fine. i finally clicked through to the link. looking at the first graph, without having a fucking clue what is on the y-axis or what the authors are trying to push, it becomes immediately evident that the divergence starts at 1972, not 1980. ul

The wages and compensation became detached from productivity in 1972 because there was a fundamental decrease in the growth of the first two compared to the third after then. That is reflected in the slopes. Productivity declined in the 1973 recession but not to as great an extent as wages and compensation because the detachment had occurred. Detachment occurs when the curves cease to have the same shape and that happened in 1972.

Until 1980 wages still went up when productivity went up, wages still went down when productivity went down. After 1980 this was no longer the case. I said this in my last post but you seemed to ignore it. Yes the slopes negatives or positive were no longer as closely related post 1972 as they were pre-1972 but they were still related. After 1980 the slope of wages remained stagnant and productivity's slope was no longer related to wages in any fashion. As a math guy I'm sure you can recognize this yes?


Also what do you think about regressing to the fiscal and monetary policies of the 1950s and 60s skrum? The Gold standard and high tax rates seemed to very much correlate with general prosperity afterall (workers were getting a more appropriate portion of the pie)? It's clearly a proven formula whereas our current fiscal and monetary policy, instituted by Reagan and maintained since, is not.