I just discovered the reason I was a socialist was a fake chart. Really made me think

I mentioned this in the previous thread. In the "total compensation" chart, compensation is inflated with an unrelated index.

Post the original link, and I'll debunk it again.

So you were never socialist. Cool

...

Irrelevant because the 2nd chart was never posted anywhere.

The 1st chart is biased to the left
The 3rd and 4th are biased to the right

But the 2nd chart is pure government data

Hot damn.

...

I didn't say that. I said that GDP also needs to be adjusted by inflation if I adjust median income by inflation. Both figures would be adjusted at the same tune. Thus, adjusting or not changes nothing.

Damn, it's scary how bad at numbers you people are.

In the second chart – what you've shown is merely a correlation between total GDP and income.

It doesn't show that compensation according to productivity, which is what labor economists argue for.

Tell me, fam, what is GDP? Do you even know what it is?

Productivity vs real wage is much more substantial.

So they could, potentially, both be relatively stagnant and just a reflection of inflation.

look at houses, look at healthcare, look at college fees

hang yourself

Oh I get it, so you want to adjust one figure by inflation, but not the other. And then you wonder why you get a gap.

epic

We aren't arguing growth. We are arguing correlation between productivity and income.

No, you made it clear you don't understand the concept of Real or that the 2016 dollar is inflated in comparison to the 1970 dollar. If you adjusted for inflation by moving previous median incomes to 2016 dollars the slope would be signifigantly flatter.

GDP isn't productivity.

When the cost of living was cheaper, incomes were much lower too.

GDP and productivity are two different things.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

what do these things have to do with labor compensation?

You want me to adjust 1 figure by inflation, and let the other figure raw. No wonder you get a gap if you use such a faulty methodology.

From 1st chart.

Looks awfully similar to GDP

Are you retarded? Capita means per person, family means per household. Just because spouses enter the workforce doesn't mean that either of them are being compensated more.

As I said, what you've found is merely a correlation. Could be secondary effects of market dynamics and market cycles.

No sane economist is going to argue for labor compensation on this basis.

Is this literally a 'too stupid for socialism' thread?

No, I want you to adjust all figures for inflation so a common dollar value is used. The only figures unaffected will be 2016 numbers because 2016 numbers already use the 2016 dollar value.

Except it isn't GDP at all.

If you can't understand why that's meaningless, then you are hopeless

What was the purpose of your second image if not to make it seem like GDP per capita and median income had been getting closer to one another and not further away? It makes no sense at all to compare a statistic representing individuals and a statistic representing households, especially when you're trying to make an argument about individual compensation.

These are sources collected by mainstream economic academia btw, so don't come with "b-but muh shitty sources say".

The economic illiteracy in this thread is nauseating.

Your theory doesn't seem to work

doesn't look too bad, other factors considered

What part of my theory? That individual income has not gotten any closer to GDP per capita, but rather farther away? Your graph shows that fact. That comparing median household income to GDP per capita doesn’t make any sense, since one shows what a household makes, and the other what GDP divided by population is? On what grounds do you refute that?

My new chart is closer to Heritage and my original than to EPI

mh? Doesn't look too bad? That's literally pre ww1 conditions, do you think income inequality was in a good state back then? the terrifying thing is also that the curve is pretty much only falling directly after/during a crisis like a major world war.

Also major lol at the people here comparing GDP/capita with median income and shit, demographics and tons of other factors play a huge role in this. How do you differentiate capital income from labour income? There is a reason also all economists use percentiles and deciles when looking at inequality.

...

Why do you suppose CEOs aren't workers?

? only other post I made in this thread used deciles.

Using the median is retarded as it gives pretty much no information on how the setup actually is, it "forgets" the very rich and very poor which is exactly what we shouldn't do.

That's some analytical philosophy level of bullshit.

The only post in this thread actually showing all deciles is mine

Oh, so you first believe in an ideology, and look at the facts later? Well, that's the definition of being a fanatic.

