Search Results
6/19/2025, 3:55:26 PM
>>507980060
Those would be false. Immigration, i.e. supply of labor, obviously has a direct effect on cost of labor that is unequivocally true for anyone that is not a fucking retard.
>exiting the gold standard
That was untenable from the start, capitalism simply cannot work with the currency tied to anything tangible. To be able to make profits, the amount of currency in circulation needs to constantly grow, and if you don't realize why this is impossible if its tied to a tangible finite item then you are complete retarded.
>globalization of trade
This can move production to elsewhere in the world, and obviously lose jobs somewhere and bring them somewhere else. It has nothing to do with the wage-productivity decoupling though, as the graph is looking at it locally, so argument that globalization is behind it is simply retarded.
>peak oil
Again nothing to do with the wage-productivity decoupling. If anything the rising energy prices leading to less use of energy could - but not necessarily does - affect the productivity slowing its growth. It has nothing to do with the coupling of productivity to wages, though.
>the postwar reconstruction of Europe
This is the same argument as globalization. Nothing to do with it.
Only two things can affect the wage-productivity coupling, one is supply of labor, and another is legislation.
So the two sides of it is artificially increasing supply of labor by importing the third world to first world countries. This side will depress wages regardless of the policies.
Other side is policies like taxes and regulation. The worst of it started in 80s with Reaganomics, where Ronald Reagan's jewish hollywood friends told him that he should both cut the taxes for the rich but also remove all the regulations from financial markets, leading to widespread financialization of everything that made the economy "fake" filled with complex derivative financial instruments. Thatcher did the same in UK, and the rest of the White world followed.
Those would be false. Immigration, i.e. supply of labor, obviously has a direct effect on cost of labor that is unequivocally true for anyone that is not a fucking retard.
>exiting the gold standard
That was untenable from the start, capitalism simply cannot work with the currency tied to anything tangible. To be able to make profits, the amount of currency in circulation needs to constantly grow, and if you don't realize why this is impossible if its tied to a tangible finite item then you are complete retarded.
>globalization of trade
This can move production to elsewhere in the world, and obviously lose jobs somewhere and bring them somewhere else. It has nothing to do with the wage-productivity decoupling though, as the graph is looking at it locally, so argument that globalization is behind it is simply retarded.
>peak oil
Again nothing to do with the wage-productivity decoupling. If anything the rising energy prices leading to less use of energy could - but not necessarily does - affect the productivity slowing its growth. It has nothing to do with the coupling of productivity to wages, though.
>the postwar reconstruction of Europe
This is the same argument as globalization. Nothing to do with it.
Only two things can affect the wage-productivity coupling, one is supply of labor, and another is legislation.
So the two sides of it is artificially increasing supply of labor by importing the third world to first world countries. This side will depress wages regardless of the policies.
Other side is policies like taxes and regulation. The worst of it started in 80s with Reaganomics, where Ronald Reagan's jewish hollywood friends told him that he should both cut the taxes for the rich but also remove all the regulations from financial markets, leading to widespread financialization of everything that made the economy "fake" filled with complex derivative financial instruments. Thatcher did the same in UK, and the rest of the White world followed.
Page 1