This is the current status quo. Why do we allow this...

This is the current status quo. Why do we allow this? Why are we allowing sociopaths to work us to death so they can live like gods?

Attached: 1573681834687.png (1280x868, 356K)

1973
seems right about the time that women started entering the workforce en masse
and baby booms started entering the workforce
and automation started becoming prevalent in manufacturing
but sure, it is greedy corporations causing that, not the workforce being flooded

Attached: this is what leftist actually believe.jpg (460x250, 61K)

>Why are we allowing sociopaths to work us to death so they can live like gods?
We're not being worked to death. Quite the opposite. We're fucking lazy. The productivity increase is from technology. Technology that's allowing use to be stupider. If it wasn't for the tech, the lines would correlate better.

Shut up Communist
discord dot gg slash fK649Uz

Attached: 1491580464325s.jpg (250x250, 6K)

ITT: Soros funded social class agitators. (At least OP is, along with being the typical nigger OP is.)

you posted one similar to this earlier. but i didn't understand it. post it again and explain it.

the divergence happens around the time of reagan, after china was opened up by nixon. so my guess is a lot of this is due to weakening of unions, and offshoring of jobs. i'd also look at deregulation particularly of banks, lax monopoly prosecution, and massive tax cuts for the wealthy moving most of the accumulated wealth to much fewer people.

Did you even glance at the picture OP used? You're factually incorrect, we're working twice as hard as what we're being paid.

Actually, women started entering the work force en masse when it was no longer possible to sustain a household on a single income. The real cause is the end of unions. Without the ability of the employee to negotiate their wages, our wages stagnate.

Attached: original.jpg (631x588, 50K)

You're right on the mark, user. But actually, the divergence happened before Reagan, when the union busting really started in the mid-sixties.

because when anyone suggests the solution they are shouted down as a dirty socialist/communist

yes i know. regulation and massive tax cuts and passing so much power to the investor class started with reagan which helps the divergence continue to run away. if that wealth that went to billionaires after their tax cuts and ability to move production to countries where people work for $1 day, went to american workers that divergence wouldn't be so drastic

Because computers.

Why do 99% of workers make more than minimum wage? Because they can negotiate a higher wage.

>regulation and massive tax cuts and passing so much power to the investor class started with reagan which helps the divergence continue to run away
Aha. I get what you mean now, thanks, user. You're a good one.

what about robots? robots are taking our jobs!

Factually wrong. Please see
and the picture in the OP.

Computers made workers exponentially more productive. RPA and robots are all doing the same.

so why can't more compensation flow to workers? hasn't the value of produced goods and service also grown as well?

542K people in the US make minimum wage. Do the math on how many more people there are you dumb fuck....

Attached: minimum wage stats.png (632x200, 24K)

It does, to the workers who use these products, implement them, etc. When cars were invented, blacksmiths who made horse shoes lost wages.

How many earn the state or county's minimum wage which is only a few cents higher? Those numbers are misleading.

> It does
i don't think you explained why the worker compensation stays flat. if the value of services and products created by those workers is going up and you say that the workers are sharing in that increase in wealth, how can the compensation curve remain stagnant?

And? Even fifteen dollars an hour isn't enough to sustain a worthwhile life in most areas of the country. When federal minimum wage is under eight dollars, and most states have wages commensurate to that, what's the difference between earning that and ten dollars, when you need fifteen to twenty in order to have an actual life? Not to mention you could be making a few cents above minimum and still qualify for 'being paid more than minimum.' Like, when I was nineteen and my boss gave me a raise of twenty-five cents at Gamestop, that didn't really do much of anything.

Only low/ no skill workers make anywhere close to minimum wage. Gain marketable skills and you'll be paid more money for the work you perform, because they work you perform will be more valuable.

Created by some. Others are less productive... If you create things of value, you'll be compensated with more value.

Wages are always proportional to productivity. More productive = higher compensation.

Factually wrong. See the picture in the OP and the sources it's linked to.

Why do STEM fields pay more than starbucks baristas?

I own a business (which I started by saving for 5 years and working nonstop OT) and my gf works at a prestigious university, we collectively make 200k+ a year, so this doesn't apply to me.

BUT, the fact of the matter is that some people simply don't have the ability to obtain those skills. I worked law enforcement for many years and I can tell you that the average person on the street is unfortunately dumber than you would think. There are so many people who literally do not have the capability to perform better or learn those skills, and I'm not being jaded. It's a real eye opener.

