Why is this allowed?

Computers are definitely a factor here, probably the largest factor, my question is why the workers do not see any benefit to computerization and automation at all considering they do either the same amount of work or more, do much more efficient work, yet see no benefit whatsoever for their increase in productivity.

Obviously the increased profit as a result of this increased productivity goes somewhere, and I think it's fair to say we all know (((where))) this profit is going.

Why exactly, in this case, is Cred Forums so opposed to raising the minimum wage, or pursuing some general goal of lowering this gap between productivity and worker compensation by another means? Obviously there is money being kept from the workers, roughly enough money to bridge the gap between worker productivity and compensation, so why is it wrong to seek to fix this problem?

Workers are being ripped off, there is absolutely no other explanation for this phenomenon, but there seems to be some strange reluctance to admit this on the right.

>Both of these are proven to increase the overall productivity and wealth.

the overall productivity did increase. The wealth increased, but the buyers have transferred monetary power to those who own the machines and the gateway to the third world.

>Why are the profits from this massive increase in productivity not being reflected in worker buying power at all?
Outsourcing.

supply and demand.

Just look at all the inflation the gold standard suppressed!

Nixon abandoned the Bretton Woods gold agreement in 1971.

This makes FAR more sense if you include the increasing female participation in the workforce.

>time.com/4327419/american-capitalisms-great-crisis/

>By their estimates and others, around 15% of capital coming from financial institutions today is used to fund business investments, whereas it would have been the majority of what banks did earlier in the 20th century.

>banks keeping money to themselves and the money usually never gets a chance to be used in real reality and never gets used in anything of substance to be used by living human kind.

>banks really are cancer

You see on the OP picture that the divide between wealth and productivity started long, long before the globalization rushes (1989 and 2001).

The West shifted from goods production to services i.e. low added value BS and usury

is the "productivity" inflated by banks and doesn't reflect real value?

it's called (((capitalism))) goyim, now go back to work

Because both parties are working to destroy the middle class

I think the lower class would much rather become middle class than destroy it entirely.

>Why is this allowed?

Because Capitalism wills it, and Capitalist ideas are the ones that have been adopted by those in power.

In a sense, but at the same time it's more complicated.

Let's say that the DAX, which is 17 times higher than in 1980, doesn't mean the German industry became 17 times more productive since then.

yes BS "Service(TM)" jobs, also considering that the majority of what banks would fund from 1900 to 1950 were funding and INVESTING into new businesses and new ideas and oppertunties and now only 15% compared to the majority of it in the past is going into that kind of thing these days while the other 85% is swirling around and inflating around inside the bank chambers ready to be "gambled" by the bankers. service economy is a joke and laughable, doing a service job which are basically useless non production jobs or busybody work or door-greeter jobs. "welcome to cost-co i love you" etc etc. or cashier jobs. all these service jobs are utterly trash garbage jobs that take no expertise and only require training to know how to do something day after day after day doing the exact same thing you did prior could EASILY be replaced by a robot if it were programmed to handle the required service.

you had to take it from the rich point of view though, they feel better about themselves when everyone who's not them is eating out of tin cans, shivering in the cold barely affording heating, and eating bugs.

neoliberalism happened

the first part of your answer implies that this is a development of capitalism, i agree.
i disagree with those in power adopting capitalist ideas. i would argue that capitalism puts those in power who are able to accumulate capital, and these peoples' natural interest is the continuation of the status quo

>all these service jobs are utterly trash garbage jobs

There's not a single wealthy country where the majority of jobs are in the industry. No, not even China.

It's unironically the Jews.

Late 60s is when corporate finance became a thing.

Jews were into neoliberalism, late 60s is also when the Jews born in the US after WW2 immigration came of age and had assimilated fully. This is when people started considering Jews as "white".

There are lots of articles about this if you study Jewish history. Jews suddenly had a shit ton of money and they protected their assets, because who wouldn't?

Interesting to hear that from a Chilean.

A minimum wage won't solve the issue
It will just push some businesses out of the market while also making automation a cheaper alternative
It causes a price floor between wages and labor causing a labor surplus aka unemployment

Elimination of gold standard
Mass immigration
Unlimited printing of money

Doesn't take a genius to figure out

yeah, well, I'm probably one of the few chileans that actually reads history books

So what is the proposition for solving this problem? It is clear that wages are becoming increasingly unable to keep up with rising costs of living, especially when it comes to making rent or buying a house (as unrealistic as that is now these days).

A single working man used to be able to afford a house, a car, and a proper living for his family on an average wage, but it is becoming impossible in the modern age for a man to be able to even afford living alone, without a car, sharing a rented apartment with roommates on an average wage. Things are quite clearly getting worse, so what is the solution here? We are working for seemingly nothing, we can not save, we have nothing to invest, we are all in debt for one reason or another and rent is rising, the situation really is dire for many people in North America.

