Its quite discouraging to read that the rate of productivity growth is half of what it was before. That makes me wonder whether the productivity growth trend will continue during my lifetime.
Every time I see statistic on this topic I really wonder why are we so under in this world if everything supposed to be better than 50 years ago. I guess it is one of those we have a long way to go, but we are improving day by day.
I think the most interesting part of this is Piketty's assertion that inequality is not always a straight slope upward but that it is a cycle and we are currently in one of most unequal phases of the cycle. I usually think ofthings always progressing towards more inequality but now I'm reconsidering.
It was unsettling to read that 2/5 of the productivity growth that was expected back in the late 1970s in the American economy is not present in society today. It would seem that our society is progresses but the statistics are telling another story. The author points out that the incomes of the top 1% have grown the most since 1980. The political economic system is build to protect the profits of the rich and therefore it is hard for other members of society to benefit from the richer individuals in society.
What is mind blowing about this article is that statistics show that productivity growth is not happening at the rate that was expected 40 years ago. This is unsettling considering that many people see our country as having come a long way with this issue, when really it seems that we have not progressed at all.
I'm under the impression that the type of "progression," that is reflected in this essay is a disparate measurement from that of the public. I think the public thinks less about the logistical, statistical evidence of economic progression, but they tend to evaluate the standard of living and how it has improved over the decades. Discrimination does still exist, and the economic gap is widening as the years pass by, but still, the social progress that we had made towards a more diverse, and well, "progressive" movement shows that we have made improvements.
As an African American, it was interesting to hear how the authors believed that "African Americans are better off economically with the decline and discrimination." I took this statement with a grain of salt because the authors also mentioned how 2/5 of the productivity growth we expected to happen in American society by now has not occurred; therefore, it is hard to really claim that African Americans are better economically without more evidence to prove this assumption.
Jamal, I think that when he said that, he meant in comparison to how African Americans were doing economically prior to 1980. After he makes that statement, he says "although the overwhelming proportion of the African-American population has been caught up in the negative parts of broader trends." Meaning that compared to other races, African-Americans aren't doing better economically.
It is interesting how the author's conclusion was that the world of our grand-children would be that in order for them to have a upward-mobility, they would have to marry someone who is economically wealthy, as in the past, past generations. Another thing that I found interesting about this article is what the author said about "Keynes's euthanasization of the rentier." He said sociery (us) would not be able benefit from the gain wealth that the top 1% is having. That if the top 1% invest their wealth in the market, and that will improve in creating more jobs and better job opportunities for us, it would create a upward mobility for us too. But the author says, its not true because "wealth is very good at protecting itself and its returns." With that in mind, I do not think its a good idea that the government let the top 1% to keep moving upwards because their have the facilities to do it, and we do not. I think there is a need for a balance. It is not good for the country to have one 1% of the population that has more access to control the country. In terms of the 2/5 increase productivity in today, I think that yea in the past there was much more optimistic thoughts that the United States was growing rapidly to a more social equality withing its population. However, I think that the United States is has done at least a better job that many countries have done in the past. That is of course talking to Latin America and African countries. Europe is of course more well advance in that. But there has been a little progress in US, and I hope we keep that growing. It is not easy to try to change a system that has worked for a long long time.
The general idea that we aren't doing as well as was expected years ago is pretty interesting. Clearly since the 1970's we have come a long way with women, minorities and LGBT rights drastically changing and improving. Its interesting to imagine how far advanced our society could be if we reached the full potential that we were predicted to be at this point. What would that society look like? How can we work towards reaching that point?
I find it interesting that we as a country are falling behind what was expected of us 50 years ago, seeing as we seem so technologically advanced and what not. I think we have focused a lot on material wealth as a country and not in social or economic capital, which has left us with high tech shiny phones cars and laptops but large income disparities and general inequality among classes. I will argue that our generation has in a way implemented a "lead foot" type of motivation as far as social and ethical issues go. There has constantly been protests riots and movements about so many issues, and we've gained a lot of momentum along the way.We've seen legalization and decriminalization of marijuana, legalized gay marriage in numerous states, more acceptance of general LGBT in the workplace and other organizations. I think the past few decades before our generation hit a slight plateau in social reform but we've picked up the pace a bit since, and i think that even if we aren't where we were predicted to be, we will get there fast.