Those people shouldn't be forced into a life of essentially servitude for being born lower on the totem pole or being raised poorly without proper education at home and at school, especially when the jobs they are doing still serve a purpose. No one working a 40 hour work week should be earning 7-8 bucks an hour in our current economy.

I would say 15/hr is the absolute minimum for full time working adults 18 and older. We could enact a law that says 17 or younger can be paid half of that, so "teenage jobs" are now a real thing while adults can actually earn a living.

How much should a teenager collecting shopping carts in a parking lot make?

Enough to support a family?

Go fuck yourself

Because THE PATRIARCHY

What good is a picture of a glass of water to someone dying of dehydration?

Attached: rxsl9zouhg631.jpg (540x960, 52K)

Why is it my job so support those who either can't or won't support themselves?

I'm not against people helping them, but charity should be voluntary.

Oh, I see.

You're a tard.

Don’t truck drivers start at like 80,000 in the US?

Why can’t idiots do that?

Too many of them are like OP. Afraid to work.

It's cliche as hell, but it's called the American Dream cause you gotta be asleep to believe in it.
I don't know, why don't you?

Well, we're discussing minimum wage; not fully supporting other people... that's an entirely different subject. Nonetheless, people who are TRYING to support themselves should be able to. Again, no adult working 40+ hours a week should be earning anything less than 15/hr... even 15/hr is fucking chump change for the vast majority of areas in the country.

Don't penalize the people who are trying to support themselves and make a living, otherwise many of them give up and live off the system instead, which is exactly what you claim you don't want.

What would benefit those people more? A law that says pay them $15 per hour even though they don't produce $15 per hour?

The result would be they would be forced to be more productive, or fired/ automated/ outsourced.

The better solution is to:
1. get them out of shitty government schools that don't gain them schools
2. Get them away from shitty parents that abuse them/ don't give them values/ skills
3. Teach them marketable skills OTJT, etc.

All of those solutions come from...
1. Less government
2. Less government (primarily social programs which subsidize having children)
3. Less government schooling

Whatever it takes to justify your failure. We all have something to cope with user.

I'm pursuing a career path in a company with few openings above me in my department. I've been looking for different and better work for more than a year now, and haven't had a single bite.

That doesn't answer my question. If truck drivers earn so much, why don't you do it?

So, what you're saying is, that if you're intelligent and invest a lot of time and energy in advancing yourself to make $100,000 a year then it is reasonable to be forced to give up half of that so that the person who did absolutely nothing but make you a sandwich will get paid the same money as you?
Sounds like you're educated beyond your intelligence.

i don't see it. what i see in is near complete decoupling of worker compensation and gdp. gdp has continued to grow since the mid seventies and recovered after each recession. notice that you see no real rise in the compensation curve since the mid-70s break (a little increase from the dot com boom it looks like) and you also see no real dips either. if compensation were closely correlated with gdp which i would expect to be the case then you would also see decreases in compensation during the great recession starting in 2008. these curves are telling us that something changed starting in the mid-70s that moved wealth away from workers hence stagnant compensation even in the face of growing gdp.

Because my job as a petroleum engineer pays more

>Bringing up a real socio-economic problem on the nazi website
Fucking good luck, man. I'm sure your thread'll be great!

Attached: how i feel all the time.png (747x587, 350K)

I’m making 75k working about 30 very flexible hours a week

I’d drive a truck if I had no skills. The work is out there

Disagree. If an adult chooses to work an entry level job, they should get entry level pay. imo the proper solution is to severely lessen the social safety net so living off the system isn't practical for more than a month or 2

if the bottom gets a raise, then so does the middle
>you can have your $100k or you can give up half of $300k

It seems like improving yourself would be a logical step at that point. Your skills aren't in very high demand, so you need to stand out more

How do you determine that they aren't producing $15/hr worth of work? In our current economy, if minimum wage kept up with inflation we'd be way past 15/hr for even the most basic work. So that's not a great argument.

Also, as a business owner myself, I can tell you that treating people fairly and paying them fairly breeds a lot more productivity than "forcing" them to be productive for peanuts. Absolutely ridiculous mindset. Do I cut corners? Hell yeah, you've gotta figure out how to make the big bucks somewhere... but doing it to the people who are MAKING YOU THE MONEY... nah. That's not gonna fly long term.

Why would I have to give up half of my money for someone making a sandwich? This is ridiculous logic. Take a corporation like McDonalds - they're not losing half of their money because they start paying people $15/hr. You're so out of touch it's funny.

this

Why? Because you feel entitled to it?