They're house niggers

But functionally speaking, why do you not think they do not produce units of work?

My post is the only one referring to deciles in the entire thread though? Do you mean ? Because these are not deciles.

The interesting thing for eample is how rich the >$200,000 earners actually are, but the graphic does not show that. Are those on average income millionaires? Or do they "just" earn 250k on average? Great way to hide true inequality.

Also why would you measure households instead of individuals.

Man you know this chart isn't just an internet meme. It is a widely known belief backed up by most of academia

because obviously organization and leadership are not valuable

That speaks very lowly of the academia. But actually EPI isn't very reputable and your appeal to authority isn't laughable.

So it's envy, and not desire to help the poor?

your graph does not debunk that graph, it is different information, is what is laughable

heavily misleading information

Because typically when you're taking about CEOs you're taking about bourgeois pieces of shit. Like cops it's not just about what you do but who you serve, and CEOs serve and are generally part of the bourgeoisie.

Why do you think they're poor in the first place idiot

What are you even talking about mate? I'm talking about inequality, to measure inequality you need to look at the income of the very rich and the very poor and everything in between. I want good data, it doesn't have anything to do with envy or pity. Since your data does not show the income of the very rich, it is just not valuable in this context.

It's ridiculous that I have to type this out.

using your logic, you shouldn't include Republican voters in all your charts

because they don't have valuable skills

Some silly statements from both sides here. OP is right that if you deflate both income and GDP by the same factor, according to very basic math the ratio between these two doesn't change, and deflating one and not the other doesn't make sense.

What I don't understand is the reference to net productivity as cooked numbers in the first picture. Surely net is more informative than gross?

I agree that one should look at the personal income. One can think about it this way: If the employment situation of a family changes, from one bread winner to both being employed, and the time of both added together at their jobs amounts to a higher number, and the family now has the same monthly income as before, would your first guess be that their quality of life now is as good as before? Sounds worse to me.

There is a HUGE difference between the general median income and GDP compared to

compared to productivity.

That is entirely different information. Of course if we just produce more stuff there is more stuff, its where that value has accumulated that is the problem. Which is in the hands of very few people, one half goes to only 8 people and you laughably suggest they somehow deserve it. So utterly cucked.

The rich make people poor. That's how they get rich.

What really matters is what % of people are in each decile

70% of the country is making >30,000

actually made me laugh for a second, thanks for that

It's the truth. If 50% of the population is making less than 15,000, that's worrying

If it's just 10%, meh

It's not income, but relations of production.

The wealth of the bourgeoisie doesn't come from whatever wage they decide to pay themselves, it comes from the exploited surplus value of their workers.

So you abhor the act of working for someone, and that's what you base your ideology on?

y-you were serious?

A decile is by definition 10% of the people. Or am I misunderstanding something about what you were saying?

Deciles by income, not by distribution

kys fam

I don't have a citation right now, but I read once that the top one percent are _all_ in the top one percent. Coincidence? Or JEWS?

They aren't starving because there's the welfare state

In 1967, the top 5% had 17.2% of the income
As of 2015, they have 22.1% of the income

what does this even mean? What does decile by income mean? Are you drunk? It was obviously from the stuff you posted earlier that you don't understand economics but now you are just being retarded.

Or are you trolling me? If so, good job.

SEE

informationclearinghouse.info/article43219.htm

Your article doesn't check out with official numbers.

People in this thread don't seem to understand that Gross Domestic Product and Gross Domestic Income are LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME THING.

GDP is just the amount of goods and services that have been sold within an economy measured in currency. Remember the economic axiom: one person's spending is another's income. SPENDING = INCOME

Any money you SPEND on goods gets attributed to GDP. Any money you EARN from goods gets attributed to GDI. THEY ARE THE SAME THING. Any difference between the two when measured empirically is just down to inaccuracies in your calculations.

