Fundamental necessities of any economic system

Indeed, couldn't agree more, and the "job creator" class destroyed, intentionally, the link between worker productivity and worker compensation.
Workers produced much more, but typical workers’ pay lagged far behindDisconnect between productivity and typical worker’s compensation, 1948–2013


Note: Data are for compensation (wages and benefits) of production/nonsupervisory workers in the private sector and net productivity of the total economy. "Net productivity" is the growth of output of goods and services less depreciation per hour worked.

Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis data

http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

 

These aren't economic systems. You want a moral forced upon others through the police powers that you beg your rulers to utilize on your behalf.

 

socialized losses?? bankers got loans which they paid back? Why is that a socialized loss? Do you have any idea?

 

I think anyone who paid attention understands, thanks.

 

Of course thats 100% impossible. If workers are more productive employers must more, if they don't some employers will and they will get all the best workers. Welcome to your first lesson in capitalism 101. Employers must provide the best jobs and products just to survive. That is the beauty of Republican capitalism.

 

translation: someone told me to say it so I did but I have no idea what it means. I am a typical liberal.

 

That certainly does sound lovely doesn't it now.

Workers produced much more, but typical workers’ pay lagged far behind
Disconnect between productivity and typical worker’s compensation, 1948–2013
Year Hourly compensation Productivity



Note: Data are for compensation (wages and benefits) of production/nonsupervisory workers in the private sector and net productivity of the total economy. "Net productivity" is the growth of output of goods and services less depreciation per hour worked.

Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis data
http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

 

As long as you have a label to sling, you don't have to pay attention.

 

if productivity is up an pay down it can only be because liberals interfered with capitalism. Invite 30 million liberal illegals in and that drives down wages. Do you understand?

 

translation: I have no idea what socialized losses means, someone told me to say it so I did

 

Right, liberals. Well then, everything should be fine now. Let's watch how this all goes shall we? Unsustainable. Watch. And as long as we have someone to blame we can all escape any and all responsibility.

So the "liberals" have been in continual control in the US since 1973, interesting.

Workers produced much more, but typical workers’ pay lagged far behind
Disconnect between productivity and typical worker’s compensation, 1948–2013
Year Hourly compensation Productivity



Note: Data are for compensation (wages and benefits) of production/nonsupervisory workers in the private sector and net productivity of the total economy. "Net productivity" is the growth of output of goods and services less depreciation per hour worked.

Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis data
http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

 

why should it be fine now? Liberals don't want the wall or to restrict illegals who come in and vote for them. Further, liberals want the highest corporate tax in the world to drive out our corporations and jobs to China. Now do you understand?

 

Thanks, very important bit of information ...

Productivity has increased because of high investment in automation-systems at the base level of manufacturing. But, Manufacturing is a minor portion of "hourly compensation" in the national workforce (around 12%). The Service Industries will be seeing not before long a rise in hourly compensation. But certainly not tomorrow.

Could this eventually lead to an inflationary rise in product/services costs. Yes, indeed.

But will it? As with most inflation we must wait-'n-see. Politically this is a godsend for Donald Dork because voters innocently-but-wrongly appreciate politicians by means of whether they (consumers) are living "good times or bad times" just because the politicos are in office.

Ya gotta blame somewun ... ! (Finger pointing is a national sport all over the world ...)

 

Where do you get this garbage?

The purpose of an economic system is to provide a construct by which labor, products abd currency are traded. Thats it. There are different types of ec9homic systems, but they all have the same purpose.

 

LACK OF SUFFICIENT MEANS

Control? I don't automatically apportion blame/success on a timeline basis.

There are hundreds of factors that enter into the consideration.

For me, the most important is Poverty. And its timeline shows no improvement whatsoever regardless of the figure-head in the Oval Office:

Above, we are looking at a Census-Bureau history of poverty that goes back more than half a century. Right, it was worse before 1970. But since it has been stagnantly stubborn at around 14%.

And I keep wondering Why? We graduate more tertiary-level degree people than most other countries.

There must be something else causing the resistance to lower levels of poverty, but admittedly, I don't know what.

Unless it is the lack of sufficient means directed expressly at those below that line. We are only graduating around half of our kids out of tertiary-level education. So, again, we are back to lack-of-sufficient-skills to get employed at a better-paid job*.

Can't we try harder as a nation ... ?

