. So instead of ranting about the lack of rising wages, put your thinking cap on and ponder *what* environment is the only environment one can have 'rising wages'.

There are three.

First, since the US does not hold the rest of the world by leaps and bounds economically, the events that led to the great real wage rise between 1940 ad 1955 arent going to happen.

Second, we arent coming from a 'sticks and stones' economy that is another precursor for a rise. Contra example: China. The transformation of that economy has resulted in such a rise. How do you suggest we effectuate that type of 'transformation'?

The third is where a once decent real wage has tanked because of depression or other financial shock. The recovery post Depression is a perfect example of that.

So please do tell how to get to rising real wages in your world? I mean, that is the *only* acceptable outcome to you, but none of the preconditions really exist. But it makes great rant points when one can point to 'flat real wages'. Flat real wages arent really an issue for an apex-level economy in this globalist world.

If you stop and think about it, that is.

So, you have bounced all over the map over what your angst is. I pointed that out. OO pointed that out. You keep claiming that isnt what you said.

It *is* what you said. Your words say that explicitly. If that wasnt what you meant to type, then dont get mad at us for using your exact words.

To your last three points - all valid points on why we shouldn't expect to see real wage growth similar to the years immediately following WWII. I'd point you to the FT article I sent for some analysis as to why we shouldn't be seeing the stagnation at the bottom while we see growth at the top.

Quote:So why is the economy not delivering? The answer lies, in large part, with the rise of rentier capitalism. In this case “rent” means rewards over and above those required to induce the desired supply of goods, services, land or labour. “Rentier capitalism” means an economy in which market and political power allows privileged individuals and businesses to extract a great deal of such rent from everybody else.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470...7ebd53ab77

(09-18-2019 01:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq - where did I ever talk about falling wages?

Look, I get that you're trying to make an issue that doesn't exist, and try and catch me in a gotcha, but it didn't happen. I've been pretty explicit about stagnant wages and rising costs. I then clarified for everyone that I was using real dollars, and already considering inflation into those comparisons. You take that to mean I was contradicting my original statement about stagnant wages and rising costs - but it doesn't, given that the wages and costs I highlighted (education, healthcare, and housing), when taking inflation into consideration, were flat and increasing (respectively). Sorry that you thought I was talking about wages or costs without respect to inflation, I clarified that long ago and have not bounced around at all.

And you can continue to jump onto OO's bandwagon and assign these emotions to my statements, that's your perogarive. It makes for good conversation.

But wages aren't flat, unless you reach back to a time when today's kid's parents were in diapers.

Shorten your horizon a bit - 10 year, 5, 3. In each one, wages are outpacing inflation.

Some things may be more expensive that they were a long time ago. Others are cheaper.

A color TV 45 years was a major and expensive purchase. Nowaways, not so much. But back then, it was not considered a necessity, nor was it in homes designated as poverty stricken.

Health care was expensive, in a way. Because when you saw a doctor, they did not ask for your insurance, they asked for $15 up front - about ten hours wages.

Education is more expensive than it used to - because we have easy financing. Less people going to college, without financing, like it was 45 years ago, and costs will come down.

Housing, probably about the same. I did what I needed to do to buy my first house and pay for it. I did not expect the government to make it cheaper so that everybody could live in my neighborhood cheaply.

(09-18-2019 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your last three points - all valid points on why we shouldn't expect to see real wage growth similar to the years immediately following WWII. I'd point you to the FT article I sent for some analysis as to why we shouldn't be seeing the stagnation at the bottom while we see growth at the top.

Quote:So why is the economy not delivering? The answer lies, in large part, with the rise of rentier capitalism. In this case “rent” means rewards over and above those required to induce the desired supply of goods, services, land or labour. “Rentier capitalism” means an economy in which market and political power allows privileged individuals and businesses to extract a great deal of such rent from everybody else.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470...7ebd53ab77

I would invite you for once, for just once if that is your deal, to look at it from the point of view of the supply/investment side of the economy. If I'm on that side, my job is to maximize profits/ROI. That means, among other things, that if A is a lower-cost option than B, then I should usually go with A.

A lot of the wage stagnation is not so much because individual wages are stagnant as it is because the composition of the labor market is changing. More expensive workers are being replaced either by overseas workers (as jobs move offshore) or by robots or other AI applications.

