Why is the GDP per capita increasing but the wages are decreasing in the US?

[UnknownPerson]

Why is the real GDP per capita increasing but the real wages are decreasing in the US?

http://agonist.org/files/active/0/real%20GDP%20per%20capita%20US.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif

[Commissar Rykov]

Because the wages of CEOs and the like are at record highs while employment maintains its skyward climb? The living conditions of the Working Class don't factor into GDP just the amount of capital being produced.

Let me put it this way GDP isn't a proper measure of standard of living for various reasons. The first is that it only measures the production of finished products and services and thus does not track where the wealth is going. Since the United States has disproportionate wealth specifically 10% of the population owns 70% of the wealth you really don't need to have good living conditions for the "Middle Class" and Working Class since so much of the wealth is already concentrated. GDP is excellent for tracking how much shit you are selling which is why it is so highly praised by Bourgeois Economists because they can use it to point to a high standard of living thus hopefully placating the Working Class by showing them that they are already living the best standard possible. The reality is GDP is not meant to be applied to Standard of Living because it doesn't even measure it the whole point of GDP is to measure accumulation of capital and it doesn't even track whose in control of said capital because it would only further agitate the Working Class and wouldn't need to be known as the Bourgeoisie are typically well aware of their market share.

[Jose Gracchus]

The rich are just getting that much richer faster relative to the grow in the population, so the aggregate/population still goes up, even though most of the population's income is frozen or declining. Of course this GDP/capita might not be real GDP (adjusted for inflation, which is what keeps wages flat in real terms).

[jake williams]

The society (ie. the workers) are producing more, but workers are getting a smaller part of it.

GDP is how much is produced in the society, and it's going up because (at least in theory) each worker on average keeps producing more. But workers in a capitalist society don't get what they produce, they get what they can force capitalists to give them in return for their labour. Workers' organizations are getting weaker, so workers get to keep a smaller part of what they produce.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The rich are just getting that much richer faster relative to the grow in the population, so the aggregate/population still goes up, even though most of the population's income is frozen or declining. Of course this GDP/capita might not be real GDP (adjusted for inflation, which is what keeps wages flat in real terms).

Wages aren't flat in real terms. They've been depressed. Check out how government measures of inflation changed over time.

[UnknownPerson]

The society (ie. the workers) are producing more, but workers are getting a smaller part of it.

GDP is how much is produced in the society, and it's going up because (at least in theory) each worker on average keeps producing more. But workers in a capitalist society don't get what they produce, they get what they can force capitalists to give them in return for their labour. Workers' organizations are getting weaker, so workers get to keep a smaller part of what they produce.

Doesn't it statistically show how bad the oppression actually is, and how most of the workers don't benefit from the economic growth?

[jake williams]

Doesn't it statistically show how bad the oppression actually is, and how most of the workers don't benefit from the economic growth?
To an extent, yes, although I don't think we can simplistically say that workers don't benefit from economic growth. Some do and some don't, sometimes more do and sometimes less do.

Clearly though, at least over the last few decades in North America, it's the capitalists who have mainly benefitted from economic growth, not the working class.

[UnknownPerson]

To an extent, yes, although I don't think we can simplistically say that workers don't benefit from economic growth. Some do and some don't, sometimes more do and sometimes less do.

Clearly though, at least over the last few decades in North America, it's the capitalists who have mainly benefitted from economic growth, not the working class.

Saying "mainly" is a huge understatement judging by the graphs.

[jake williams]

Saying "mainly" is a huge understatement judging by the graphs.
Yes, but there are several clarifications. First, the effects on the working class have been very uneven. Some sectors - black communities especially, former manufacturing centres - have suffered severely. Others - those with high skills, especially in high tech - have done fairly well. Second, it's worth noting that wages aren't necessarily the same as living standards.

The trend is still clear though, and very sharp.