I don’t find it too surprising that productivity growth in the US has stopped doubling because there has to be some kind of limit. It is important to note that productivity is still on the rise, it is only the rate of change that has dropped. What is surprising is that wages are not really growing much anymore. All the money is being held onto by the rich and not helping 99% of people. I don’t see any viable policy changes to alleviate this problem but looking at Piketty’s analysis, it might take another war or depression to go back to the good times, which is a scary thought.
Sara-Ruth Gabriel As an African American women I find it interesting reading this because how the author mentioned. African Americans would do a lot better economically with the decline of discrimination, although there is data involved I would like to know how this data was found. Since, the beginning of African Americans touching American soil they have been discriminated on so how can you even put that data together. -Sara-Ruth Gabriel
It is true that we are less productive, but more importantly, wages are not parallel to productivity. Americans are not getting paid in relation to their productivity. America managed to start paying the American worker less money for the same amount of work. That fact the many Americans have to work two or three jobs to cover basic necessities is ridiculous. Should we be more productive? Yes. Should we pay workers what they deserve? Definitely.
I found this article very beneficial when understanding why the quality of living in the United States stopped doubling after 1970. Although, I feel like the article can be a little confusing for a person who has no background on American History and economics. One thing I found interesting is why someone who is making 100,000/ a year is not able to identify as privileged; instead they are labeled as upper/middle class. I would have thought so that someone who makes over 100,000 a year is very privilege given that the Marjory of jobs with a bachelor degrees starting salaries range from 45,000 to 65,000. And people, who decide to go to grad school, at least in the social sciences, make about 75,000 to 95,000 a year. And more importantly the article does mentions that women and minorities are doing better. Maybe the article only refers at the quality of living and productivity of white people. It would be helpful to see a comparison on how minorities and women’s standards of living levels are now compared to 1970.
"The lion's share of the gains aren't going to the educated, but to the top." This quote from the article describes an aspect of society that angers many people. As a soon-to-be college graduate, I would hope that I could find a job immediately, but the reality of the situation is that it will be difficult in today's economy. While I struggle to find a job, other, less educated people my own age--like Kendall or Kylie Jenner--will not need to work a day in their life and still enjoy much more luxurious lifestyles than me. This is the everlasting struggle that can both motivate and discourage people to work hard, and it depends which approach you choose.
It is repulsive to see statistics on just how poorly America is doing. The 1% continue to rise while the rest of us scramble to even complete the basic requirements of society. We are a smart nation than ever, yet we cannot get out of our own way. It has been said many times that a woman cannot be president because women are too emotional. If you ask me, everyone is a little too sensitive these days. There is a simple solution to these economic issues, and a large part of that is making people work equally hard to succeed in society. To really explain my vantage point on this topic I would have to write pages upon pages, but instead I will simple say that the root of the problem is political-correctness and religion. These among other social-factors are what are stopping our success as a unified country.
It was interesting to see the United States' productivity has gone down significantly, but it wasn't that surprising to see the rich continue to get richer. The reoccurring theme has been the struggle for others to make money, but have to work long hours, while the rich continue to get richer and do not work half as hard as the poorer Americans.
another reason why the gab is growing. the rich are getting richer and the poor are struggling to survive. inequality is choice and a choice that has gotten out pf control.
Seeing just how much the productivity has gone down in the US is a little unsettling. It has become clear that the poor continue to get poorer and the rich are getting richer. The scary part about these facts is that our cohort of college students are about to enter the real world where good and steady jobs are what keep us going; which is obviously becoming increasingly competitive. A college degree is not enough to receive a good job anymore and many fields require more than just four years of school. Money is an issue for the large majority of the US, and when we enter our 30's, we really cannot guarantee where we will be financially, geographically, etc. A way to see the glass half full is that educationally those who are reaching higher levels are somewhat rewarded, but that comes back to the inequality aspect as some people may not be granted those opportunities, and as a result they will struggle.
I also found it interesting how there has been a decrease in productivity in the U.S.; however, the rich continue to make more and more money. This displays how opportunity operates in America. Those who are already rich have more opportunities (education, job offers, etc.) to make higher incomes compared to those in a lower class. I agree with Sam Humbel that we have focused too much on material wealth, rather than social and economic capital. As the rich continue to make high incomes, lower classes tend to have less access to these opportunities, making the productivity in the U.S. decrease so dramatically.
In order to have a more appropriate reaction to the numbers indicated in this article, I would need them to define what they mean by productivity. Are they measuring physical jobs or intellectual jobs? Either way, I do feel as though wages need to match productivity. -Gregory Brown
Its quite discouraging to read that the rate of productivity growth is half of what it was before. That makes me wonder whether the productivity growth trend will continue during my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I see statistic on this topic I really wonder why are we so under in this world if everything supposed to be better than 50 years ago. I guess it is one of those we have a long way to go, but we are improving day by day.