*We had a Golden Opportunity with Hillary's promise to install Tertiary-level Schooling subsidies (100% of cost in a state-school, I think) for all families below an income level of $100K. Which is twice the median individual US salary of around $50K. And we flubbed it.

 

Of course theres no change in poverty. Thats because you cant regulate or legislate work ethic. All politicians do is hand out more money to the parasites.

 

Census Bureau Report "Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015" resumé:

Note:
*The above serves to understand what part of the working population have the credentials mentioned.
*But it does not detail how many today are seeking and obtaining those credentials.
*Moreover, it does not say how many and where are not graduating with at least a high-school degree.
*Meaning what?
(1)That we should have more and better research to understand how to get the students through high-school. How do we keep them there through graduation?
(2)We, as a nation, should be considering as we did a century ago to grant all children a free - or as least expensive as humanly possible - tertiary-level education (vocational/associates degree/bachelors degree/or more). Secondary-schooling is just a bare minimum and certainly not good enough for a really decent job at decent pay ...

PS: Why are we spending 54% of our Discretionary Budget on the DoD? Defense of what, the world? We owe our kids more a foundational education than the world its "peace" for which far enough American blood already has been spilt!.

 

Here is a single example of a socialized loss.

If the state pays it's retired workers pension from a fund that invests in the private sector and people in the private sector handling those funds are reckless and the fund loses money to the point that the state no longer has the money to pay pensions, that is an example of a socialized loss. Unless the companies repaying loans are repaying them to the people that lost assets and equity as a result of reckless immoral behavior on the part of, for example, large investment banks, then the loss is socialized as the money lost by the lower and middle classes but gains were privatized as the money lost by pensioners (again as an example) didn't vanish, it was "earned" by someone, usually those at the very top.

Now if those earnings were productive in the sense that the trillions of dollars lost was just re-invested back into the economy, we'd have a circle and money would have simply been displaced. But that's not what we saw. Money was redistributed from the middle class to the upper classes, but that money wasn't re-spent into the kinds of investments that put people to work.

The move away from dividends on productive work and into speculation began in the late 1960's. Derivatives are essentially claims-on-claims and do almost nothing to drive value into our economy in the form of real productive output.

 

Your beloved non-“liberals” are in control, again, … make a decision. If you honestly believe "the other" side is responsible for something detrimental, that something should take on a different trajectory once "your" side has taken over/is in power. I fully realize your/our political system filled you with this propagandized nonsense that no matter what happens, the “other” side is always at fault, but when one party is in power and things continue to slide in the same societally detrimental direction, then the “neither” party/side of the aristocracy is doing anything about the trend as it pertains to "we the people". So feel free to blame everything on “the other” side if you like, most americans do. Which is why nothing ever changes and “neither” side has to ever truly address anything.

Again sir, via your argument, "the liberals" would have to have been in control from 1973-2013 to explain the graph below.

You're dead wrong, but in our first season of Reality America, what you would like to believe is more relevant than objective verifiable reality.

Workers produced much more, but typical workers’ pay lagged far behind
Disconnect between productivity and typical worker’s compensation, 1948–2013
Year Hourly compensation Productivity



Note: Data are for compensation (wages and benefits) of production/nonsupervisory workers in the private sector and net productivity of the total economy. "Net productivity" is the growth of output of goods and services less depreciation per hour worked.

Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis data
http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

 

Much of our so called wealth generation is of this nature now, financials chicanery, non-productive. It is a beautiful arrangement for the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class. No little people emplyees required. 'Course that has detrimental societal implications, but hey, **** the people, we have the Chinese, Indians and others for mass consumption now.

There is good reason speculators were once hanged by the neck until dead.

 

obviously not!!!

If conservatives were in control the wall would be up, 30 million illegals would be shipped out, the corporate tax would be eliminated and we'd have huge huge huge upward pressure on wages to correspond with productivity increases.

Communist think their lies are not easily exposed!

 

capitalism is based on speculation. Amazon started out speculating on on-line book selling. Pure speculation that is now transforming the world. No communist bureaucrat could have predicted it or any other major industry. Now you know why the USSR did not produce one single consumer product innovation.

 

goofy of course. Apple is biggest company in world and not financial as are most of our biggest companies. Care to try again?

 

wrong of course he as a typical liberal was referring to "banksters" who he thinks got bailed out in housing financial crisis.

 

This is all lies actually. Most new millionaires are tech startups and growth within tech companies.