I know this is a difficult thing for Cred Forums to understand because I know many of you are middle-upper or upper class here, but in the lower rungs of society things are quickly falling apart and I am not sure if there is even a solution being proposed. When I fail to make rent, it is over for me, I am out of the game and it's a game that I desperately want to take part in but can not on what I am being paid. What happens when a large enough portion of society stop playing the game here? What happens when people can not afford to live anymore?

But hasn't Chile actually become less neoliberal over time? The hardcore anarcho capitalism of Pinochet was abandoned. You even have a welfare net now.

>What is globalisation?
>What is free trade?

There is no solution for serfs. Obey Lord and pray God.

kek

mincome. Nixon tried to bring it in back in the day but the Jews stopped him

before 1973 wages would sometimes increase more than productivity causing some serious inflation (an increase in the price of goods). The problem was misdiagnosed as classical inflation (too much money; too few goods). So they cut off the money supply which eventually led to the 81-82 recession. They did the same again in 90-91.

The shame is that productivity should drive down prices, and they haven't. Meanwhile wages have hardly increased at all.

They used it as an excuse for Neo-Keynesianism which really has nothing to do with Keynes and is just an outright con.

New Keynesians, not Neo-Keynesians.

What's the difference?

You're thinking of post-Keynesians, not Neo-Keynesians.

LBJ happened

Plummeting of the value of labor through third world immigration

Destruction of the nuclear family through no-fault divorce

The solution is for the government to take back a large portion of the money creation and to reinstate reserve requirements at the bank. Banks in canada require 0% reserves. Try withdrawing as little as 5,000 dollars from your local branch. they will not have the cash.

When banks are in control of the money supply all money is created as debt, on which interest must be paid. When governments create money the only expense is the cost of printing the cash and minting the coins. GDP growth can easily cover this expense. But GDP growth can never grow fast enough to pay back the principle AND the interest. GDP growth in Canada has hardly been over 1%. Interest rates average 2%. We can only go deeper and deeper into debt, which means a greater and great amount of our GDP is used to pay interest.

It isn't workers being more productive.
It's machines.

Neoliberal economic policy

Your parents voted for this goys, go ask them why this was allowed

The adoption of computers increased productivity while making the actual human labour easier.

See
Why should greater profits productivity increases that are not attributable to their contributions go to the workers rather than those whose contribution (capital) actually caused the increase in productivity?

> while making the actual human labour easier.
Only it really didn't, we still work the same number of hours, if not more, than we did 50 years ago. Perhaps some jobs are somewhat less physically demanding, it doesn't mean less labour hours are being invested, it means those hours are spent doing more overall work (with regards to productivity) than we were doing before the advent of computerization.

50 years ago an accountant might have spent a day doing what can be done in an hour by a modern accountant, the modern accountant needs to do far more "work" than the old accountant, his efficiency has increased and thus the volume of work he must finish in a given day has multiplied, and yet he has seen not a cent of meaningful compensation for this increase in efficiency. He might as well throw away his calculator entirely and go back to working slowly again, there is no reason to continue working at the pace that has been set by technology, besides fear of being fired and replaced by another person willing to be ripped off.

If all workers decided to work at even half their normal pace until they received fair compensation for their labour then wages would rise, but unfortunately we don't live in such a fantasy land and there is always some desperate cuck there to undercut anyone who demands fair pay.

...

Because the world started changing in the advent of microelectronics. Some sectors of labor began to lose value(manufacturing, accounting began being moved to batch processing computers), while completely new sectors of labor(computer engineers, programmers) started sprouting up. Many people couldn't just change careers, so they stuck to the forms of labor that they knew, which lost value, so their pay stagnated.

It's funny that people just average hourly compensation across every form of labor in existence and try to use that as justification for the absurd statement that "wages haven't risen in 40 years". Tell that to software developers, engineers, or anyone else that adapted to the new economy and makes decent money now.

Less regulations on wages and more import tariffs. They can't force a higher wage, so they force places pay benefits for full time, so they cut hours to compensate. This also impacts medium sized businesses because they don't have the economies of scale to support understaffing plus the costs of enforcing a minimum wage. Also increasing import tarrifs with increase a demand for domestic production. This with a much tighter immigration will prevent stuff like a bunch of indians taking the it jobs to send money back home, and will end up taking a smaller paycheck than their native competition. Also deregulate the healthcare industry. It will make it cheaper for everyone. I know its ideal to have the government force it to accomodate everyone, but it isnt worth the cost (like lots of taxes crushing the middle class). A regulate healthcare for everyone is just a bureaocratic slow mess. Letting business compete with each other will force them to accomodate more customers and cut costs.
Also, the average quality of life has gone up tremendously since the seventies. Its just that government assistence warps the bottom class for a currency and pushes inflation. Minimum wage is part of the problem

I would argue that mass immigration is only a part of a larger problem, the "free trade agreement" following the creation of WTO forcing the free movement of humans, goods and capital. At the moment the "rich" class can put the poor of the third world in frontal competition with the working class in advanced country, it was settle. Also, in OP pic the year of 1973 is not trivial, its the moment US realised that USSR could not compete and was doomed to fail (i think it was actualy 71, if an user with more historical knowledge want to add something about this).

