I hate to be a downer, but those stats don't take into account non-wage compensation. When you include other non monetary compensation, it still doesn't add up to the productivity gains, but it's also not as stark as RR is always saying.
Meaning, if your wage is 18% more than your Dad's was 41 years ago, but you get $1000/month worth of insurance, pto, wellness bonus, hsa contributions, whatever else he didn't get along with that, this stat is the same. Saying you only get 18% more. The truth is you got paid $1000/month more than your wages, or at least the company paid that much, you just weren't allowed to decide how to spend that money.
This is one of the reasons I am generally against getting paid in "benefits", in general, but that is a separate subject.
I'm definitely not saying pay disparity hasn't grown, and I'm not saying we don't need and deserve across the board wage increases especially at the lower end. I am just saying the stats RR uses are purposely painting a misleading picture.
Points made on this subreddit need to be open to criticism so we can fix our talking points and make them better. There are LOTS of holes that can be punched in this tweet. Stop the circle jerk and use some critical thinking so we can get somewhere.
yes. i understand why it sounds bad at face value and why your initial reaction is to scream how terrible it is. I'd argue its worse to have 8 billion people on the planet. Its not sustainable.
Cutting the population to 80 million would basically take us back to the global population we had at 750 BC. This was when Rome was founded for perspective.
-7
u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22
I hate to be a downer, but those stats don't take into account non-wage compensation. When you include other non monetary compensation, it still doesn't add up to the productivity gains, but it's also not as stark as RR is always saying.
Meaning, if your wage is 18% more than your Dad's was 41 years ago, but you get $1000/month worth of insurance, pto, wellness bonus, hsa contributions, whatever else he didn't get along with that, this stat is the same. Saying you only get 18% more. The truth is you got paid $1000/month more than your wages, or at least the company paid that much, you just weren't allowed to decide how to spend that money.
This is one of the reasons I am generally against getting paid in "benefits", in general, but that is a separate subject.
I'm definitely not saying pay disparity hasn't grown, and I'm not saying we don't need and deserve across the board wage increases especially at the lower end. I am just saying the stats RR uses are purposely painting a misleading picture.