So, knowing this, of course "wages" and GDP rise at exactly the same pace over time. Spending = Income. "Wages" = GDP. The reason this is meaningless is because we don't just care about GDP (aggregate incomes) going up, we care about WHO GETS THE INCOME FROM INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY. If it all goes to the top 0.001% because of WAGE SUPPRESSION, then yes REAL WAGES begin to stagnate. That is what has happened over the last 40 years.

The economic illiteracy in this thread is staggering. Learn some basic macroeconomics and Modern Monetary Theory for fucks sake. Then you won't be triggered by these stupid fucking charts.

It's more of a systematic thing, to be honest. The contradictions of capitalism will lead to it's inevitable collapse, but not before creating quite a bit of suffering along the way and possibly destroying the planet.

But, yes, the fact that it relies on the exploitation of labor at a basic level is a sticking point.

In 1967, the top 5% had 17.2% of the income

As of 2015, they have 22.1% of the income

Yup, truly a disaster

capitalism has never been farther away from collapsing

ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014
Official enough for you?

...

but those are not deciles, I told you that earlier. the metrics on the bottom are made up and conceal the rich incomes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decile

you can divide the people in 10 equal parts and then look at the top decile (which was done in the graphic I posted). You can't divide income into 10 equal parts. A decile is a neutral point of view, making up metrics and measurements like >200,000 is not.

these things should be measured in national income in the first place, GDP doesn't make sense in this context, but the two are close enough in most cases. you're obviously right though.

Going to leave the thread tbh, no point in arguing with people who don't understand/want to understand the basics. wtf.

It isn't, productivity is not affected by total workforce, while GDP is. Having women enter the workforce is irrelevant to productivity, but inflated GDP immensely.

Can you turn that into an empirical metric to make a determination about which units of work do not have value when produced by people who meet the metric?

Even your bourgeois economists don't agree with your dumb ass. Major financial institutions already signaled a very likely collapse in the near future. Trump's election seems to have caused markets to rally, but without anything concrete to back it up, we'll see how long that lasts.

What matters is the difference between GDP per capita and median income - of the same year. It doesn't matter what coefficient is used, if both numbers are multiplied.

He is correct in saying inflation doesn't change anything.

There is no "too stupid for Socialism". There is "too stupid to create Socialism".

That's individual data. Poverty line is for 5 people.

lmao, Trump caused markets to crash as is the biggest danger to capitalism, once Trump is gone/impeached is all back to normal

Poverty doesn't start at groups of five people. It adjusts based on the unit.

But what does it matter if Bill Gates has 10 billion or 500 billions so long as most people make a decent income?

But arithmetic mean and median aren't the same. And from comparing the two you can get some information about the wealth distribution.

How much money do you spend in a year?

No, he really did cause markets to rally.

Stock markets are basically meaningless though. It was just excitement because Porky thought he was about to get another tax break. However, this depends on if the Republican Congress will let Trump enact his tariffs border taxes.

I meant to write income distribution.

why should I live my life worrying about income?

Spend or make?

Alternative is?

Spend. Comparing individual income to a poverty line for *families*… instead of comparing it to household income?

I have a lot to say about it, but "bourgeois pseudoscience" is a perfectly apt definition of the academia you speak of.

What you need to look at is the upper 1% - not as a whole, but what happens within.

pic from here: cnbc.com/2014/03/31/the-other-wealth-gapthe-1-vs-the-001.html

McFucking kill yourself, classcuck.

Every dollar that goes to a cappie is one taken from a prole, dumbass.

See and

Unemployment is the future

in 1605 the king owned 95% of the land
As of 1634 he owns 100%

Define decent income because $30,000 a year is does not sound decent to me when I'll have $30,000 loans by the time I get out and I have a 50|50 chance to earn less than that according to the SSA

17% and 22% = 95% and 100%?

good point, whatever is our alternative?

Why should the top 5% see any increase in income over that period? You're retarded if you think that is justified.

