trickle up poverty

Nope, just too busy to deal with bluster today. I'll get back to you when I can (in the mean time try and compose a valid argument, rather than thinking a poor copy and pasting is somehow debate in action)

 

Translation = No I will not reply because I have no clue what I am talking about. I will not click your link because I am already overwhelmed by what little you posted. Please dumb it down so I can understand it; preferable point by point.

If you do this for me I will give my standard BS and fluff answers and dance jigs of avoidance before getting Scotty to warp my ignorant butt out of here.

YOU = FAIL.

Yes I am picking on you because I have seen what you do to others and I am simply giving you what you give to others. You generally offer nothing but fluff to make yourself sound smart but to the educated here you are simply a blow hard idiot.

 

Just had a quick look at your post. You haven't even bothered to refer to my slice of obviousness: "while we can attack capitalism for its underemployment and underpayment, to suggest wages aren't related to productivity levels is bobbins". Its easy to show how wages and productivity are related. One can just run a regression based on the human capital model (controlling for education, age, job characteristics etc.). Try and actually respond to the point, rather than going into that one dimensional rant mode

 

It points to the fact that productivity is only part of the equation and you fail to see the entire picture.

Is the big part of the problem as I have said before. You follow and old model with your line of crap "If you cant blind them with brilliance then baffle them with Bull S***".

You are just lost on this and incapable of comprehending what has been presented to you. Now run away little child and think up some more dodges and duck while us grown people discuss things that are real.

You are dismissed unless you feel like providing us with some more slap stick comedy relief. I do so enjoy your Jim Carey approach to logic; actually you remind me more of the stooges.

 

There's nothing in it that disputes my point. That you haven't realised that yet only demonstrates that you're copying and pasting blindly. The rest of your post was more of the same in the rant stakes.

 

Comedy champ of the year for you.

 

Try content! You quoted "while we can attack capitalism for its underemployment and underpayment, to suggest wages aren't related to productivity levels is bobbins". Try and critique it.

 

Wages can affect productivity but more than wages need be considered. Job satisfaction affects productivity more than wages. A good organizational behavior class might do you some good.

So what affects job satisfaction? There are many things that affect job satisfaction and money is not at the top of the list.

You are so far off base that you have left the stadium.

Cultural values affect productivity, generational values affect productivity,.......... Do you really want me to make you look stupid? I can you know; I mean more than you make yourself look stupid.

EDIT: And I am talking at bottom to top level. Money has some things to do with it but worker productivity has less to do with money.

If you want to go national level I have no problems making you look foolish there either.

I aint the one son; you will lose using those tactics.

 

This is low powered prance. I haven't referred to the efficiency wage hypothesis. I've referred to the very simple economic finding, wages are a function of productivity. That's obvious, so the origins of your rant are unfathomable

 

No it is not. In the United States some of the most productive people per hour are low wage people.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci13-8/ci13-8.html

If we are to actually measure productivity we must have a baseline.After that base line only increases in efficiency make a real difference in real productivity.

Many of the Asian markets were very inefficient and their efficiency is increasing with this increased efficiency comes increased productivity. Now how are they doing it? Some is human rights violations and some is breaking trade agreements and trade laws.

You over simplify things which shows your limited intelligence.

 

One can refer to specific economic issues, as I remarked with the reference to underemployment and underpayment. However, it would be silly to deny that wages are a function of productivity. A basic wage regression would show that, with human capital variables significantly related to wage rates. Crikey, even you could run one on Excel

 

I will not disagree with you on that observation but if we were to analyze the whole picture we will find causes that you can not put wages at the top. I never said they (wages) were not in the mix but you however made them your focus. In that you were wrong.

When we look at the entire picture we see that trade inequality through the use of underhanded and illegal tactics are part of this, the American workers level of workplace/job satisfaction is also lower (OWS for example) and could go on and on but money is not and has never been the only factor and is rarely the main factor where productivity is concerned.

Now if we move up a level it does start to play more of a part in the picture as no money invested in new/updates equipment can have an effect but those that do not stay up to date are short lived and die.

 

You're not making sense. Wages are a function of productivity. End of! Now we can of course refer to the inability of productivity variables to explain all wage differentials. See, for example, the Oaxaca-Ransom decomposition method and its use for empirically testing the magnitude of discrimination

That the US is so reliant on low wage labour is the problem. Those that don't refer to the root cause of problems such as working poverty are pishing in the wind

 

You act as if wages are all that matters and they are not.

 

No, I've merely responded to your ridiculous rant over the relationship between wages and productivity.

 

Wages are an effect of the current value of the labor. This has to do with the demand for a given skill set.

 

Wages are a function of productivity, as I've maintained from day 1. The only issue is how we control for underpayment effects (e.g. use of stochastic frontier methods which includes two errors, one normally distributed and the other half-normal, exponential etc) and the explanation for those effects (such as the impact of internal labour markets and the creation of wage norms)

 

Not they are a function of the labor market and available skill set and have little to do with productivity.

Let us say I need a computer programmer; no a welder. I put out fliers for a welder offering $10 dollars and hour. Well the average pay for a welder in my area is $18 per hour and others are hiring. Am I going to get a welder?

What we are looking at is a market saturation of unskilled labor and that effects wage more that productivity.

 

There's no debate in it. Wages are a function of productivity (we'd of course have to refer to other issues, such as the possible existence of compensating differentials, but that doesn't deny the relationship and the importance of the human capital model)

 

Thank you but I still know you are way off base.

Where I live computer programmer get low pay. They do the same job as they do in Raleigh but the money is not there. Explain this please.

We have people that will not take a programming job in my area because there is little demand for it. Move to a higher demand area and the wage goes up. When that market becomes saturated the wages freeze. Simple business practice. Never pay more than the going rate and if you offer less than the going rate you will get few bites.

Wages have much more to do with other things what you think. Now stop filling peoples head with nonsense.

 

Your ignorance of basic labour economics isn't going to generate debate. Its only going to drive you to make erroneous remark. From the human capital model to MRPL, the relationship between wages and productivity are well known. As I said, you can test it yourself. Find a random sample of the labour force and, using a wage regression, note the positive and significant coefficients on the human capital variables. To acquire a more complete understanding you'd have to include some complexities, such as the 2 step Heckman correction, but that will be largely about assessing very specific aspects (e.g. male-female returns to education, as part of a general analysis into discrimination)

 

When houses are not being built and factories are not being built there is little demand for carpenters, steel workers, masons, plumbers, etc. no matter how producive they are. There is no demand for the labor.

Welders are not needed when there is nothing to weld. You can run all the numbers you want but when things are not being built in the U.S.A. there is no demand for the labor.

 

There is always demand for labour. You're referring to an excess demand and how the idea of labour market equilibrium is questionable (which actually refers more to the efficiency wage hypothesis that argues the profit motive is inconsistent with labour market clearing)

 

I do not know which is worse your ignorance or arrogance.

 

Your dissonance is also uninteresting