*Blocks your path*

user…

What's wrong with your point of view is your limited sample. If we limited the sample to CEOs, then we would find that wages are increasing faster than productivity. That's not a good sample, and neither is the one for that image.

On the global scale, wages are increasing with productivity: you just have to ask the Cambodians, Costa Ricans, or wherever the fuck production is actually being done. Wages aren't rising with productivity in America because America doesn't produce things anymore. The rise of Wages is 1) Global and 2) Bottom-up. Wages are rising with productivity in the poorest places of the world, giving the pigs the most profit.

You know that this graph is not talking about productivity in the sense of "producing things", right?

Not to mention that America still has a gigantic industrial output.

Productivity, Wikipedia: "Productivity describes various measures of the efficiency of production. A productivity measure is expressed as the ratio of output to inputs used in a production process, i.e. output per unit of input."

So, yes, it is about "producing things".

Worthless commie bums like you keep being replaced with robots.

Congratilations, you read the first two sentences. But wait, in the first sentence, the word "Productivity" was blue for some reason, so I clicked on in, and guess what I read:
>Production is a process of workers combining various material inputs and immaterial inputs (plans, know-how) in order to make something for consumption (the output). It is the act of creating output, a good or service which has value and contributes to the utility of individuals.

So, no, it's not only about producing things.

This is what happens when you don't bother with anything beyond basic economics.

...

lmfao

...

...

19/17

When
Will
They
Learn

...

[keens externally.]
SUPPLY CURVE IS FLAT
DEMAND CURVE CAN BE ANY SHAPE
MINSKY IS KING

A point of comparison.

Is there a correlation between height and correctness?

1.52m
1.57m
1.66m
1.7m
1.75m

...

>J.K. "Milton Friedman's misfortune is that his economic policies have been tried" Galbraith was 6ft9"/202cm
Reformism wins again?

Probably not, although it often feels that way.

Right wingers have a narrative where they are the masculine ones and every left winged male has a testosterone deficiency. I think its good If run some contrary memes

How tall was Proudhon?

...

*blocks your path*

shoot him in the head for the following reasons.
1. Hes Milton Friedman
2. Hes obviously a zombie since he died in 2006

*blocks your path*

Pick one, Felix. (Black Pigeon Speaks' real name)

I can't find it, sorry.

Not surprised at all.

Reminder: Milton Friedman became an economist because he failed his actuarial exams, which he thought were some of the hardest exams in existence (they aren't, a decent undergrad in math would think they are trivial). We need to do something about the failed mathematician problem.

This is wrong, actuarial exams are in fact very difficult. Far more difficult than a CPA exam for example. Unless you consider a "decent undergrad in math" an MIT student with a 4.0.

Right back at ya, faggot

...