Do you know why median household income rose? Dollars to donuts it's because real wages fell, forcing households to become two-early households. (isn't that right, Doug?) That's not an improvement in the standard of living. Also it's my understand that hours worked has gone up sharply, isn't that so Doug?
And you ignore _my_ points about the decreasing accessibility or vastly increasing cost of higher education, health care, and retirement. As well as my point that even with less important commodities worker time per turkey is less (and Doug says it ain't so, or anyway the study you cite is worthless), it doesn't offset the overall fall in real wages.
When I was in college I had a book called How To Lie With Statistics. Your arguments could serve as illustrations. I don't say you are knowingly misrepresenting the facts. But your statistical arguments and responses (and failures to respond) are misleading and misguided.
Btw, just curious, if capitalism (American capitalism, anyway) is making us better and happier in every way, why should we (or should we?) support a risky transition to socialism, which we don't have any assurance will be an improvement? Maybe I should sign off LBO and sign on the Mises list instead. What do you think?
--- James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Andie
>
> "You persist in the fallacy that averages tell you
> the
> significant things without looking at distribution.
> Products may be cheaper, but if real wages have
> fallen
> so that it requires two people to earn enough to buy
> these cheaper products, that is not an improvement.
> The benefits accrue at the top. Doug gave the
> figures
> that matter,w why do you ignore them?"
>
> I don't ignore the figures Doug gave. He showed that
> median household income
> rose by 15 per cent between 1973 and 2005.
>
> He also showed that hourly wages fell by 11 per
> cent. But given that those
> dollars (as my table shows) bought more goods,
> hourly wages measured in
> consumer goods as opposed to dollars have not
> fallen. I don't say that the
> changes are phenomenal, only that they are
> sufficient to show that there is
> no decline in absolute wages, only a decline in
> wages relative to other
> incomes.
>
> This is demonstrated by the fact that households
> spend proportionately less
> on basics like food, and more on luxuries, over
> time. Of course that trend
> could be reversed by a recession, but you seem to
> miss out of the account
> that the seventies, eighties and nineties were
> marked by severe recessions.
> In the UK the economy continues to grow, albeit
> modestly. Is the US in
> recession?
>
> Like you, I am sceptical about the growth of
> credentialism in the labour
> market, but I have to point out that far from being
> the case that people
> cannot afford to put their children through college,
> many more of them do.
> In fact it seems I have to amend the figures and say
> that now more than a
> third go to college, whereas before, only a quarter
> went. But before you say
> that they have no choice, bear in mind that most
> people still don't go to
> college.
>
> I am interested in the fact that the LBO list has
> erred on the side of
> characterising working class consumption as
> excessive in the past, whereas,
> today it seems to be erring on the side of
> exaggerating austerity. That
> seems like interesting data to me.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html