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting part of this is Piketty's assertion that inequality is not always a straight slope upward but that it is a cycle and we are currently in one of most unequal phases of the cycle. I usually think ofthings always progressing towards more inequality but now I'm reconsidering.
ReplyDeleteIt was unsettling to read that 2/5 of the productivity growth that was expected back in the late 1970s in the American economy is not present in society today. It would seem that our society is progresses but the statistics are telling another story. The author points out that the incomes of the top 1% have grown the most since 1980. The political economic system is build to protect the profits of the rich and therefore it is hard for other members of society to benefit from the richer individuals in society.
ReplyDeleteWhat is mind blowing about this article is that statistics show that productivity growth is not happening at the rate that was expected 40 years ago. This is unsettling considering that many people see our country as having come a long way with this issue, when really it seems that we have not progressed at all.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy Levin
I'm under the impression that the type of "progression," that is reflected in this essay is a disparate measurement from that of the public. I think the public thinks less about the logistical, statistical evidence of economic progression, but they tend to evaluate the standard of living and how it has improved over the decades. Discrimination does still exist, and the economic gap is widening as the years pass by, but still, the social progress that we had made towards a more diverse, and well, "progressive" movement shows that we have made improvements.
DeleteAs an African American, it was interesting to hear how the authors believed that "African Americans are better off economically with the decline and discrimination." I took this statement with a grain of salt because the authors also mentioned how 2/5 of the productivity growth we expected to happen in American society by now has not occurred; therefore, it is hard to really claim that African Americans are better economically without more evidence to prove this assumption.
ReplyDeleteJamal,
DeleteI think that when he said that, he meant in comparison to how African Americans were doing economically prior to 1980. After he makes that statement, he says "although the overwhelming proportion of the African-American population has been caught up in the negative parts of broader trends."
Meaning that compared to other races, African-Americans aren't doing better economically.
It is interesting how the author's conclusion was that the world of our grand-children would be that in order for them to have a upward-mobility, they would have to marry someone who is economically wealthy, as in the past, past generations. Another thing that I found interesting about this article is what the author said about "Keynes's euthanasization of the rentier."
ReplyDeleteHe said sociery (us) would not be able benefit from the gain wealth that the top 1% is having. That if the top 1% invest their wealth in the market, and that will improve in creating more jobs and better job opportunities for us, it would create a upward mobility for us too. But the author says, its not true because "wealth is very good at protecting itself and its returns." With that in mind, I do not think its a good idea that the government let the top 1% to keep moving upwards because their have the facilities to do it, and we do not. I think there is a need for a balance. It is not good for the country to have one 1% of the population that has more access to control the country. In terms of the 2/5 increase productivity in today, I think that yea in the past there was much more optimistic thoughts that the United States was growing rapidly to a more social equality withing its population. However, I think that the United States is has done at least a better job that many countries have done in the past. That is of course talking to Latin America and African countries. Europe is of course more well advance in that. But there has been a little progress in US, and I hope we keep that growing. It is not easy to try to change a system that has worked for a long long time.
The general idea that we aren't doing as well as was expected years ago is pretty interesting. Clearly since the 1970's we have come a long way with women, minorities and LGBT rights drastically changing and improving. Its interesting to imagine how far advanced our society could be if we reached the full potential that we were predicted to be at this point. What would that society look like? How can we work towards reaching that point?
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that we as a country are falling behind what was expected of us 50 years ago, seeing as we seem so technologically advanced and what not. I think we have focused a lot on material wealth as a country and not in social or economic capital, which has left us with high tech shiny phones cars and laptops but large income disparities and general inequality among classes. I will argue that our generation has in a way implemented a "lead foot" type of motivation as far as social and ethical issues go. There has constantly been protests riots and movements about so many issues, and we've gained a lot of momentum along the way.We've seen legalization and decriminalization of marijuana, legalized gay marriage in numerous states, more acceptance of general LGBT in the workplace and other organizations. I think the past few decades before our generation hit a slight plateau in social reform but we've picked up the pace a bit since, and i think that even if we aren't where we were predicted to be, we will get there fast.
ReplyDeleteI don’t find it too surprising that productivity growth in the US has stopped doubling because there has to be some kind of limit. It is important to note that productivity is still on the rise, it is only the rate of change that has dropped. What is surprising is that wages are not really growing much anymore. All the money is being held onto by the rich and not helping 99% of people. I don’t see any viable policy changes to alleviate this problem but looking at Piketty’s analysis, it might take another war or depression to go back to the good times, which is a scary thought.
