Aa Mechanic Pay Vs Cpi
- Thread starter TWU informer
- Start date
- Status
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< What really scares you, is when you walk into an Aircrafdt Museum and see an Aircraft that you can say: "Hell! I used to work on one of those back in-------!" :down:Former ModerAAtor said:
Former ModerAAtor,Feb 20 2005, 03:43 AM]
I'll agree that trying to tie wages to tickets is somewhat useless.
Now, if you want to tie wages to profitability, I think you'll find a lot of people who agree with this.
Only the bosses. How much control to wage earners really have over profitability? The fact is the workers can do their jobs perfectly and the Bosses could still make the company lose money.
Bob, Buck or Dave will no doubt argue that the working man has no impact on a company's profitability, which is dead wrong, since every one of us has the ability to reduce costs or increase revenue.
Wrong.Even if they did everything they could the bosses could still blow it. The fact is that the bosses make the decisions.
It can be something as huge as landing a corporate contract worth millions in revenue or re-using DC10 and MD11 coffee makers, or as mundane as getting people to turn off the lights in an empty room, making fewer photocopies, or
Well I used to do that but the company managed to lose $3.5 billion anyway and then they cut my pay by 25%.
But I suspect it will be a cold day in Hell before we see unions embracing the concept of a significant variable compensation component in their contracts.
Well I'll tell you what, set my base at $250K and lets make all the rest bonuses, commisions etc.
I'll agree that trying to tie wages to tickets is somewhat useless.
Now, if you want to tie wages to profitability, I think you'll find a lot of people who agree with this.
Only the bosses. How much control to wage earners really have over profitability? The fact is the workers can do their jobs perfectly and the Bosses could still make the company lose money.
Bob, Buck or Dave will no doubt argue that the working man has no impact on a company's profitability, which is dead wrong, since every one of us has the ability to reduce costs or increase revenue.
Wrong.Even if they did everything they could the bosses could still blow it. The fact is that the bosses make the decisions.
It can be something as huge as landing a corporate contract worth millions in revenue or re-using DC10 and MD11 coffee makers, or as mundane as getting people to turn off the lights in an empty room, making fewer photocopies, or
Well I used to do that but the company managed to lose $3.5 billion anyway and then they cut my pay by 25%.
But I suspect it will be a cold day in Hell before we see unions embracing the concept of a significant variable compensation component in their contracts.
Well I'll tell you what, set my base at $250K and lets make all the rest bonuses, commisions etc.
[mweiss,Feb 20 2005, 07:52 AM]
Yeah, but how about someone who looks at the big picture instead of individual data points?
Such as?
And they do. You're just missing that one signal in the noise of hundreds of other signals in the pricing.
And your evidence is...?
And yours is? As I recall in our previous discussion you claimed that you would present proof to back up your claims, which were never really made clear, but all you did was show off theories and formulas that you learned in grad school. You never actually proved anything, as you claimed you could.
Getting back to the subject of this thread however is that despite increased productivity mechanics have seen a steep decline in real wages.
You and Bob Owens must be cut from the same mold. He makes the same claim. Do you have any evidence? He didn't.
I've seen the evidence to the contrary.
Well maybe I've seen evidence to support my position too, but like you I just dont present it.
Yeah, but how about someone who looks at the big picture instead of individual data points?
Such as?
And they do. You're just missing that one signal in the noise of hundreds of other signals in the pricing.
And your evidence is...?
And yours is? As I recall in our previous discussion you claimed that you would present proof to back up your claims, which were never really made clear, but all you did was show off theories and formulas that you learned in grad school. You never actually proved anything, as you claimed you could.
Getting back to the subject of this thread however is that despite increased productivity mechanics have seen a steep decline in real wages.
You and Bob Owens must be cut from the same mold. He makes the same claim. Do you have any evidence? He didn't.
I've seen the evidence to the contrary.
Well maybe I've seen evidence to support my position too, but like you I just dont present it.
Not the point. You made a broad statement. Use of a small number of individual data points to "prove" the broad statement doesn't really prove anything. It's when you look in aggregate (i.e., "the big picture") that broad statements can be proven.Buck said:
But I'll give you one point...some ticket prices are unaffected by the cost of fuel. So what? Your statement was broader than that.
