Graph of the week: USA productivity and real hourly wages 1964-2008
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
RWER 26,018 subscribers
Real World Economics Review
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
————— Michael Hudson ————–
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
follow this blog on Twitter
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- robert locke on Chicago drivel — a sure way to get a ‘Nobel prize’ in economics
- originalsandwichman on Liberal trickledown economics
- Paul davidson on Liberal trickledown economics
- gracchibros on Stiglitz and the demise of marginal productivity theory
- The Benevolent Social Planner on Stiglitz and the demise of marginal productivity theory
- Ken Zimmerman on Chicago drivel — a sure way to get a ‘Nobel prize’ in economics
- robert locke on Chicago drivel — a sure way to get a ‘Nobel prize’ in economics
- Rhonda Kovac on “Who will own the robots?”
- Rhonda Kovac on “Who will own the robots?”
- Ken Zimmerman on Liberal trickledown economics
- Ken Zimmerman on Chicago drivel — a sure way to get a ‘Nobel prize’ in economics
- jeff1089 on Liberal trickledown economics
- Ken Zimmerman on Stiglitz and the demise of marginal productivity theory
- gracchibros on Liberal trickledown economics
- gracchibros on Stiglitz and the demise of marginal productivity theory
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- Forthcoming WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Top Posts and Pages- last 48 hours
- Inequality: the very long run
- Stiglitz and the demise of marginal productivity theory
- Liberal trickledown economics
- Summary of the Great Transformation by Polanyi
- Reflections on the “Inside Job”
- The Keynes Solution
- Chicago drivel — a sure way to get a ‘Nobel prize’ in economics
- How unemployment has been considered by mainstream macroeconomic models?
- Hold the champagne
- 25 graphics showing upward redistribution of income and wealth in USA since 1979
Most downloaded RWER papers
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
Revere Award in Economics
Dynamite Prize for Economics
Blog Authors
- anmayhew
- Lewis L. Smith
- bruceedmonds
- Kevin P. Gallagher
- deanbaker1
- Steve Keen
- Deniz Kellecioglu
- David F. Ruccio
- donaldgillies
- Peter Dorman
- Editor
- frankackerman
- frankrotering
- Edward Fullbrook
- iettogg
- jamieamorgan
- Jim Stanford
- julieanelson
- Mark Weisbrot
- merijntknibbe
- paul davidson
- Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra
- Peter Earl
- pesod
- peterradford
- paul ormerod
- Peter Earl
- staveren
Land and labor being the ultimate factors, is output not distributed to wages, going to land rent? If not, where else?
Reply to Fred Foldvary:
This graph does not show that increased output is not going to labour. The dark green line shows MEDIAN household income. If the increased output goes entirely to the top 10% (for example), then MEDIAN income would not change, though average income would. The light green line shows hourly wages, which does not included wages paid as salary, bonuses, stock options, etc, which are all ‘wages’ to labour in the economic sense.
Household income includes income from non-wage sources. Corporate profits ultimately get distributed to households as dividends and capital gains. So inequality could be to a great extent due to gains from real estate. Wages do include benefits, so a graph showing the changes in total wages would be welcomed.
Let the deflationary cycle accelerate!!!: From the NY Times of Sat Nov 20 (I am clueless as to what other commentators and readers read for cases on the ground):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/business/20wages.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a2
I get it that if labor consumed all of its product, there’d be nothing left to reproduce production.
I try to follow people like Steve Keen, I believe he is on the right side of history even when he argues that the labor theory of value just won’t fly – that transformation problem, the data on falling rates of profit just not falling…
I try to follow those analytical Marxists as they attempt? succeed? to re-explain what surplus value is all about, e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=MvidbYEqt8gC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=TSS+Marxism&source=bl&ots=32KOD4hTRx&sig=lnLqoPHqHTJ40Y2s8PIQEvW3cl4&hl=en&ei=_xC1SuWFIZKw8QbHt8mTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=TSS%20Marxism&f=false
… And then the gears in my head just seize up ….
Till kicked loose by graphs like the one above, and reports like the one I linked…
I’m sure that brings to mind, to some of you, the image of those dogs who failing to catch their own tails running to their left, quickly change direction, “thinking” they’ll outsmart themselves ….
I know that’s what I feel like….
The graphic would be improved by showing the data back to WWII or so , revealing the long period ( Golden Age ) when wage growth matched productivity growth.