Conservative Economics

ITT we post Conservative Stupidity

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Y3HL_ooA2Wc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Overlap this with immigration numbers and women in the workplace. I bet wages flat lined just as those two things skyrocketed because the left are just corporate puppets being played so hard that they think they're fighting against corporate interests.

>goods-producing workers
Aren't they all chinks now?

>Overlap this with immigration numbers and women in the workplace

This, the image in the OP reflects a shift in the supply and demand for labour that favours the employer

I am a workers ok, and let me tell you my wages are so low I have to take shits in a bucket near the end of the month because I can't handle the water bill from toilet flushes and by the end of the month I've run out of money. I'm a pure Aryan too, ancestors been in America since the 1700s.

>1980
>what is a computer?

/thread

wut?

The inclusion of women in the workplace was actually a huge net benefit for the American economy after WWII. You're right about immigrants as wages have stagnated only in the recent decades when immigrant was big.

Computers are the cause of increase in productivity.

So what? Shouldn't wages rise as well?

I think automation probably had a bigger impact than either of those.

>The theories of the social sciences do not consist of “laws” in the sense of empirical rules about the behavior of objects definable in physical terms. All that the theory of the social sciences attempts is to provide a technique of reasoning which assists us in connecting individual facts, but which, like logic or mathematics, is not about the facts. It can, therefore, and this is the second point, never be verified or falsified by reference to facts.

Are you going to pay computers.

Please read at least one economics textbook before posting again

Unions, women and immigrants.

hmmm what thumping happened in '73...

No, but literally every other production increase in history is due to machinary or tools, you don't pay machinary or tools, yet wages still increased due to more sales of the product.

I have, although you being a right-winger clearly haven't.

So you're saying unions ending caused it?

idk

>idk
What, you don't know that the increase in low skill immigration directly correlates to the stagnation of wages?

So how do you explain it then?

You paid fewer people to get the job done

>Index Relative to 1973
>Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1973

Now our currency is just funny money

Yes and no. Technology is the cause of the increase in productivity. For example, I frame houses for a living. The two biggest drivers of productivity in my industry since the 70's are the nailgun and the lull. So instead of swinging a 2lb hammer a thousand times a day I have a 15lb gun in my hand for 8 hours. I produce more and work harder than peers in the 70's but wages have not increased with productivity.

You should be paying the developers way more, though.

I am trying to figure that out. I'm a teacher in the medical field, this isn't my specialty, but im a smart guy.

1971 actually

So by that logic the industrial revolution should have decreased wages

OP doesn't even know about Kissinger and Chinese. Kissinger is a massive rightwinger.

You don't know about them.

I'm a left-centrist and I know you're bullshitting here. You don't know how economics works.

bretton woods was ended. might have something to do with it

You don't know how economics works, you're ignorant. Please get off the thread

You're the one who doesn't know how economics work. Americans have low education.

Canadians don't get educated about economics, that's why they're stupid and know nothing about it. You don't understand basic econ.

And no one will take you seriously for hiding your flag. Your thread will die soon.

>no one will take me seriously
My teacher did

youtube.com/watch?v=Y3HL_ooA2Wc

And yes im 18

And besides, as a business owner, doesn't your incentive for switching to more machinery or computers lie with reduced costs of production? You would still keep slaves if they made your product cheaper than computers. And if you moved to computers that means that all things considered they cost you less to produce the same amount of shit. Which in turn means that overall, the wages you pay reduce, not increase.

On a micro level you're right. But think about it like this, on a macro level more production means we should have more wealth. In order to make money you need to sell that wealth, if you double your wealth but use half the workers you should still give that wealth out. My moms kicking me off now and yes im 18 but it's the argument that all wealth must be consumed so even if we had full automation we'd still have a good quality of life.

At what point did woman enter the workforce en mass?