Except that airline tickets aren't gasoline. There's a huge amount of dilution that occurs between the oil in the ground and the person in the seat.
What this tells you is that the increase in fuel prices didn't affect American Airlines ticket prices. You're looking at the wrong part of the industry.
That's not evidence. That's a possible motive.
As for my evidence to the contrary, I'd have to go back to my reams of data. I have it...hopefully I'll have the time to revisit it. The quick and dirty description is as follows:
When fuel prices rose, yield at the lowest-cost carriers also rose. At the high-cost carriers, it didn't rise because the increased costs put the pinch at the top (as they always do in commodity markets). Instead, losses mounted at the top, while profits remained relatively constant at the bottom.
Which I did.Bob Owens said:
I made a claim that it is possible, with information available to the airlines, to determine the shape of the demand curve, the optimal prices from that shape, and thus whether or not a price increase would result in higher or lower revenues. I proved that.
I used the forumulae to prove it. You just kept claiming that the formulae were wrong...without anything other than your belief to back it up.
I didn't prove that Former ModerAAtor had the correct numbers, because I don't have sufficient information available to me to do it. I only claimed that he could actually know it, not that he must, because I don't know whether or not he does. You claimed he couldn't, and never gave a shred of evidence to back it up. Thus far, I'm waaaay ahead of you in the proof department. <_<
I won't dispute that. There are a whole slew of reasons behind it, but it doesn't much change the outcome to discuss those reasons.
I highly doubt that you've seen it. The closest you've come is to state an unprovable claim, namely that the airlines have made tiny marginal changes that made their balance sheets slightly worse in order to extract even tinier concessions. It borders on the ludicrous.
Hackman
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,997
- Reaction score
- 892
Like I said before Strakey, twu clowns like yourself have to hide and hurl your insults, threats and barbs from the shadows. I get threatening personal messages from unknown twu cowards that don't have the stones to show themselves.Strake said:
Your such a hipocrite, polish up your coffin, hire a new felon, and try on some new words instead of "scab".
mweiss,Feb 21 2005, 03:03 AM]
Which I did.
No you didnt.
I made a claim that it is possible, with information available to the airlines, to determine the shape of the demand curve, the optimal prices from that shape, and thus whether or not a price increase would result in higher or lower revenues. I proved that.
No you didnt do that either. You discussed the theory but you never put in any actual figures.The debate wasnt about whether its "possible to determine a demand curve" but rather whether pricing was as high as it could be. You made the assumption that the demand curve would indicate that prices could not be raised because if they raised prices demand would drop off causing revenue to drop off despite higher prices. That was never proven.
I used the forumulae to prove it. You just kept claiming that the formulae were wrong...without anything other than your belief to back it up.
No you simply argued over whether formulae could predict how demand is affected by price, you never actually demonstrated anything. I didnt say that the formulae was wrong, I said that unless you had indisputable data there is error in the outcome, that you were making claims based upon approximations and assumptions. I also questioned whether your application would take into account the complexities of the product in question such as the fact that air travel is the means to an end, not the real thing that a consumer is seeking, in other words they fly to accomplish some other objective other than flying.
I didn't prove that Former ModerAAtor had the correct numbers, because I don't have sufficient information available to me to do it.
Exactly!And without those numbers then we really still dont know if the airlines have unneccisarily been underpricing the product do we? And even if you have the figures there is always the possibility of unforseen events that shift the graph to the point that all the figures arrived at under the earlier assumptions are no longer valid. Another thing is that your formulae and assumptions are based on "perfect world" scenarios and dont take into account that perhaps profits for the airlines may not be the objective at the moment. Explain how if this industry loses more than it makes that it still continues to grow. Could it be that as long as the industry is moving people that other interests are being served therefore even if its losing money it must be kept running?
I only claimed that he could actually know it, not that he must, because I don't know whether or not he does. You claimed he couldn't, and never gave a shred of evidence to back it up. Thus far, I'm waaaay ahead of you in the proof department. <_<
So you say.
I won't dispute that. There are a whole slew of reasons behind it, but it doesn't much change the outcome to discuss those reasons.
While it may not change the outcome it can be used to plan a strategy to recover what was lost. I feel that our loss was unneccisary, unjustified and preventable and the result of a combination of poor structure and incompetant leadership who were pursuing their own interests.