(09-18-2019 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq - where did I ever talk about falling wages?

Look, I get that you're trying to make an issue that doesn't exist, and try and catch me in a gotcha, but it didn't happen. I've been pretty explicit about stagnant wages and rising costs. I then clarified for everyone that I was using real dollars, and already considering inflation into those comparisons. You take that to mean I was contradicting my original statement about stagnant wages and rising costs - but it doesn't, given that the wages and costs I highlighted (education, healthcare, and housing), when taking inflation into consideration, were flat and increasing (respectively). Sorry that you thought I was talking about wages or costs without respect to inflation, I clarified that long ago and have not bounced around at all.

And you can continue to jump onto OO's bandwagon and assign these emotions to my statements, that's your perogarive. It makes for good conversation.

But wages aren't flat, unless you reach back to a time when today's kid's parents were in diapers.

Shorten your horizon a bit - 10 year, 5, 3. In each one, wages are outpacing inflation.

Some things may be more expensive that they were a long time ago. Others are cheaper.

A color TV 45 years was a major and expensive purchase. Nowaways, not so much. But back then, it was not considered a necessity, nor was it in homes designated as poverty stricken.

Health care was expensive, in a way. Because when you saw a doctor, they did not ask for your insurance, they asked for $15 up front - about ten hours wages.

Education is more expensive than it used to - because we have easy financing. Less people going to college, without financing, like it was 45 years ago, and costs will come down.

Housing, probably about the same. I did what I needed to do to buy my first house and pay for it. I did not expect the government to make it cheaper so that everybody could live in my neighborhood cheaply.

But why would we look at such a short horizon? Looking at such a small horizon isn't a good idea because of the recession. The value there is that we're seeing wage growth from a bottom, and we can hope to see that trajectory continue. So sure, there are signs of optimism in that fact.

It's the same issue with looking at unemployment from 2009 - you can talk about the current trend, but not about how employment is holistically - you need to look further back.

100% that some things are cheaper - TVs are a great example of a good that has gotten cheaper in real dollars. But TVs being cheaper doesn't do much to offset the increase, in real costs, of medical care, housing, and education. We can debate how to address those issues, or what has lead to those increases, but I see no value in trying to deny that they happened, or how people coped with those costs in the 50s, 60s, and 70s...

(09-18-2019 01:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your last three points - all valid points on why we shouldn't expect to see real wage growth similar to the years immediately following WWII. I'd point you to the FT article I sent for some analysis as to why we shouldn't be seeing the stagnation at the bottom while we see growth at the top.

Quote:So why is the economy not delivering? The answer lies, in large part, with the rise of rentier capitalism. In this case “rent” means rewards over and above those required to induce the desired supply of goods, services, land or labour. “Rentier capitalism” means an economy in which market and political power allows privileged individuals and businesses to extract a great deal of such rent from everybody else.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470...7ebd53ab77

I would invite you for once, for just once if that is your deal, to look at it from the point of view of the supply/investment side of the economy. If I'm on that side, my job is to maximize profits. That means, among other things, that if A is a lower-cost option than B, then I should usually go with A.

A lot of the wage stagnation is not so much because individual wages are stagnant as it is because the composition of the labor market is changing. More expensive workers are being replaced either by overseas workers (as jobs move offshore) or by robots or other AI applications.

Oh I totally get that - read the FT article, it talks about the influence of share prices and how they're affected by costs, in the general dampening of wages.

I don't see how me stating a problem (unless you're saying people generally having stagnant wages isn't a problem), is akin to not understanding why it has happened.

(09-18-2019 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your last three points - all valid points on why we shouldn't expect to see real wage growth similar to the years immediately following WWII. I'd point you to the FT article I sent for some analysis as to why we shouldn't be seeing the stagnation at the bottom while we see growth at the top.

Quote:So why is the economy not delivering? The answer lies, in large part, with the rise of rentier capitalism. In this case “rent” means rewards over and above those required to induce the desired supply of goods, services, land or labour. “Rentier capitalism” means an economy in which market and political power allows privileged individuals and businesses to extract a great deal of such rent from everybody else.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470...7ebd53ab77

I would invite you for once, for just once if that is your deal, to look at it from the point of view of the supply/investment side of the economy. If I'm on that side, my job is to maximize profits. That means, among other things, that if A is a lower-cost option than B, then I should usually go with A.
A lot of the wage stagnation is not so much because individual wages are stagnant as it is because the composition of the labor market is changing. More expensive workers are being replaced either by overseas workers (as jobs move offshore) or by robots or other AI applications.

