Something's wrong...

At least productivity has house prices to hang out with

I've never been a fan of NTR...
And it could be worse. They could be soaring as high as textbooks.
- Jfc are textbooks prices even worse than when I was in undergrad? What do things typically cost now? It was awful when I was buying them.
- Text book prices are part of the compensation package for University professors. It's no surprise their price has risen, since wages aren't keeping up
Oof...

“Look at that, proof that stagnant wages cause more productivity”

Our bosses

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

I like that they bring up all these informations, just to conclude, that neo-liberalism would be the solution (instead of the problem).
They don't actually answer that question. It's like they're building to a huge reveal, and then it just stops. Unless I missed it completely.
Edit. Never mind. It's just a bitcoin pump. What a waste.
- I think there's some hints.
  Administration costs have risen, food quality has gone down*
  Everything has become market based, inflation is built in and required in modern market stability models
  The very wealthy have learnt to extract more of the value share
  Residential land in good places is now scarce and so expensive, where it was abundant and cheap back then (because population has increased)
  They seem to think Bitcoin would fix it, but Bitcoin is in the market, and is more volatile than cash
  They seem to think gold has stable and intrinsic value
  Of course what happened then was computers, they are the biggest productivity multiplier since the wheel, and I wonder, do we the workers deserve that share of our productivity that was provided by our employers' computers?
  *That's contentious, some people think food quality has gone up, despite obesity rates now vs 1972
Vietnam and feminism. Mostly feminism.
Women joining the workforce in huge numbers increased the labor pool without significantly changing the demand for goods or services. Thats basic supply and demand.
Owner class played the long game on that movement. Boiling a frog.
Nothing wrong with women working. And I’m not saying women can’t work.
All I’m saying is that we’re all complaining about needing two working adults in a household to survive, while simultaneously renting two adult bodies per household to the owner class.
I’m not saying how to fix it. I have no idea how to fix it. A massive strike sounds adequate, at least 35-50% of the workforce. Never going to happen though, because most of them need two incomes. Pretty shitty.
- How do you explain the concentration of wealth in the owner class, then? There are plenty of plots showing that in that website.
- I know what would fix it, the French method. Fix that shit real fast.

It's time for productivity to go down.

Already on it, sir
- I'M DOING MY PART!!
I go down productively all the time, does that count?

What happened 1979? Reagan?

1979 was Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. Reagan did not start until 1980, and while he is famous for breaking the backs of unions, thus crippling their ability to fight back against this trend, he did not actually start it.
Before Carter was Ford and Nixon, both Republicans. Ford pardoned Nixon's crimes, supposedly to help "heal the nation".
According to Robert Reich's "Inequality for All" (free link) - he was the Secretary of Labor under Clinton and previously served under both the Carter and Ford administration so he was very much attuned to what was going on - this trend started due to the rise of corporations, which have super-rights that humans do not have. e.g., taxes on stock dividends were capped at like 13% while payroll taxes can go up to >35%, and while if a human commits a crime they would go to jail, but not so with a corporation. It's a great racket scheme for the rich to cover themselves in a legal fiction so as to avoid pretty much any responsibility for their actions. Hence why we see so many corporations acting so very boldly to destroy the planet - after all, why not? What's the worst that could happen to them in return?
- I was surprised to learn that Carter deregulated trucking, which devastated wages for truckers, and they never recovered.
- Can you clarify what you mean by rise of corporations?
  I'm asking since I recently learned they'd existed for hundreds of years by then, at least. My understanding is the British East India Co was the first legit corpo
Reagan was a couple of years later.
Coincidentally though, Thatcher happened in 1979, and Reagan is just Thatcher with a penis.
But the real answer is likely that after the financial troubles in the 70s and sky high inflation, there was a number of changes in government to try to have and maintain low inflation - things like higher levels of unemployment being tolerated, employer protection laws not evolving to combat companies' growing anti-union sentiment, fewer and smaller rises in minimum wages.
At the same time, lowering of tax rates on wealthy/high income people meant those people at the top wanted to take more of the pie than ever before, knowing that far less of it would end up being lost as taxes anyway, and that meant less for the workers.
I’m really surprised no one here has mentioned this yet, but a huge factor would have to be globalization and the offshoring of American manufacturing.
It started in the 70’s, with companies like GE and the car manufacturers moving factories to Mexico and later Asia, and with growing supply of imported cheap goods like steel. This really took off in the 80’s and 90’s with deliberate market liberalization and promotion of globalization during the Reagan/Bush and Clinton administrations.
In other words, American workers’ wages were pressured by the extremely low wages of overseas labour.