And besides the economy was booming back in the 60's because we had a consumer base that actually had enough money to spend on goods and services without going into massive amounts of private debt (thank high taxes on the rich and extensive social safety nets for that). Your numbers fail to take into account debt at all. Look at how much the level of private debt has risen since 1967. The top 5% may have only seen a 28% increase in income over that period (assuming your numbers are accurate, which is still too much anyway), but they aren't the ones who have been taking on huge amounts of debt in the form of mortgages and credit cards. This means that the rest of the population have not only had to deal with stagnant real wages, they have also had massively increasing levels of debt to service.
All this means that the average person is overall MUCH POORER THAN IN 1967.

So yes, a real fucking disaster. Learn some real economics you right wing degenerate.

But they do not make a "decent income". Not anymore.

I don't have good infographics at hand (will, probably, make a thread at weekend - unless someone else does it), but there is a big difference between 1970s and 2010s.

satire takes two to tango, now do your part

...

I already proved that the difference is minimal.

Where?

...

Wouldn't a larger workforce increase productivity?

Read the thread.

Your question is loaded with a fallacy. Jobs aren't given randomly.

You haven't proven anything to support this. What you've shown is median income and GDP, which is non-proportional, i.e. doesn't display the brutal reality that 11% of spend the average day barely knowing if they're gonna be there the next, and the vast majority of those employed have an income hundreds of times lower than those who employ.

same as the 70s then

No IDs, and I'm not going to guess what retarded post you believe to be "proof".

Third party, but I'd appreciate it.

You're arguing with a troll by the way.

see & &

Except even worse. Hundreds of times worse.

Wrong

see & & &

Ok. Define decent because $30,000 does not sound decent and 50% of america makes less than that according to the SSA

Nice observation.

Correction. When I say income in this post i mean to say income share.

He says, as he brings up statistics that are non-proportional and representative.

Put your head back in the sand, Porky's cock in your ass and go back to being a classcuck now.

Ack. That's what I get for not paying attention.

1) Cost of living - see another comparison. Wages lower, prices higher.
2) Already pointed out that it's not saying anything:
There is a huge differentiation of wealth within.

3) Not relevant.

I don't know, about as much as I make. Not much room for savings. I guess around $25k a year?

Here's a little chart so that you understand what's really going on. The general populace has been enslaved by the creditor class just so that they can have a slight increase in their income share of Gross National Income. Right wing economics at its finest, guys.

No such thing in America.

Why are you avoiding this question?

Nailed it.

Not true OP, even if the increase in productivity and wages have risen equally, the labourer still doesnt get all the value he produces

Regardless of your non-representative data, which doesn't properly display the massive discrepancies in wealth, the Marxist communist motivation to be against capitalism was never necessarily against capital's tendency to immiserate, but rather to aid the proletariat in unlocking its power as historical subject; as the "negative" of capitalism, in overthrowing it, towards the logical post-capitalist paradigm. You fail on all possible levels.

Thank you.

Right wingers don't understand economics or they wouldn't vote for people who want to plunge them into private debt just so they can suppress wages and take a larger share of the product for themselves.

Can someone give me an answer to how "fake" these graphs are?

It's pretty agreeable that productivity has gone up a lot, and wage's haven't. Basing your ideology off a chart is retarded, but the idea still remains. Be more faithful comrade.

See the first graph. It doesn't include highly paid CEO and other managerial types

Do you have no reading comprehension?

Don't use that shit "accepted by most academia" """"""argument""""""" again. Only useful if someone else's argument is that no one uses it and even then either way one of you would be making the argument from authority fallacy. Actually explain why things are right or wrong, not how widely they're accepted.

second graph is comparing two unrelated things.

third graph, "total compensation" value is inflated by an unrelated index. this was debunked in the last thread. That's why he won't post the original link to the post anymore.

Hasn't Kliman already dealt with this?

truthdig.com/report/page3/are_corporations_really_stealing_workers_wages_20140409
truthdig.com/report/item/were_top_corporate_executives_really_hogging_workers_wages_20140917