It's Getting Crowded at the Top

Okay, but what does it say about our system that buying power decreases even when productivity rises?

I also still want an answer to the question that if every single person in America were to work hard and be productive at once, should they deserve a comfortable living? What does it mean to you that our system makes that impossible?

 

Ever single person doesn’t work hard and not all are productive. When government prints money to pay for those that aren’t productive or programs that have no value, inflation is the result. We are seeing wages increasing but not at the rate of the increase in inflation.

 

How is it that buying power decreases if productivity increases? If everyone became 4% more productive over the course of 12 months,, theoretically, everyone would be able to afford exactly the same goods that they could afford the year before. Keep in mind that you cannot include productivity gains due to the employer's investment, such as software or automation or new equipment. Those are not improvements the employee can take credit for.

What about our system makes it impossible to live comfortably if one is equally productive with all others and paid accordingly?

 

It's a hypothetical. Follow it to it's conclusion, our system makes it impossible to reward everyone for hard work if everyone works hard. It depends on the existence of less hard working people to make make things affordable for the rest.

Let me know where I lose you in the following:

-In an ideal world, everyone would work hard and earn access to comfortable living, correct?

-if everyone did that, demand rises, inflating value of essentials. But it's not really inflated in this scenario, because it is the ideal world where everyone is earning it. Therefore this higher value is the true value.

-at current wages, most could not afford the true value of essentials, we depend on a deflation of the value by some not having access.

-ergo, we are not earning a living currently (not on our own) we are doing so only thanks to those who cannot artificially deflating the value by not accessing it.

 

Let me get this straight . . . I'm supposed to clap my hands for some slacker that makes crummy product that I don't want? The only folks who want crummy products are the short-sighted who don't think far enough ahead about buying that product a second time to replace the first piece of junk. I'll generalize here, and say those are likely the same ones who don't think it's important to do more than the absolute minimum at their job.

False, In an ideal world, where everyone is equally productive, all products are the same . . . all toothbrushes are the same, all chicken pot pies are the same, all automobiles are the same and all dwellings are the same, because no one comes up with a better design than anyone else, no one produces longer lasting or better looking parts than anyone else, and no one makes their product more affordably than any one else.

You'd be right that demand rises if everyone was productive, but that doesn't drive prices up because their productivity drives down the cost of the products they make.

That's a pig in a poke. Returning to my prior answer, if the have-nots were more productive, their increased productivity would drive down the cost of things they regularly buy, as well as things they do not already have.

You are either deceiving yourself, or trying to deceive those with whom you disagree.

 

Depends how you define productivity. My work no matter how productive won't grow new food for instance, I simply don't work in that area. So lack of supply will drive inflation if demand rises equally, making it unaffordable once again. Unless of course supply is already sufficient or easy to make sufficient regardless of productivity.

Again, only if they are producing things which they regularly buy.

 

You're not thinking globally GW. For every one of you working in your industry, there are others consuming your product and making products in other industries that you consume, either directly or indirectly..

The most simplistic of examples . . .

• Person A benefits from the product you deliver,
  
• Person B benefits from the product delivered by Person A, and
  
• You benefit from Person B's product.

 

I’m loving Trump throwing his daughter under the bus for her J6 testimony where she under oath agreed with Barr the election was not stolen



She was checked out, no idea what she was talking about. Love it, hope Elon reinstates this guy to Twitter if he doesn’t weasel out of the deal

 

I am only the messenger

 

I’m wondering about Joe’s daughter throwing him under the bus.