ObjectivityIncarnate

TL;DR: The EPI graph isn’t measuring productivity vs. pay, even for “typical workers”; it’s measuring wage inequality, and images like these are the visual equivalent of out-of-context half-truth soundbites:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/6rtoh4/productivity_pay_gap_in_epi_we_trust/

My rule of thumb is “the less I’d like to do a job, the more the person doing it should be paid.”

That does already put upward pressure on the wage. Same reason that graveyard shifts tend to pay more than first or second shift positions of the same job, and that more dangerous jobs tend to pay more than safer ones of equal overall difficulty.

so-called unskilled jobs

“Unskilled” is not an insult when talking about jobs, it’s just terminology/jargon. In this context, it describes a certain category of job: one that requires no prior special certification or schooling to be qualified for, and that the typical person can be trained to do to a satisfactory level within a month or so.

jobs that get routinely exploited.

The fact that many people are qualified to do those jobs (due to their low requirements) is the primary thing driving the wage down for them. As long as there is someone willing to do the job for X amount less than you’re willing to, they’ll get hired over you, because the job is such that individual excellence doesn’t make nearly as much difference. You can’t really blame the company for hiring the cheapest adequate labor they have access to, they’re doing no different than the workers trying to find the highest paying job they can. To criticize one without criticizing the other is a double standard.

Demonstrably false. Prices will always go up regardless.

Uh, this is a total non-sequitur. It’s like arguing that also getting shot will not affect the situation of someone who’s been stabbed.

Just because prices are going up does not mean that something else can’t also make them go up (more/faster), what a bizarre assertion.

Nobody should have to work for less than a liveable wage.

Should people be forced to hire workers who cost more than they produce?

I don’t see how both of these conditions can be met simultaneously, and unless they both are, there is still unresolved unfairness to contend with. What do you suggest?

If you disagree with me you are a piece of shit.

You’re not nearly as omniscient as you think you are, to make such an arrogant statement.

Are you aware that that would be more than double what the (inflation-adjusted, of course) minimum wage has ever been in US history?

That had nothing to do with the minimum wage (which has been lower than $15 of today’s dollars since inception), but because of how much cheaper college was back then.

The minimum wage in the US has never been higher than about $12 in today’s dollars.

Genuine question, what is one supposed to do if they need a place to live but can’t afford to buy an entire house, if not rent?

Seems like that ‘middle option’ needs to exist.

Minimum wage means minimum livable wage

Whether you think that ought to be the case is a separate matter, but as it is, it does not mean that, nor has it ever meant that (in the US at least), for as long as minimum wage existed.

Sure, you can find a quote or two from politicians back then saying otherwise, but as far as what actually passed as law, it’s never been. Obviously after adjusting for inflation, the highest the minimum wage has ever been is $12.34, in 1968, and that was fleeting.

Just mentioning since most people don’t seem to realize this is the case, and I’ve even seen a lot of people think the minimum wage was (relatively) much higher back in the post WWII years when things were very prosperous for the US. Fact is, in all those anecdotes about ‘He raised a family of four on a single income from this random job’, said job was paying WAY more than the minimum wage of the time.

Making the minimum wage $15 or more now is talked about like it brings things more in line with how they used to be, but in truth it would be an unprecedented new highest minimum wage ever (after adjusting for inflation, and yes, I do have to keep mentioning that, in my experience) even if we went ‘only’ to $15. Not saying that’s bad or good, but it’s important to be accurate about what is actually being proposed–if you’re advocating for this and someone asks you ‘why should it be raised to $15’, the answer should not involve talk about how we’re just trying to bring it back in alignment with where it used to be, relatively, because that’s simply not true.

“Did you have this list of people you don’t respect (I assume, because I can’t fathom a criticism of paying someone more than the value their labor creates, therefore I’ll just assume it’s actually a value judgment of the person themself) ready to go, person I made up for this fake conversation?”

lol, come on now

E: Stereotypers mad

Mocking me for simply pointing out that ratios give better perspective than raw numbers is only making you look like a moron, just so you know.

Most countries don’t have 340,000,000 people, either.

You left out some pretty important context in that quote to make it seem like it’s saying that realization is arbitrarily decided. In truth, all this is saying is that realization is not confined to reception of cash itself:

While it is true that economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset. Gain may occur as a result of exchange of property, payment of the taxpayer’s indebtedness, relief from a liability, or other profit realized from the completion of a transaction.

As it says at the end there, the ways to realize gain all necessarily entail “profit”. A loan is not profit, nor is an already-owned asset transform into profit when used as collateral.

The above could absolutely not be used to support your argument, nor refute mine–not when you read it honestly and in context.

I don’t like guns either, just trying to be objective about it. People like to talk about the US like we’re all constantly gunning each other down, but the reality is that it’s quite rare.

Even moreso if you don’t count stuff like gang hits, which this was.

That’s still almost 3 dozen short of Gaston, they’ll never get large at this rate.

Would be very surprised if that wasn’t at least a factor, there is definitely at least correlation there, if not causation.

To be fair, 432 shootings in a country of 340,000,000 isn’t THAT crazy, relatively speaking, especially considering the existence of the 2nd Amendment, and that last I heard, there are more guns in the US than people.

where is their sense of self preservation?

They’re high schoolers, it hasn’t developed yet lol.

Realization is the establishment of value not sale for cash

Absolutely nonsensical massive straw-grasp. If that was true, that would mean that everything that HAS a widely-established market price is instantly and permanently to be considered realized by everyone who owns it.

Short answer is: to incentivize investment/entrepreneurship etc., which is good for the economy as a whole.

The United Roviet Rocialist Sepublic?