Next

Well, you see, you look at the value of their output.

Nice larp

Okay, and that's very good for me. And what about the tens of million rest of us that are underpaid by half because the upper one percent hoards their excess capital like dragons? Demanding payment for a day of work is anyone's right.

If they were producing more than $15 per hour someone else would higher them....

Because rich sociopaths learned to convert wealth into power through controlling the government.

Meanwhile, all us poor fucks can do is sell most of our time alive for table scraps while they get even richer from our work.

Again, none of this applies to me. I scraped my way from the bottom to where I'm at, so I've been at all the "stages" ... well, I haven't become a millionaire yet but I'm working on it. But everything in between I've been there.

Are you aware that the majority of "entry level jobs" now pay something like 30k a year? That's basically like $15/hr. They require expensive college degrees and years of experience.

Fast food, etc, other min. wage jobs pay even less. But until robots take over, they are necessary jobs that real people have to work full time hours on. Again, if inflation kept up with min. wages, we'd be well over $15/hr right now. So why is it not OK to pay someone a living wage who is working full time and trying to support themselves?

I agree people who want to be NEETs or homeless by choice, well, let them be. We don't need to help people who choose to opt-out of society. But don't fuck over good people who are trying to support themselves and their families.

All that $$ to cover the $15/hour isn’t coming out of management or shareholders cut.

So up the prices & cut the staff. Well done.......

Now you're getting it. Get rid of the government. Solve the problem.

So if I sign on with a company, and then later decide I'm getting screwed, we should use government force to take what I feel I'm owed?

No. Just...no

You do get that we're not asking for free stuff, just that our income is commensurate with our output like things used to be, back before the unions were busted. You get that, right? You understand it?

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? You and your fellow employees shut down wherever you're working until management is willing to negotiate. That's how unions work.

The whole point of inflation is for the government to fuck poor people so they can't save money you dumb fuck. Get your government to stop printing the goddamn money.

>Because rich sociopaths learned to convert wealth into power through controlling the government.
this is important to note as well. exactly right. boomers were born into a period enormous prosperity in this country, in fact the most prosperous period i believe. they attained a lot of wealth and then turned to lobbying and pacs, etc. to alter laws to protect their wealth at the expense of the people that came behind them. i know it's contentious but i believe the boomers are greedy mother fuckers (yes some call them sociopaths collectively) that grabbed everything they could to leave nothing for the following generations.

Its a voluntary agreement. Preventing 2 consenting adults from having an exchange of goods is immoral. And I've been poor as hell, I know how much being poor sucks. But it doesn't justify theft, or forcing others to conform to your moral code.

I like how we're a nation founded by pirates, privateers, hostage takers, arsonists and gleeful participants in the destruction of private property, and we've allowed this to happen.

The most prosperous growth of our country was post civil war to 1914. Ending slavery, the war, no major wars in between, little taxes, and the technology boomed.

I do. I value the fact that my employees make me shit loads of money, so I'm not a greedy faggot. I earn more than most Americans and live in luxury and save money, and guess who made that happen? The people working for me.

I pay them a little bit more than other places do now, so that they're happier and more productive. That means they make ME even more money, but they're happy because they earn more and live comfortably. I could earn like 2-3x what I do and screw people over, but it would only last a few years before people got sick of it. I'd rather keep competent, skilled, happy employees making me money long-term. I'll make a LOT more money long term that way.

This is just stupid logic. Again, some people lack the skills and ability to obtain said skills to do better. The fact that you're posting on the internet on Sup Forums means you're already smarter and more skilled than a ton of people out there, user. I know this sounds insane but it's true.... it's an extremely low bar.

But you shouldn't penalize them for being stupid if they are trying to work hard at whatever job they are doing and make a living. They're trying to do things the right way instead of living off the system.

^^

Really? Because you can't fire workers for striking. Government force.

No, you're asking for free stuff. I need to be paid more despite producing the same amount. Go back to econ, buddy

So dumb people should just steal? They're hopeless? This is the most offensive thing I've read on this website in a long time you elitist prick.

You say that like it's a bad thing. The government exists to protect those that can't protect themselves, that's literally their only job.

Look at the picture in OP and follow its sources. You're factually wrong.

>I value the fact that my employees make me shit loads of money,
>so I'm not a greedy
I don't think you know what words me.

You're wrong. The vast majority of companies could afford it. CEO's and other execs might have to learn to earn 500k/yr instead of 1million a year, or whatever... but it's better for long term money making and growth.

