Wages remained stagnant?

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html#Series

National Average Wage Index

1951-1960: 4.09%
1961-1970: 4.45%
1971-1980: 7.31%
1981-1990: 5.34%
1991-2000: 4.35%
2001-2010: 2.64%


Most left wing authors say wages remained stagnant or haven't risen since the late 70s. What is their source?

[#FF0000]

They're talking about Real Wages as opposed to Nominal Wages.

That is, wages adjusted for inflation and all that.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Real wages have been stagnant, that is, wages adjusted for inflation. The Japanese proletariat, are millionaires, but this does not make them rich. Likewise, the actual amount of money is not significant except in terms of it's relationship to the price of goods.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

In addition to what red said, the cut-off point is somewhere around 1978-1979 for the U.S., too. The exact time and date of the beginning of this stagnation varies from nation to nation but is generally a trend in all western nations.

[RadioRaheem84]

I was told by a right winger that the burden of proof is upon the leftist to demonstrate mathematically that minimum wage ought to keep pace with the cost of living.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I was told by a right winger that the burden of proof is upon the leftist to demonstrate mathematically that minimum wage ought to keep pace with the cost of living.

Ought? What does he mean ought? That we should demonstrate that the proletariat should be able to live under capitalism without starving? How should we demonstrate this in terms of "economics" when the only correct answer is that it is within our class interest not to starve.

[#FF0000]

I was told by a right winger that the burden of proof is upon the leftist to demonstrate mathematically that minimum wage ought to keep pace with the cost of living.

You're arguing with an idiot. How can you mathematically prove an "ought" like that?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I was told by a right winger that the burden of proof is upon the leftist to demonstrate mathematically that minimum wage ought to keep pace with the cost of living.

There's something I've been thinking a lot about, and it's this: you sometimes make good and agreeable posts, but you spend too much time trying to argue and counterargue with these lolbertarians and conservative nutters. It can't be good for you.

That said, we shouldn't be defending minimum wage at all in any ideological sense (only insofar as we resist any cuts made on the back of the proletariat and perhaps wish to illumine the inherent instabilities of capitalist order) - forgetting for the sake of argument that you cannot possible "mathematically demonstrate" a position like that minimum wage ought to be adjusted to inflation. That's an equation with all unknown variables.

[RadioRaheem84]

There's something I've been thinking a lot about, and it's this: you sometimes make good and agreeable posts, but you spend too much time trying to argue and counterargue with these lolbertarians and conservative nutters. It can't be good for you.

That said, we shouldn't be defending minimum wage at all in any ideological sense (only insofar as we resist any cuts made on the back of the proletariat and perhaps wish to illumine the inherent instabilities of capitalist order) - forgetting for the sake of argument that you cannot possible "mathematically demonstrate" a position like that minimum wage ought to be adjusted to inflation. That's an equation with all unknown variables.

I know I tend to debate them a lot but it's testing out what I've learned on them . I just get stuck when I am assaulted by their off the wall assumptions. I am just totally caught off guard and shocked that people can just come with stuff, anything to defend the status quo and assert it wholeheartedly as logic, reason, common sense, Econ 101.

Every single time I think I understand things and test it out on these right wingers I end up just mindboggled because they threw an unsuspecting wrench. It's not good for me, you're right because I tend to question what I've learned. It's only when I calm down and re-read their posts do I start to see the presuppositions again and the assumptions and I begin to critique them again.

[Poison Frog]

I must admit I was thinking the same as Takayuki. I think it's admirable in intent, what you're doing, but on an Internet forum used by racists and right wingers to gather, a correct piece of opinion from the left will always be shouted down. You literally cannot win, and, I would wager, have zero chance of changing how any of them sees the world.

Internet forums are great for groups of like minded individuals to debate, develop their knowledge, evolve their views, etc, but the battle between left and right is won on the streets and in government.

Edit: actually I should probably say "in schooling, media, etc" but I think you probably know what I mean - IRL, basically.

[RadioRaheem84]

I must admit I was thinking the same as Takayuki. I think it's admirable in intent, what you're doing, but on an Internet forum used by racists and right wingers to gather, a correct piece of opinion from the left will always be shouted down. You literally cannot win, and, I would wager, have zero chance of changing how any of them sees the world.

Internet forums are great for groups of like minded individuals to debate, develop their knowledge, evolve their views, etc, but the battle between left and right is won on the streets and in government.

Edit: actually I should probably say "in schooling, media, etc" but I think you probably know what I mean - IRL, basically.

I agree but doesn't it surprise you at just how deep the ideaological drivel is to get people to stop seeing inequality in their own country? I mean could living standards sink to third world levels, like Bolivia, and they would still peddle this junk?

But I am going to stop for a while. The only times I have actually developed is when I stopped debating them and read, and chatted on forums such as this with like minded people.

[Tenka]

I agree but doesn't it surprise you at just how deep the ideaological drivel is to get people to stop seeing inequality in their own country? I mean could living standards sink to third world levels, like Bolivia, and they would still peddle this junk?

But I am going to stop for a while. The only times I have actually developed is when I stopped debating them and read, and chatted on forums such as this with like minded people.

That is a good idea. These people generally have their minds made up and won't change them unless something hits them too close to home to be ignored. Then they might think about it, maybe; or blame it all on the minorities, which is not atypical of right-wing lolbertaryans.

The point is, there is no point in arguing with someone who demands a mathematical equation proving that people on minimum wage ought not starve. I wouldn't give someone like this the time of day, though the type is fairly ubiquitous on the internet and is why I don't participate in youtube comments nor other general discussion forums any longer. They won't be a force to be reckoned with irl until they go neo-nazi, which a lot of them probably will if they don't become mainstream economist hacks.

[RadioRaheem84]

I do have to wonder just how they can argue against the notion that real wages have remained stagnant when adjusted for inflation. Opponents say real wages do not matter. Inflation apparently to them is a misnomer because they say the government is comparing several different economies. For instance the argument is that NYC, LA, Boston and other such high COL cities impact the numbers and do not account for the fact that this particualar inflation is rarely happening in say Podunk, Iowa. The big cities drag down the other towns not impacted.

Is the counter argument really that because it is not happening in Podunk, Iowa (according to them) workers should quit whining about their susbsistence wages in high COL areas? How does the fact that it may or may not be happening other areas discount that in the major cities real wages have not kept pace with inflation? All they seem to care about is that nominal wages have risen, but do not realize that it doesn't mean anything when everything else around workers has risen at a much much higher rate.