I highly doubt that you've seen it. The closest you've come is to state an unprovable claim, namely that the airlines have made tiny marginal changes that made their balance sheets slightly worse in order to extract even tinier concessions. It borders on the ludicrous.
Tinier concessions? You call a 25% reduction in labor costs with the same amount of man hours at their disposal tiny?? 25%!!!! You try to make it seem like its not worth it to claim to lose $3.5 billion(much of it not real cash losses)one year to save $1.5 billion(in real cash) a year for the next five years.
Now I know you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to wages. The stated gains from concessions are only the tip of the iceberg. Things that you dont figure in such as longer progressions cost workers a lot of money, in my case that change resulted in earning at least $100,000 less over a seven year period. In the meantime the company and pundits like yourself claim that "wages were not cut". Then you disingenuously try to claim that our wages increased faster than productivity.
Ive been in this industry for 25 years and I base what I claim on my observations, real world observations.If you want to prove your case with theories fine, but without the data you have proved nothing as far as what we are debating.
Which I did.
No you didnt.
I made a claim that it is possible, with information available to the airlines, to determine the shape of the demand curve, the optimal prices from that shape, and thus whether or not a price increase would result in higher or lower revenues. I proved that.
No you didnt do that either. You discussed the theory but you never put in any actual figures.The debate wasnt about whether its "possible to determine a demand curve" but rather whether pricing was as high as it could be. You made the assumption that the demand curve would indicate that prices could not be raised because if they raised prices demand would drop off causing revenue to drop off despite higher prices. That was never proven.
I used the forumulae to prove it. You just kept claiming that the formulae were wrong...without anything other than your belief to back it up.
No you simply argued over whether formulae could predict how demand is affected by price, you never actually demonstrated anything. I didnt say that the formulae was wrong, I said that unless you had indisputable data there is error in the outcome, that you were making claims based upon approximations and assumptions. I also questioned whether your application would take into account the complexities of the product in question such as the fact that air travel is the means to an end, not the real thing that a consumer is seeking, in other words they fly to accomplish some other objective other than flying.
I didn't prove that Former ModerAAtor had the correct numbers, because I don't have sufficient information available to me to do it.
Exactly!And without those numbers then we really still dont know if the airlines have unneccisarily been underpricing the product do we? And even if you have the figures there is always the possibility of unforseen events that shift the graph to the point that all the figures arrived at under the earlier assumptions are no longer valid. Another thing is that your formulae and assumptions are based on "perfect world" scenarios and dont take into account that perhaps profits for the airlines may not be the objective at the moment. Explain how if this industry loses more than it makes that it still continues to grow. Could it be that as long as the industry is moving people that other interests are being served therefore even if its losing money it must be kept running?
I only claimed that he could actually know it, not that he must, because I don't know whether or not he does. You claimed he couldn't, and never gave a shred of evidence to back it up. Thus far, I'm waaaay ahead of you in the proof department. <_<
So you say.
I won't dispute that. There are a whole slew of reasons behind it, but it doesn't much change the outcome to discuss those reasons.
While it may not change the outcome it can be used to plan a strategy to recover what was lost. I feel that our loss was unneccisary, unjustified and preventable and the result of a combination of poor structure and incompetant leadership who were pursuing their own interests.
I highly doubt that you've seen it. The closest you've come is to state an unprovable claim, namely that the airlines have made tiny marginal changes that made their balance sheets slightly worse in order to extract even tinier concessions. It borders on the ludicrous.
Tinier concessions? You call a 25% reduction in labor costs with the same amount of man hours at their disposal tiny?? 25%!!!! You try to make it seem like its not worth it to claim to lose $3.5 billion(much of it not real cash losses)one year to save $1.5 billion(in real cash) a year for the next five years.
Now I know you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to wages. The stated gains from concessions are only the tip of the iceberg. Things that you dont figure in such as longer progressions cost workers a lot of money, in my case that change resulted in earning at least $100,000 less over a seven year period. In the meantime the company and pundits like yourself claim that "wages were not cut". Then you disingenuously try to claim that our wages increased faster than productivity.
Ive been in this industry for 25 years and I base what I claim on my observations, real world observations.If you want to prove your case with theories fine, but without the data you have proved nothing as far as what we are debating.
No. See, you have a real problem with reading comprehension. I proved the following:Bob Owens said:
- It is possible to determine a demand curve
- It is possible to know the supply curve
- With both of those known, it is possible to determine the optimal price (defined as the price at which profits are maximized) in a monopoly market
Actually, I wasn't making claims based on approximations and assumptions. I said that the yield management departments had to experimentally determine the shape of the demand curve, that more data gives a better picture, and that the constantly shifting nature of demand necessarily makes it an inexact science. However, it's better than the dart-at-the-board approach that you proposed as the alternative (i.e., just raise the damn fares and we'll make more money).
Yes, you did. But the experimental nature of determining the shape of the demand curve inherently takes all of these factors into account. It tells you what the shape is, not why it has that shape. Other efforts have done a decent job of explaining the reasons behind the shape, but that's for a completely different discussion.
Bringing us back to your suggestion that throwing darts at a board is better than using historical data.
Right. After all, losing money, racking up debt, and eliminating all unencumbered capital is a great strategy for long-term success. 🙄
I have. It's because you're confusing macro- and microeconomics in the same sentence. The legacy airlines have, on the whole, roughly broken even since deregulation. The LCCs that exist today, on the other hand, have been profitable on the whole. Thus, the market has been shifting from legacy to LCC. That explains the bulk of the behavior.
Not really. The money has to come from somewhere. Not enough has come from your pocket to justify it from that angle.
I agree, but it doesn't mean that the losses were fabricated.
In comparison to the losses, yes.Bob Owens said:
No. I'm claiming that you have to look at the total loss profile as well as the total concession profile. To compare a single year of losses to a five year savings is to compare apples to oranges.
What I said before, and continue to say, is that if you look at a single individual over time, under a single contract (assuming that it stays intact over the term), wages rise faster than productivity. You agreed that if you were to move to, say, UA, your productivity would change little over time, but your wages would rise. It's true.
I certainly do not believe in treating something of value as something of value only when the employee is asking for it. That's someone else's take, not mine. You're putting words in my mouth. I told you before not to do it. I'm telling you again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
If you have anything further to say about that other thread, I suggest you do so in that thread. In the interest of keeping that discussion in one place, I will not discuss it further in this thread.
mweiss,Feb 22 2005, 06:27 AM]
No. See, you have a real problem with reading comprehension. I proved the following:
And a "market" is a city pair at a specific point in time right?
Bringing us back to your suggestion that throwing darts at a board is better than using historical data.
Right. After all, losing money, racking up debt, and eliminating all unencumbered capital is a great strategy for long-term success. 🙄
And without doing that how else would they have been able to reduce labor costs to such a degree? The fact is that this industry, as long as we are flying still generates huge revenues for other industries. This explains why GE keeps funding USAIR. By losing money, racking up debt and eliminatinmg unencumbered capital it will keep a downward pressure on wages and allow these other interests to maximize thier take from what this industry provides.
I have. It's because you're confusing macro- and microeconomics in the same sentence.
Am I? Both points were a summation of the industry, not any particular industry.
The legacy airlines have, on the whole, roughly broken even since deregulation.
Now who is confusing micro and macro? How can you lump all the "legacy carriers" into one when each one has had different results?
The LCCs that exist today, on the other hand, have been profitable on the whole. Thus, the market has been shifting from legacy to LCC. That explains the bulk of the behavior.
Not really, because I've seen this twice before, once in the early eighties and again in the early 90s. While not exactly the same there are similrities in that all the experts were claiming that this represents a permanent change in the industry but within a few short years, right after concessions were won, the legacies rebounded and those LCCs that went head to head with the majors dissapeared.
Not really. The money has to come from somewhere. Not enough has come from your pocket to justify it from that angle.
Oh really? And what do you base that statement on? Once again we can go back to the fact that much of what the airlines claimed to have "lost" was not real cash losses. In the case of AA it was clear that $988 million was from "Goodwill" that could have been written off over time to reduce tax liabilities in the future. The same goes for the AAdvantage miles liability.The 10 k also mentions "prepaid leases" and the company may have also accellerated depreciation.
Lets not forget that this would not be the first time that the airlines exaggerated their distress, remember in the early 90s when they claimed the industry lost more in that period of time than they made in their entire previous existance?
So if most of the companies claimed losses are legal but "paper" losses and our losses represent a real loss of real cash then you are saying that such a strategy of misrepresentation to the workers would not be worth it? The "losses" (Goodwill, leases,depreciation etc would have been there anyway but by combining them and bringing them forward all at once they were able to gain huge concessions that cut labor costs by 25%.
I agree, but it doesn't mean that the losses were fabricated.
So? Whether they were fabricated or not does not change the fact that our concessions were unneccisary.The question is did they really present the employees an accurate picture of the companys long term health?Or was the picture given simply the worst case scenario?
No. See, you have a real problem with reading comprehension. I proved the following:
- It is possible to determine a demand curve
- It is possible to know the supply curve
- With both of those known, it is possible to determine the optimal price (defined as the price at which profits are maximized) in a monopoly market
Like you said its "possible" but you did not prove anything regarding the subject at hand.
And a "market" is a city pair at a specific point in time right?
Bringing us back to your suggestion that throwing darts at a board is better than using historical data.
Right. After all, losing money, racking up debt, and eliminating all unencumbered capital is a great strategy for long-term success. 🙄
And without doing that how else would they have been able to reduce labor costs to such a degree? The fact is that this industry, as long as we are flying still generates huge revenues for other industries. This explains why GE keeps funding USAIR. By losing money, racking up debt and eliminatinmg unencumbered capital it will keep a downward pressure on wages and allow these other interests to maximize thier take from what this industry provides.
I have. It's because you're confusing macro- and microeconomics in the same sentence.
Am I? Both points were a summation of the industry, not any particular industry.
The legacy airlines have, on the whole, roughly broken even since deregulation.
Now who is confusing micro and macro? How can you lump all the "legacy carriers" into one when each one has had different results?
The LCCs that exist today, on the other hand, have been profitable on the whole. Thus, the market has been shifting from legacy to LCC. That explains the bulk of the behavior.
Not really, because I've seen this twice before, once in the early eighties and again in the early 90s. While not exactly the same there are similrities in that all the experts were claiming that this represents a permanent change in the industry but within a few short years, right after concessions were won, the legacies rebounded and those LCCs that went head to head with the majors dissapeared.
Not really. The money has to come from somewhere. Not enough has come from your pocket to justify it from that angle.
Oh really? And what do you base that statement on? Once again we can go back to the fact that much of what the airlines claimed to have "lost" was not real cash losses. In the case of AA it was clear that $988 million was from "Goodwill" that could have been written off over time to reduce tax liabilities in the future. The same goes for the AAdvantage miles liability.The 10 k also mentions "prepaid leases" and the company may have also accellerated depreciation.
Lets not forget that this would not be the first time that the airlines exaggerated their distress, remember in the early 90s when they claimed the industry lost more in that period of time than they made in their entire previous existance?
So if most of the companies claimed losses are legal but "paper" losses and our losses represent a real loss of real cash then you are saying that such a strategy of misrepresentation to the workers would not be worth it? The "losses" (Goodwill, leases,depreciation etc would have been there anyway but by combining them and bringing them forward all at once they were able to gain huge concessions that cut labor costs by 25%.
I agree, but it doesn't mean that the losses were fabricated.
So? Whether they were fabricated or not does not change the fact that our concessions were unneccisary.The question is did they really present the employees an accurate picture of the companys long term health?Or was the picture given simply the worst case scenario?
mweiss,Feb 22 2005, 06:30 AM]
In comparison to the losses, yes.
Wrong again. Your position does not take into account that the airlines are an ongoing concern.
No. I'm claiming that you have to look at the total loss profile as well as the total concession profile. To compare a single year of losses to a five year savings is to compare apples to oranges.
Your position on this is like saying that if you buy a 777 it has to earn back its total cost within a year otherwise its not worth buying it. The fact is that we do not have the total loss profile because we cant even come up with a close approximation of what will happen in the future but you can come up with a close total concession profile. To simply compare the total loss profile of this year to the concessions is wrong unless those concessions expire at the end of the year and we go back to earning what we were before. You are taking a single year of losses and comparing it to a single year of savings from concessions, you are comparing apples to oranges here.
What we can do is compare what happened in the early 90s where the company claimed huge losses, won huge concessions then went on to make record profits.In that case the claimed losses, much of which may have been due to changes in accounting rules that allowed the airlines to accellerate depreciation were defineately worth claiming.
What I said before, and continue to say, is that if you look at a single individual over time, under a single contract (assuming that it stays intact over the term), wages rise faster than productivity. You agreed that if you were to move to, say, UA, your productivity would change little over time, did I?Apples to bowling balls here.but your wages would rise. It's true.
Well your situation is only relevant if the company only has one mechanic.It is not an accurate reflection of what has happened to "mechanics wages" meaning the top pay of mechanics and the overall productivity of the entire group of workers. You are comparing apples to oranges and your claim would only be applicable for the first five years, after that then productivity would outpace wage increases for the next thirty years.
I certainly do not believe in treating something of value as something of value only when the employee is asking for it. That's someone else's take, not mine. You're putting words in my mouth. I told you before not to do it. I'm telling you again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Did I ever say anything about throwing darts? Ever hear the story about the pot calling the kettle black?How about the phrase "do unto others ,,,,,
If you have anything further to say about that other thread, I suggest you do so in that thread. In the interest of keeping that discussion in one place, I will not discuss it further in this thread.
Fine. Now lets go back to mechanics pay vs CPI. Do you disagree with my assertion that mechanics pay(keep in mind that this graph does not reflect the loss of many benifits either) has in real terms declined over the past 25 years?
Do you disagree with the ATAs claim that over this same period of time that productivity has increased?
So mechanics have not been rewarded by increasing productivity, in fact they have been punished. Increased productivity decreases the demand for mechanics which puts downward pressure on wages.
In comparison to the losses, yes.
Wrong again. Your position does not take into account that the airlines are an ongoing concern.
No. I'm claiming that you have to look at the total loss profile as well as the total concession profile. To compare a single year of losses to a five year savings is to compare apples to oranges.
Your position on this is like saying that if you buy a 777 it has to earn back its total cost within a year otherwise its not worth buying it. The fact is that we do not have the total loss profile because we cant even come up with a close approximation of what will happen in the future but you can come up with a close total concession profile. To simply compare the total loss profile of this year to the concessions is wrong unless those concessions expire at the end of the year and we go back to earning what we were before. You are taking a single year of losses and comparing it to a single year of savings from concessions, you are comparing apples to oranges here.
What we can do is compare what happened in the early 90s where the company claimed huge losses, won huge concessions then went on to make record profits.In that case the claimed losses, much of which may have been due to changes in accounting rules that allowed the airlines to accellerate depreciation were defineately worth claiming.
What I said before, and continue to say, is that if you look at a single individual over time, under a single contract (assuming that it stays intact over the term), wages rise faster than productivity. You agreed that if you were to move to, say, UA, your productivity would change little over time, did I?Apples to bowling balls here.but your wages would rise. It's true.
Well your situation is only relevant if the company only has one mechanic.It is not an accurate reflection of what has happened to "mechanics wages" meaning the top pay of mechanics and the overall productivity of the entire group of workers. You are comparing apples to oranges and your claim would only be applicable for the first five years, after that then productivity would outpace wage increases for the next thirty years.
I certainly do not believe in treating something of value as something of value only when the employee is asking for it. That's someone else's take, not mine. You're putting words in my mouth. I told you before not to do it. I'm telling you again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Did I ever say anything about throwing darts? Ever hear the story about the pot calling the kettle black?How about the phrase "do unto others ,,,,,
If you have anything further to say about that other thread, I suggest you do so in that thread. In the interest of keeping that discussion in one place, I will not discuss it further in this thread.
Fine. Now lets go back to mechanics pay vs CPI. Do you disagree with my assertion that mechanics pay(keep in mind that this graph does not reflect the loss of many benifits either) has in real terms declined over the past 25 years?
Do you disagree with the ATAs claim that over this same period of time that productivity has increased?
So mechanics have not been rewarded by increasing productivity, in fact they have been punished. Increased productivity decreases the demand for mechanics which puts downward pressure on wages.
I agree that if you took a mechanic who was TOS 25 years ago, and that same mechanic continued to do the same job for the past 25 years, that mechanic's real wages have declined.Bob Owens said:
I agree that productivity has also risen in that time.
This is true, by the way, in many, many industries in the US. Just one example: doctors see more patients per day than they did 25 years ago, and their real wages have declined in that time.
- Status
Similar threads