ReplyDeleteSara-Ruth Gabriel
ReplyDeleteAs an African American women I find it interesting reading this because how the author mentioned. African Americans would do a lot better economically with the decline of discrimination, although there is data involved I would like to know how this data was found. Since, the beginning of African Americans touching American soil they have been discriminated on so how can you even put that data together.
-Sara-Ruth Gabriel
It is true that we are less productive, but more importantly, wages are not parallel to productivity. Americans are not getting paid in relation to their productivity. America managed to start paying the American worker less money for the same amount of work. That fact the many Americans have to work two or three jobs to cover basic necessities is ridiculous. Should we be more productive? Yes. Should we pay workers what they deserve? Definitely.
ReplyDeleteI found this article very beneficial when understanding why the quality of living in the United States stopped doubling after 1970. Although, I feel like the article can be a little confusing for a person who has no background on American History and economics. One thing I found interesting is why someone who is making 100,000/ a year is not able to identify as privileged; instead they are labeled as upper/middle class. I would have thought so that someone who makes over 100,000 a year is very privilege given that the Marjory of jobs with a bachelor degrees starting salaries range from 45,000 to 65,000. And people, who decide to go to grad school, at least in the social sciences, make about 75,000 to 95,000 a year. And more importantly the article does mentions that women and minorities are doing better. Maybe the article only refers at the quality of living and productivity of white people. It would be helpful to see a comparison on how minorities and women’s standards of living levels are now compared to 1970.
ReplyDelete"The lion's share of the gains aren't going to the educated, but to the top." This quote from the article describes an aspect of society that angers many people. As a soon-to-be college graduate, I would hope that I could find a job immediately, but the reality of the situation is that it will be difficult in today's economy. While I struggle to find a job, other, less educated people my own age--like Kendall or Kylie Jenner--will not need to work a day in their life and still enjoy much more luxurious lifestyles than me. This is the everlasting struggle that can both motivate and discourage people to work hard, and it depends which approach you choose.
ReplyDeleteIt is repulsive to see statistics on just how poorly America is doing. The 1% continue to rise while the rest of us scramble to even complete the basic requirements of society. We are a smart nation than ever, yet we cannot get out of our own way. It has been said many times that a woman cannot be president because women are too emotional. If you ask me, everyone is a little too sensitive these days. There is a simple solution to these economic issues, and a large part of that is making people work equally hard to succeed in society. To really explain my vantage point on this topic I would have to write pages upon pages, but instead I will simple say that the root of the problem is political-correctness and religion. These among other social-factors are what are stopping our success as a unified country.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see the United States' productivity has gone down significantly, but it wasn't that surprising to see the rich continue to get richer. The reoccurring theme has been the struggle for others to make money, but have to work long hours, while the rich continue to get richer and do not work half as hard as the poorer Americans.
ReplyDeleteanother reason why the gab is growing. the rich are getting richer and the poor are struggling to survive. inequality is choice and a choice that has gotten out pf control.
DeleteSeeing just how much the productivity has gone down in the US is a little unsettling. It has become clear that the poor continue to get poorer and the rich are getting richer. The scary part about these facts is that our cohort of college students are about to enter the real world where good and steady jobs are what keep us going; which is obviously becoming increasingly competitive. A college degree is not enough to receive a good job anymore and many fields require more than just four years of school. Money is an issue for the large majority of the US, and when we enter our 30's, we really cannot guarantee where we will be financially, geographically, etc. A way to see the glass half full is that educationally those who are reaching higher levels are somewhat rewarded, but that comes back to the inequality aspect as some people may not be granted those opportunities, and as a result they will struggle.
ReplyDeleteJames Bull
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting how there has been a decrease in productivity in the U.S.; however, the rich continue to make more and more money. This displays how opportunity operates in America. Those who are already rich have more opportunities (education, job offers, etc.) to make higher incomes compared to those in a lower class. I agree with Sam Humbel that we have focused too much on material wealth, rather than social and economic capital. As the rich continue to make high incomes, lower classes tend to have less access to these opportunities, making the productivity in the U.S. decrease so dramatically.
ReplyDeleteIn order to have a more appropriate reaction to the numbers indicated in this article, I would need them to define what they mean by productivity. Are they measuring physical jobs or intellectual jobs? Either way, I do feel as though wages need to match productivity.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown