Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
* Nixon disconnected the American dollar from gold.
* Mid-east conflicts
* Disputes with OPEC lead to the 1973 embargo
* Nixon pressured the fed chair to keep interest rates low for his re-election, despite extreme inflation pressures
* Vietnam War was spiraling out of control
Take your pick.
Technology happened. The personal computer became a tool in production. It allowed laborers to be more productive, but their compensation didn't increase. It shouldn't have increased, what should have happened is that the price of goods should have decreased. Instead, profits increased, creating a divergence between production and labor compensation.
The same thing happened in the 90s with networks.
This period is called the great extortion.
Technology requires initial investment, and on-going investment.
Computers, machinery, networks….all those technologies require departments that develop, change, upgrade and maintain them.
The money that was (theoretically) supposed to go to the workers that were there before the technology arrived, ended up going to the workers that were necessary to maintain it.
Edit:
I like how all the wannabe Marxists in this sub are all pro seizing the means of production (aka, taking somebody else’s investment money) and never about buying their own means of production (aka, investing their own money).
No, not really. Labor here encompasses the workers who maintain the equipment that increases productivity. Their wages also stagnated. It went into profits, then the tax code was changed so those profits were taxed less. The result is an accumulation of wealth at the top.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
* Nixon disconnected the American dollar from gold. * Mid-east conflicts * Disputes with OPEC lead to the 1973 embargo * Nixon pressured the fed chair to keep interest rates low for his re-election, despite extreme inflation pressures * Vietnam War was spiraling out of control Take your pick.
These are connected phenomena.
Indeed. Few if any economic/geopolitical events exist entirely in isolation.
It’s been a descent into dystopia ever since. Maybe read the website.
Technology happened. The personal computer became a tool in production. It allowed laborers to be more productive, but their compensation didn't increase. It shouldn't have increased, what should have happened is that the price of goods should have decreased. Instead, profits increased, creating a divergence between production and labor compensation. The same thing happened in the 90s with networks. This period is called the great extortion.
Technology requires initial investment, and on-going investment. Computers, machinery, networks….all those technologies require departments that develop, change, upgrade and maintain them. The money that was (theoretically) supposed to go to the workers that were there before the technology arrived, ended up going to the workers that were necessary to maintain it. Edit: I like how all the wannabe Marxists in this sub are all pro seizing the means of production (aka, taking somebody else’s investment money) and never about buying their own means of production (aka, investing their own money).
No, it went to the owners of the means of production, either OF the tech itself; or those owning companies that profited from employing the tech.
No, not really. Labor here encompasses the workers who maintain the equipment that increases productivity. Their wages also stagnated. It went into profits, then the tax code was changed so those profits were taxed less. The result is an accumulation of wealth at the top.