Oh I totally get that - read the FT article, it talks about the influence of share prices and how they're affected by costs, in the general dampening of wages.
I don't see how me stating a problem (unless you're saying people generally having stagnant wages isn't a problem), is akin to not understanding why it has happened.

I'm saying it's a different problem from the one you are implying.

Let's say we have 100 workers making $40/hour and 100 workers making $10/hour. The average wage is $25/hour. Now let's say we increase everybody 10%, the $40/hour worker goes to $44, the $10/hour worker goes to $11, the overall average goes up 10% as well, to $27.50.

But suppose the composition of the labor force changes. Let's say 20 of the 100 jobs at $44/hour move to Germany, and we add 20 jobs at $11/hour. Now everybody at $44 and everybody at $11 got a 10% raise individually, but the average for the economy as a whole is [(80 x $44) + (120 x $11)]/200, or ($3520+$1320)/200=$4840/200=$24.20, so the average for the total population actually went down, even though each individual got a 10% raise.

As various economic incentives have caused us to move jobs overseas (and yes the $3/day third world country workers are a factor, but they are replacing the $10 workers, not the $40 workers) we get a dampening effect on wage growth. The solution IMO is to make the USA an economic Mecca for high-end jobs. But so far we are not doing that.

(09-18-2019 02:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your last three points - all valid points on why we shouldn't expect to see real wage growth similar to the years immediately following WWII. I'd point you to the FT article I sent for some analysis as to why we shouldn't be seeing the stagnation at the bottom while we see growth at the top.

Quote:So why is the economy not delivering? The answer lies, in large part, with the rise of rentier capitalism. In this case “rent” means rewards over and above those required to induce the desired supply of goods, services, land or labour. “Rentier capitalism” means an economy in which market and political power allows privileged individuals and businesses to extract a great deal of such rent from everybody else.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470...7ebd53ab77

I would invite you for once, for just once if that is your deal, to look at it from the point of view of the supply/investment side of the economy. If I'm on that side, my job is to maximize profits. That means, among other things, that if A is a lower-cost option than B, then I should usually go with A.
A lot of the wage stagnation is not so much because individual wages are stagnant as it is because the composition of the labor market is changing. More expensive workers are being replaced either by overseas workers (as jobs move offshore) or by robots or other AI applications.

Oh I totally get that - read the FT article, it talks about the influence of share prices and how they're affected by costs, in the general dampening of wages.
I don't see how me stating a problem (unless you're saying people generally having stagnant wages isn't a problem), is akin to not understanding why it has happened.

I'm saying it's a different problem from the one you are implying.

Let's say we have 100 workers making $40/hour and 100 workers making $10/hour. The average wage is $25/hour. Now let's say we increase everybody 10%, the $40/hour worker goes to $44, the $10/hour worker goes to $11, the overall average goes up 10% as well, to $27.50.

But suppose the composition of the labor force changes. Let's say 20 of the 100 jobs at $44/hour move to Germany, and we add 20 jobs at $11/hour. Now everybody at $44 and everybody at $11 got a 10% raise individually, but the average for the economy as a whole is [(80 x $44) + (120 x $11)]/200, or ($3520+$1320)/200=$4840/200=$24.20, so the average for the total population actually went down, even though each individual got a 10% raise.

As various economic incentives have caused us to move jobs overseas (and yes the $3/day third world country workers are a factor, but they are replacing the $10 workers, not the $40 workers) we get a dampening effect on wage growth. The solution IMO is to make the USA an economic Mecca for high-end jobs. But so far we are not doing that.

Not sure what you think that I'm implying with my statements, so it's hard for me to respond.

I agree with your thrust about trying to find ways to get companies to bring high-paying jobs to the US, as they have moved away because labor is an easy place to cut costs, and C-suite executives have a major incentive to cut costs.

(09-18-2019 01:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq - where did I ever talk about falling wages?

Look, I get that you're trying to make an issue that doesn't exist, and try and catch me in a gotcha, but it didn't happen. I've been pretty explicit about stagnant wages and rising costs. I then clarified for everyone that I was using real dollars, and already considering inflation into those comparisons.

Great, thank you for clearing that up. No it was *not* clear. I suggest you be a tad more precise.

The better way to say it is 'stagnant wages and rising *selected* costs'. Sorry I am not prescient -- I dont magically read limiting adjectives into unmodified nouns for the most part.

Quote:You take that to mean I was contradicting my original statement about stagnant wages and rising costs - but it doesn't, given that the wages and costs I highlighted (education, healthcare, and housing), when taking inflation into consideration, were flat and increasing (respectively). Sorry that you thought I was talking about wages or costs without respect to inflation, I clarified that long ago and have not bounced around at all.

Well to be blunt, I have already jumped on you about cherry picking education previously. And you got somewhat defensive about that.

And yes, education costs are a problem. No doubt. That is precisely what happens when large wads of free or low cost debt enters into any market. I have never been in favor of the wads of cash debt thrown at education. Learned that 35 years ago with real estate and never to buy into a market with low interest.

The other two arent exclusively 'millennial issues'. Housing and health are common across age groups. If you want to blunt about it, health issues to millennials are pikers compared to older age groups. I wouldnt stake your battleground there, to be honest. Nor to housing.

And also to be blunt, with the exception of education, every single issue that you point out as being 'oh so woe is me' and owned by the millennials and the like the way that the societal guilt of slavery is still owned and held like sword by the African American community, the experiences of the millenials have zero difference with *any* other group that faced either a systemic or localized economic downturn. Zero.

Yep, 2008 sucked. I found myself without a job, and wondering where in the hell I was going to get my bills paid. Not the first time in my life that happened. Sometimes much earlier in my life even worse economic headwinds.

So yes, I sympathize with the plight of the millennials because of 2008. I also sympathize with literally 20 some odd % of the legal profession that got cast aside for at least a couple of years. Many older ones a lot longer. Many my age will *never* work in a W2 position in the legal industry ever.

I also sympathize with the vast number of financial industry people that got sidelined. Many permanently because of it.

But no, I do not empathize with your millenial woes because they have these unique and 'special' circumstances. 2008 sucked rocks --- big fat hairy ones. For LOTS of people. Just like 1983 sucked serious rocks for anyone in petrochemical or oil exploration. Or for any number of similar situations across the years.

Quote:And you can continue to jump onto OO's bandwagon and assign these emotions to my statements, that's your perogarive. It makes for good conversation.

How else do you explain this passage:

Quote:\
but I at least recognize that the hand we've been dealt as two generations has some issues that need to be addressed.

What 'hand' has been 'dealt'? Who 'screwed' you all? What is this group 'owed'? I mean lad, that is the language of very deep seated angst. But seriously, what exactly is seemingly 'owed', to 'whom' and by 'whom'?

There is an emotion within that language there that seemingly owns a deep-seated level of 'something' being entitled, what exactly is is that?

And you have to admit, that language is *pure* emotion, there is nothing objective in slightest about it. So please dont chide me on addressing that emotional element when items like that are thrown in with the rest.

(09-18-2019 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not sure what you think that I'm implying with my statements, so it's hard for me to respond.
I agree with your thrust about trying to find ways to get companies to bring high-paying jobs to the US, as they have moved away because labor is an easy place to cut costs, and C-suite executives have a major incentive to cut costs.

You were talking about stagnant wages, or at I least I thought you were. And I was merely pointing out that stagnant average wages do not necessarily mean stagnant individual wages.

(09-18-2019 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not sure what you think that I'm implying with my statements, so it's hard for me to respond.
I agree with your thrust about trying to find ways to get companies to bring high-paying jobs to the US, as they have moved away because labor is an easy place to cut costs, and C-suite executives have a major incentive to cut costs.

You were talking about stagnant wages, or at I least I thought you were. And I was merely pointing out that stagnant average wages do not necessarily mean stagnant individual wages.

Not sure I see the difference - average wage is stagnant, right? Is there an appreciable reason it matters if, say all wages stagnated, versus their being a bifurcation of wages? One up and one down?

In your example, the bifurcation is still causing issues as that would mean those making the decreasing wages would be losing purchasing power - not an ideal place to be.

To be clear, I have not gotten into the weeds on how the real wages have stagnated and whether the bifurcation exists, so I have no strong opinion formed on that issue.