You're limiting your assumption to only computers. There can be technological advancements/ innovations in processes and techniques that don't necessarily have anything to do with computers. It's an interesting chart though
Purely guesswork, but I'd say this is a part of it: In a more general sense, the change in the 1980s to the mentality where the mindset shifted more towards a successful Wall Street as opposed to Main Street. There's a whole range of reasons for it, and you see it in all sorts of things like a focus on quarterly results to the skyrocketing pay of CEOs to the the devaluing of "labor", as though it's a bad thing.
In addition, another aspect of this may be benefits vs wages. Health care costs have been skyrocketing, so if hourly workers get benefits, their compensation increases may just be coming primarily in the form of increased cost of benefits as opposed to hourly wages.
Correct. Labor is a dirty word the same people b*Tching about the poor not wanting to work are appalled at the idea of this kids doing similar work Everyone wants their kids to be knowledge workers i.e. lawyers, CEO/Middle Management/ Politicians/ Real Estate/ etc, - basically things that mean pushing information around [the paper pusher is now a button pusher and they are king] Minimum actual physical exertion with the maximum amount of $$$$ Rocket River
1 doin da werk of 25......outsauce da support to india and build da computur in china.......usa werkers more produtave n less payd...
I agree the minimum wage is too low. It's not a living wage, and I'm not too cool with companies paying something that can't even sustain the worker. I'm okay with that meaning fewer jobs. I'm okay with that meaning a low-skilled worker is living on the dole instead killing himself for $7.25/hour.
you socialist commie b*stard!!! j/k... your post sounds reasonable but i would remind you that this country was not built via sharing. however, by the looks of it could be destroyed also by not sharing.
Does this mean you'd be fine with companies that take an operating loss in a given year paying their employees $0, or, better yet, requiring employees to pay the company (proportionately of course) to offset the loss and get them to a fixed profit level?
I agree with this. I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to place an artificial floor on wages particularly from the federal level where there are some pretty big differences in cost of living and prevailing wage rates between the states. Providing more welfare and other benefits I think is a better way of providing for a social safety net than tinkering in the labor market this way. This is one reason why I have come around to the idea of a single payer or public option as a better method of providing health insurance than it is tying it to employment.
This already happens Everytime the union goes into negotiations and gives up some of the pension fund. . . . employees take pay cuts etc etc The don't term it the way you did but . .. it is the same result Rocket River
Not even close to the same. His position is all employee wages should be tied to the profitability of a company directly and he intimated that he'd want rules regulating pay disparity between top paid and lowest paid employees. I'm wondering if he only means that when it benefits an employee. No unions agree to zero wages for a given year if the company takes a loss.
Compete. They can improve their business model or go out of business while smarter and better businesses take their place. Same as businesses that can't pay $7.25 have done, and businesses that couldn't pay $5.75 or whatever it was before that did. Not saying it's ideal, but its part of the price you pay to get the opportunity to use the infrastructure the government provides and access the customers of the US.
