This is a really interesting article;


Productivity, The Miracle of Compound Interest and Poverty

http://michael-hudson.com/...und-interest-and-poverty/

His points make a lot of sense to me; unfortunately I think none of what he'd reccomend will come to pass, short of a revolution...

We do have more free time with new technology. It's just that we choose to spend that free time being busy.

Kind of like earth empires. We could all relax and netgain if we wanted to but the reality is there's a server war. People stay busy because it's in human nature to do so.

I quit about halfway through when I realized his wage calculations didn't include benefits, let alone discussing an increasing standard of living. He wants to compare 1945 and today except it's unrealistic. If he wanted to do it right he would take my job's wages, benefits (healthcare, dental, life insurance, 401k contributions), and other related amentities and compare it. I'm pretty sure my wage would like 50% inflated to where it's at. But more to the point, standards of living have increased across the board providing near universal access to the internet, mobile phones, and generic medicines. In 1945, having a telephone nearly everywhere you went, access to good medical care, and whatnot were extreme luxuries. Or, in other words, he's failing miserably to encompass the standard of living difference between the working individuals, at least in my opinion.

dam you qzjul... my country died while I read your stupid article...

:(

The problem with "productivity" is that workers do not see the capital formation benefits of those productivity gains.. those go only to the super-wealthy. Wage growth has not kept up with cost-of-living increases, let alone things like $1300/yr for a phone whereas the land line is $19.99/mo. "Productivity" when undefined [no specific metrics] as in this article is an abstract term used purely as cover for the continued rape of the middle/lower class. Even Henry Ford knew he had to pay above minimum wage to his workers so they would buy his cars.

The politics in that article as related to economics are pure crazy talk.. the dominant econ principle in the west is neoliberalism, which is completely agreed to by both Rep and Dem in the US.

lol

the article is flawed for many reasons.. but imo it has little to do with the reasons mentionned in this thread. Right now I'm not feeling up to writing a long explanation as to why but I will eventually (if H4 doesn't beat me to it).
@trumper: that argument is somewhat correct and somewhat flawed. better technology doesn't make everyone richer if not everyone can equally and affordibly access it. The loss of defined benefit pensions runs counter to your argument.. What a 401K and life insurance are actually worth is very debatable too.

When people argue that real wages have fallen: that's relative to essentials like food and shelter which between 1975 and the present is absolutely true. The reasons for this are up for debate. Ironically there was a large drop in the cost of food overall with the proliferization of corn waste (aka high fructose corn syrup = cheaper than sugar) and cottonseed oil.. but this has had some other serious health costs..

I will say that without loaning money/compound interest we would be stuck at preww2 levels of economic development or worse.

I'd like to hear your flaws martian. While there may be nitpicky points, I consider the heart of the article to be good.

Interestingly the way our technology booms have worked is by making the technology more accessible and affordable. We have found ways to share information more than ever before and that can't be undervalued. But to main point... if I work relatively the same number of hours as I would have worked in 1945, but I live longer, have more opportunity to travel, am more educated, and more entertainment then how precisely am I worse off?

qz u must be #50 ingame....

I'm no economist but I share the perspective of the author. I want to be regarded by my government as a citizen, not a consumer.