Bretton Woods ended in 1972.

>the modern accountant needs to do far more "work" than the old accountant, his efficiency has increased and thus the volume of work he must finish in a given day has multiplied
An accountant in 2016 can do several thousand calculations in 10 seconds that would take an accountant in 1966 DAYS if not WEEKS.

That's NOT doing more work. That's NOT taking the job of the old accountant, and taking all that work he did and squishing it into a smaller timeframe for the new accountant. The new accountant doesn't do any of that work any more.

The 2016 accountant has an entirely different job than the 1966 accountant, you cannot compare their labor in any way.

80 percent or capital or corporate America comes from the bond market,
not banks.

McCutcheon v FEC

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

Allowed for the campaign finance system that we have now.

Ended up with donors and special interests bribing their politicians and avoid raising the wages for the people etc.

>The 2016 accountant has an entirely different job than the 1966 accountant, you cannot compare their labor in any way.
But this entire thread is about this very comparison. The minute the accountant takes with him his own calculator into his office is the minute the value of his labour drops to a hundredth of what it once was, not because his work is any less necessary but because he simply has the capability to do it faster. This technology doesn't make his life any more fruitful, he still works 9-5, only now he has to work at a hundred times his old pace, saying that the job suddenly became "easier" because now he doesn't need to do long division is simply bullshit because all that time spent on one equation is now simply spent doing ten.

Wops I got the cases wrong, Buckley V Valeo was the one in 1976 that started the whole campaign finance system we've had the past 3 decades.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

Your mistake lies in thinking that the value of labor is tied to productivity, when in reality it's tied to labor scarcity. The average worker may be able to produce more output thanks to technology, but it doesn't matter if the number of people able and willing to do the same work grows at the same rate as the demand for the product does. It's the first half of your chart that needs an explanation, not the second one.

Please explain how in a market economy bribing politicians has an effect on the wages of your employees.

>Implying you would pay taxes if you didn't have to

You don't understand what work is. Work is not the effort you put into your job, that is labor. Work is what you are actually achieving by devoting your labor to a task. An accountant now has much less labor to perform in order to complete his task, but he has much more work that needs to be achieved in a given day.

The point of this argument is not "It's harder to do this job now, so they deserve more money", it is that if we assume a wage is compensation for work completed, not just labor (which is generally the case since if you put lots of labor into a task but achieve little you will not earn as much), then compensation has actually been shrinking. Accountants are expected to complete much larger amounts of work with smaller amounts of labor, but are not paid as much for what they're achieving, which means one of two things:
a) The work they're doing is not as valuable, in which case the product must be re-examined
b) The work they're doing is equally valuable, but the accountant is not being compensated as much for it, meaning that the income is either inefficient (not being fully utilized: i.e., it's sitting in a vault or bank account) or it is being allocated to someone else, like an executive or a floor worker who is not providing as much productivity.

Stop posting this fucking meme graph. It doesn't account for various factors that reduce the gap you brainlet.

...

>it is that if we assume a wage is compensation for work completed
What justifies this assumption?
See

nber.org/papers/w13953.pdf

Because globalization.

Trump 2016

Because if we assume labor is controlled like a standard good, it is decided by supply and demand. Employers do not hire an employee because they want labor done, they hire an employee because they want work done. This is why employers try to hire skilled workers, because a skilled worker can complete larger amounts of work. Assuming that employers and employees are rational, they will enter a good faith agreement that payment will be as a result of the work completed since that means if the employee works hard he will be compensated more while the employer will earn more. Were the agreement simply based on labor (which is why hourly pay is a poor method of handling employment) the employer would not benefit since the employee would stretch the amount of labor undertaken to the breaking point, thus guaranteeing that they would be more generously compensated.

In other words, wage for labor rewards inefficiency and a lack of skill. Wage for work does the opposite.

Thanks for the article, good read

If anyone is too lazy to read this, pic related. The graph OP is using is a literal meme.

Let's imagine the following hypothetical scenario: we're now in year Y. The population has doubled since year X, so the demand for a certain product has doubled. However, the number of people capable of performing the work needed for the production process has also doubled. Furthermore, in year X, the factory needed 100 people to satisfy the demand, but in year Y the production process has become twice as efficient thanks to technology, so they still only need 100 workers. The net result: they still need only 100 workers but the market has twice as many workers available as before. Each of the workers in the factory will be twice as productive, but does it make sense to give them better wages when there's an abundance of people in need of a job who are willing to work for a smaller wage?