/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12167140]

How does /sci/ explain this? Are the CEO's and the non working class stealing from us? WTF is going on? How come my grandfather was able to own a house, send his kids to college while I'm not able to do any of that? And I'm smarter than that bastard will ever be. He was working a manual job for godsake !

[Anonymous No.12167148]

Fuck off /leftypol/

[Anonymous No.12167149]

>>12167140
I will just say that it is not a coincidence that it was exactly during the 1960s that women joined the workforce and literally doubled the supply of labor. You can even do the math yourself as before the ratio of output/compensation was 1:1 but now it is 2:1. Exactly what you'd expect.

[Anonymous No.12167152]

>>12167140
As technology progressed the value generation became more embedded in the machines and less in the worker, also machines got smarter so more replaceable workers (so less well paid) became more productive. You don't get paid by how much you produce, but rather by how difficult it is for you, personally, to be replaced

[Anonymous No.12167157]

>>12167148
Have you ever seen /pol/ at college or reading a book or with a degree?

[Anonymous No.12167160]

>>12167149
I think it has more to do with the fact that women prefer working and don't want to start companies so they don't create jobs, they only take them. This should be profitable for startups but it feels like startups are more cut throat than ever.

[Anonymous No.12167163]

>>12167140
automation

[Anonymous No.12167182]

>>12167157
I've seen /pol/ claim aversion to herpes is a jewish invention.

[Anonymous No.12167187]

>>12167140
Fuck off communist

[Anonymous No.12167189]

>>12167160
Women shouldn’t be working at all.

[Anonymous No.12167240]

>>12167140
>Labour productivity means employees work harder
>It has nothing to do with employers spending a lot of money on automation or other ways to make it easier for employees to be more productive
I mean Im not a capitalist but please. Why post low info trash

[Anonymous No.12167250]

Mass migration keeping the reserve army of labor large. Dont like low wages? We have 5 foreigners waiting to fill your position.

[Anonymous No.12167337]

This graph is b.s. because it doesn't adjust to the deflationary factor of technological growth.

Even if your wage stagnates (only keeps up with inflation), you become wealthier year-by-year because what you can buy with it is more valuable, e.g. a 256MB RAM costs X years ago, now for the same X adjusted to inflation you can buy 8GB RAM. Same is true (although to a less, slower degree) for cars (ABS, fuel injection, prohibitively expensive in the past), TV, anything.

[Anonymous No.12167340]

>>12167140
Highly antisemitic question

[Anonymous No.12167436]

>>12167140
>How does /sci/ explain this?
It's easy. Pic related. The energy wealth of the average person, which is the only thing that actually matters in modern society, has remained in complete stagnation since the 70s. I can go on and write a maxed out post on why this is the case, but I'm too lazy today so I'll just link someone else's lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8

[Anonymous No.12167532]

>>12167240
How the fuck are you so stupid that that's what you get out of this?

[Anonymous No.12167568]

>>12167149
ok but output has been adjusted for per hour basis also.

[Anonymous No.12167582]

>>12167140
>How does /sci/ explain this

EASY, the government is taxing more and giving the money back as welfare. Basically the workers live better than the welfare recipients but both live with all their necessities taken care of.

[Anonymous No.12167782]

>>12167189
Your opinion is for losers

[Anonymous No.12167787]

>>12167140
It's because people are getting dumber, so it's easier to trick them out of the pay they deserve.

[Anonymous No.12167792]

>means of production
>production
>product
what is "product"?
cat litter?
we have 5 times more cat litter than we did in 1947?
is this just a consequence of having 5 times more people than we did in 1947?
if that's the case, is this increase in production even of consequence?
has anything changed at all since 1947?

[Anonymous No.12169016]

>>12167140
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

[Anonymous No.12169047]

>>12167140
>Are the CEO's and the non working class stealing from us?
Yes, very much so.

[Anonymous No.12169051]

>>12167140
Econfag
The title of the chart is kinda dishonest because there's no reason why they should perfectly correlated.
Output is measured in labor hours ie we need x labor hours to produce y units of product.
The average worker is more productive in less time than they were before because they've been made more powerful by technologies. Also, some productive activities require much less labor to complete (such as robotic arms on assembly lines)
>How come my grandfather was able to own a house
The real price of housing was less expensive.
>send his kids to college while I'm not able to do any of that?
Real tuition prices were less expensive.

[Anonymous No.12169167]

>>12167337
>Serf works for a subsistence while the feudal lord lives large
>Scientists invent new farming technology
>Serf gets slightly nicer bread while the feudal lord lives orders of magnitude larger

[Anonymous No.12169178]

>>12167568
women aren't the only factor, just one factor of many that includes women in the workforce, increased automation, and escalated immigration numbers.

[Anonymous No.12169218]

>>12167140
Neocons sold the country to the corporations

[Anonymous No.12169222]

[Anonymous No.12169225]

>>12167152
This.

[Anonymous No.12169238]

>>12169222
>1979
you mean 1973, my dude?

[Anonymous No.12169242]

>>12169016
>hayek

[Anonymous No.12169256]

>>12169218
you say that like democrats didn't get in on it.

[Anonymous No.12169278]

>>12167782
"working" women on average, work less than full time

[Anonymous No.12169287]

greed is not a baseless word

[Anonymous No.12169431]

>>12167140
Decline of unionized manufacturing and the rise of the service economy.

[Anonymous No.12169470]

>>12167436
That's dumb, because what would people be using extra energy for?
In that "progress" part, people were using more energy because of things like fridges, TVs, and climate controlled homes becoming commonplace.
So what after that? Home computers came about in that period, but they've never used all that much power, and as time moves on all home technologies use less power (except TVs which are using more, but those are getting less common).

[Anonymous No.12169475]

>>12169470
*"in that period" should be "in the stagnnation period"
Point is, I can't think of any new energy-hungry technology people would use besides flying personal transport.

[Anonymous No.12169645]

>>12169470
>climate controlled homes becoming commonplace
i think you mean unaffordable.
>no car
>heating is super expensive
>freezer is a luxury
>no cloth dryer because electricity is so expensive
>drying clothes takes 2 weeks in the winter
are you posting from the 1970ies?

[Anonymous No.12169663]

Productivity generates money from nothing. There is nothing more low IQ than thinking the global economy is a zero sum game. If you think about this for more than a minute and can't figure out how it works I don't know what to say, try harder.

[Anonymous No.12169864]

capitalism

and those 2 lines are just going to diverge more and more

[Anonymous No.12169867]

>>12169663
>Productivity generates money from nothing.

this is an embarrassingly stupid post

[Anonymous No.12169868]

>>12167140
Economic stratification will peak at some point until there is a big enough collapse to reset it.

[Anonymous No.12169872]

>>12169663
>Productivity generates money from nothing.
Why doesn't the wealth go to the person who produces it?

[Anonymous No.12169884]

>Are the CEO's and the non working class stealing from us

>Implying that CEOs don't work
You never tried to open a business, right ?

>Implying that CEOs steal money from employees
Are you dumb or stupid ?

[Anonymous No.12170037]

>>12167140
>gold standard removed
>women enter workforce
>central banking

[Anonymous No.12170040]

>>12170037
oh and i forgot
>importing immigrants to lower the wages

[Anonymous No.12170145]

>>12170037
Japan did all of these things yet its fine.

[Anonymous No.12170229]

>>12167157
Yeah, many actually.

You live in a bubble.

I got instance am doing a PhD in Biochem

[Anonymous No.12170709]

>>12169470
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
There is always a way to spend more energy and get a benefit out of it. Waste is the perfect example of that. Humans will naturally revert to a higher energy expenditure if it was possible and feasible. For an example, you can have non-stop HVAC systems without people having to worry whether the window is open or not, like someone 100 years ago worried whether the lights are on during the day and people no longer do so. You can have much more demanding PC specs with higher surface area CPUs/GPUs and therefor a much greater demand for cooling and the electricity supply for the fans. You can have LED wallpapers. You can have LCD display wallpapers. You can have active sensors all over your house. 24/7 air filters in every room. You can have every person running a shitcoin miner for a couple thousand of extra income. This is all personal consumption. Let's check the business side: you can have a much greater coverage and feasibility of food delivery services. You can increase the feasibility of air travel and turn the police, medical and firefighting services into entirely helicopter-based. You can drop the transoceanic shipping cost and therefor open the gates to a new type of economy. You can cut the manufacturing cost of literally everything.

The demand for all of these things is right there. It's just that it's not economically feasible for the average Joe, which is what that chart shows. The average person's energy wealth grew throughout the early portion of that century with the introduction of induction motors. It reached the Malthusian stagnation in the 60s and 70s. From then onward, the only people whose energy wealth grows are the ones on the top while the bottom's decrease keeps the mean right in place as you can see in the chart. Because the means to produce energy cannot catch up with the demand from population growth and new generation cannot gain access to it like the old have.