spoiler: productivity is cheating on wages with CEO wages

"our company is making tons of profit, it must be because of the CEO, let's give him more money"

Reganomics my ass. Somebody call Doc Brown, I need to go instigate a paradox real quick.

No need to, someone always already did. We're just in the timeline that goes back so it can't change this one. Everyone else gets the benefit.
Screw you Asafum-UN420:69 you're in the nice universe with no runaway capitalism!

Universal basic income

Yes.
In a post scarcity economy, it only makes sense. It would be better for everyone, even nature I bet.
It would give people options to pursue the career they enjoy.
- Should have started in the industrial revolution, clearly should have started in the petroleum/corn age, and stupidly far behind in the computer age.
- It makes sense in any economy, which has enough material to provide the basics to everybody. We indeed could do it today, even though we have material constraints as we can see with the climate crisis for example.
... among many other things.
Productivity increases were probably from computers. My job has been replacing hundreds of processing staff with computer software. Lately it had been moving the last paper processes to electronic and consolidating as much data as possible
I think my industry (data capture and processing) has had x100 productivity increases. I doubt the same has happened in more physical work
Put another way, people aren't more productive, systems are

The key takeaway here is that we need to be less productive - c'mon everyone, she's counting on us! 🙃

Yes, productivity is up. Yes, wages are stagnant. But we are loads wealthier. In some ways...

We have access to goods and services and foods and everything, that was unthinkable in 1980. Y'all young people would shit live kittens if you were thrust into 1982. GenZ literally could not function being warped back into those days. And for that matter, I'd be pretty fucked in 1960, but times weren't as different. If that makes sense?

The young have had their future stolen. Millennials got the idea quickly and GenZ is certainly getting it. My kids are GenA, don't know how I'll talk to them about all this.

Here's the thing: Y'all can't buy a home any longer. So you whine about landlords and rent and capitalism and how ownership shouldn't be an investment. Sour. Grapes. You lost and cry about the luckier of us being evil.

No. You got shut out of what used to be a fair(ish) system. You worked and saved and bought a home, you slowly gained modest wealth until you retired. Sounded good to me.

Anyway, it's all fucked up for the young. I'm so sorry. Doing what I can for my kids, and it ain't much.

But if anyone tries to sell you a simple solution or slogan or meme, tell them to fuck themselves. It's complicated and you won't fall for easy solutions. You'll fight the good fight.

We have access to goods and services and foods and everything, that was unthinkable in 1980. Y'all young people would shit live kittens if you were thrust into 1982. GenZ literally could not function being warped back into those days.
What are you talking about other than computers? Because if it's just that I think we'd manage.
Sounds like someone's got a case of the Stockholm's Syndrome.
So what you're saying is, we no longer live in a fair system and it used to be fair(ish), better. That suggests it'd have been easier to live in the 80's.
What is your point?
I get your intial point was that life is more convenient now, but you have done nothing to substantiate the claim that we wouldn't manage in the 80's. Only thing that comes to mind is shipping things from abroad via Internet, but that's only really for side hobbies in my experience, I could focus on other, local things instead. Everything else I feel would just be varying degrees of "less efficient" and/or have alternatives.
A lot of words to say your a class traitor because you feel superior to people that are fed up.
We could probably do some things to reduce housing cost, make houses less attractive for investors. But the root cause is the increased population