Again, the way I run my company is to treat and pay people fairly. Happy people = people working their asses off for me = $$$$$$$$$ in my pocket, and a lot more of it long term.

I'll happily earn 100k+ a year instead of 300k a year right now if it means my company grows and I eventually make 500k-1m a year while creating a comfy space for people to work and actually live comfy lives.

Don't you think of human decency at all? One of the goals when I opened my business was creating jobs; real jobs, not minimum wage bullshit. I wanted to create a space where people would thrive and I could help some people in this world. It's nice to make money, but at the end of the day on my death bed I want to know I did something positive and left my mark.

Money won't do that. Ever. But giving people the money needed to live, create memories, create families, maybe create their own businesses and give back to the world? Priceless.

I'm done with the thread now.

No one said anything about stealing user, what are you on about?

Passing a law to take money from one group and forcefully give it to someone else is stealing...

Government exists to protect you from foreign invasion, not to micromanage your life

Government exists to extract wealth from society and spend it on less valuable things in inefficient ways.

I too trust random images on Sup Forums

I prefer not to argue with brick walls, thanks. I, for one, would rather my boss get a bullet from a cop, than I get a bullet from a pinkerton.

Damn user, how thick is that skull of yours? I've met highschoolers with a better grasp on economics than you

There are already minimum wage laws, so I guess you consider that stealing? Changing the minimum wage to a different number isn't stealing any more than current wage laws are "stealing" from one group and giving it to another.

Weird gymnastics user.

see
Wage stagnation is directly correlated to the loss of unionization. Physician heal thyself.

I'm anti union. Merit based shops are where its at. Started higher than union, get raises faster than union...love it.

The two party system is total cancer. It's tribalized conservitards to the point they think a company's willingness to duck any measure to actually payout what their employees deserve is a failure of government intervention and not a failure of capitalism by allowing the most morally bankrupt to be put in a position to squeeze out every last rat cent out people surviving on the absolute minimum.

Worse, said conservitards are operating on the assumption that ridding the country of a minimum wage would be a good thing on the basis employees would be getting more hours and more jobs... all the while the elephant in the room here is that they'd in fact be paid less than what the minimum wage is currently and instead be working more hours for the same fucking amount of cash -- retarded. Pants on head fucking retarded.

Libtards go full 'tard at times too, but oh my fucking god so many basic laws on the books are technically "regulation" conservitards.

Like take fraud for instance. Why have the government have a hand in stopping and punishing that activity? Why not let the free market sort it out?

"Uh, because that conman took my money through fraud and I'd like a chance to get it back!"

Sure, conservitard, sure. But why? Why not just have word of mouth do it's thing and have the government keep it's hands completely out of it?

"Because I want a chance to get at least some of my lost money back!"

You don't fucking say, conservitard. Don't want that regulation, that government imposition on the free market from running it's due course, gone now do you?

You got yours so fuck everyone else. Gotcha.

Yep. You are not entitled to my labor.

republicans

You're not entitled to mine.

People keep getting offended when I tell them that conservatives are sociopaths. Makes me wonder if any of those people have actually talked to any conservatives.

I disagree with you about some things, but we are definitely on the same page with the 2 party system. Its cancer.

Agreed. You're the one advocating I give you free shit

I'm the one advocating I receive the pay I've earned. Because, again, no one in this god forsaken country is paid what they've earned. Not me, not you, not the wealthy. Me and my brothers and sisters, the workers of the world, earn more than we're paid, and you sociopaths leach off the excess capital to enrich yourselves. You're yet another example of why unions are so necessary, so thank you for inadvertently proving my point.

You are so goddamn entitled its like a cartoon.

>I think I'm getting ripped off, so lets force the government to make my boss pay me more

That will just lose you your job user. Worked great for portland, didn't it? Cuts, fewer hires, reduced hours...unless you like being poor, so long as everyone else is

Thanks for confirming that you don't understand economics.

God, the unearned confidence. I'm actually jealous of the confidence that sociopaths have, you know that? To not have any doubt, to be completely sure of yourself...but then again, there's also the mind-boggling evil, so...I'll pass. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about; the facts prove you wrong. Without unions, worker pay will continue to stagnate while we're worked harder, not that such a thing matters to you.
And, in the strawman you created, the government isn't forcing you to do anything. The workers that you're supposed to be paying are. The government is just there to keep people like you from hiring thugs to beat people like me into relenting on unionization.

Yeah, because good economic practice says we should pay executive wages for entry jobs. You goof.