[Anonymous No.12170735]

>>12167163
dont think that was an issue in 1961

[Anonymous No.12170776]

>>12170229
I can't wait till you reveal yourself to be a neo nazi so they can fire you

[Anonymous No.12170852]

>>12167337
cars have remained the same price you can argue due to everything else inflating cars have lowered in value, but
healthcare and college debt being crippling is not counteracted 1:1 by the fact that you can get a new phone every 2 years

>>12170145
japan's economy has been stagnant

>>12169867
>Productivity generates money from nothing.
tech sector seems to believe this, the idea that so few people could generate infinite value means that no other sector can compete

[Anonymous No.12171091]

>>12167152
Thank you!

[Anonymous No.12171135]

>>12170709
This is true, but there’s also the simple economics of energy production. If due to technology one source becomes less expensive or more feasible long term, the market will tend to gravitate towards it.

Sure, energy production begets energy production (to a point, I mean the average person can only use so much energy). But there’s a qualitative difference between different forms of production.

[Anonymous No.12171152]

At the beginning of the 20th century, all Western nations were quite protectionist. This was just the way things were. High amounts of tariffs and trade guards and not many multi lateral trade deals and neutered trade protections.

This made it much easier for the domestic citizen-worker to negotiate and demand fair pay arrangements. It also made unions viable.

Then, after WW2, hyper-globalization kicked in. Tariffs died everywhere. The "free trade" religion was adopted in schools of economics everywhere. It was lauded as max efficiency. What it neglected to mention was that it was going to fuck over 50% of the working class in every Western country. Rich business elite could now make their products for peanuts using Asian slave labor while selling to Americans.

The reason why you can no longer criticize "totally free trade" is because it is quite lucrative for the richest men on the planet.

[Anonymous No.12171156]

>>12171152

And as someone who grew up in one of the worst affected cities by this dynamic in the United States it's something of a personal crusade for me now. For how massive of an issue this is many are quite ignorant to it, or ambivalent about it, and that's by design. That needs to change or we're going to continue to stratify class wise and end up feudalist again, that threatens the health of the country and democracy.

[Anonymous No.12171179]

>>12170852
>japan's economy has been stagnant

and yet its fine

[Anonymous No.12171191]

>>12169256
He's saying that the Democrats were also neocons.

[Anonymous No.12171199]

The real problem is overworking.
The people at the top are stabbing themselves in the foot in the long term, instead of hiring more people to cover those hours they overwork their current employees. With less free time this inevitably suppresses demand as well as those who have jobs being under compensated. With less money being earned and even less spent there are less reasons to invest and you end up with cycle of declining growth.

Modern workers are commonly called lazy compared to "hard working" CEO's but the correct word really is pampered, they are treated far better than they used to be but have less and less free time for their own business ventures and increasingly leisure.

[Anonymous No.12171222]

>>12167140
They clamp and vaccinate, as well as fluoridate. Read Brave New World.

>>12167152
Also this. Which is the reality of the modesr world and your place in it,l that you must face. You are not needed. The bulk of the population is a liability. The human pool required for basically any task, including fighting wars, is rapidly dropping. People were never the point. Now that they've served their purpose, ina more globalized world, apparatus to support and sate large populations and all the upkeep which comes with it, is no longer needed. The tech is developed, the infrastructure is there, etc.

[Anonymous No.12171226]

>>12167140
they got compensation in a form of insurance

[Anonymous No.12171235]

>>12167140
>women joining the workforce
>spics jumping the border

[Anonymous No.12171654]

>>12171235
>It can't possibly be rich white men causing all this misery !

[Anonymous No.12172633]

>>12167140
It looks like leftism became mainstream, socially conservative practices which evolved to limit over-consumption were deconstructed, and then everything wen to shit like all the evil Nazis predicted it would.

>>12167152
Automation is a meme. If automation making workers obsolete en-mass was an issue, we wouldn't have had a decade of non stop mass migration on the basis that there were too many jobs and not enough workers, and we wouldn't constantly need to be reassured how this trend continuing indefinitely was the source of our strength.

>>12167160
Women are almost 80% of consumer spending in western economies. This is a huge upsurge in demand side competition, which tips the scales in favor of suppliers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2015/01/21/top-10-things-everyone-should-know-about-women-consumers/#574533fb6a8b

>>12167157
>Have you ever seen /pol/ at college
I see the diversity inquisition types trying to purge the right from universities, tech companies, etc, so I infer that these institutions are where /pol/ types tend to lurk irl.