Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? If so, you are incredibly naive.
When wages are raised by the government, job losses happen. 16,000 to 36,000 people lost their jobs when California raised the minimum wage for fast food workers.
> Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases?
During WW2, production needed to increase, so hours were increased to 60 hour weeks. The labor force, very patriotic, was all for this. Production increased for a few weeks, and then fell below what was produced in a 40 hour week. Companies wanting to maximize profits are aware of this effect.
Also, if you track employee total compensation (not just wages) against productivity increases, the two lines form the same curve. The reason for this is the Law of Supply and Demand pushes those two lines together. The more productive a worker is, the more they get paid, as such workers are more in demand.
Minimum wage is one indicator of critically substandard living. Here is a small sampling of some others:
well over minimum wage + below the poverty line
no discernible exits off path to unhoused retirement
current, recurring or impending homelessness
food insecurity and recurring hunger
medically triggered impoverishment
only possible caregiver for loved one with medical issuesIf you count inflation in medical and housing costs as an increase in wages, the "wedge" disappears, yes -- but why would you do that for any other purpose than making the wedge disappear?
No, it's very telling that labor saving devices, which have squished the largest industry into economic insignificance many times over, have not resulted in the ability for normal people to work less. Clearly, the benefits have gone elsewhere. "The benefits went into technology! Think of the iPhones!" The median financed smartphone is 1/50th the cost of median rent, try again.
Also, it's known that as medical prices rise, the percentage of the prices that insurance actually pays goes down. Are you sure they're paying more?
Also, why do countries with universal healthcare have such cheaper healthcare of a similar quality?
Far too high. Abject failure. The US's minimum wage is approximately the wage where you could work 24/7 and break even. Anyone working at that wage is in a very bad situation or someone else is paying all their bills.
Wage grow has not kept pace with corporate profitability. Why?
Total compensation is the costs to an employer to hire some one. It includes:
1. contributions to retirement plans
2. so-called "employer paid" social security contributions
3. sick and paid vacation days
4. employer paid health insurance
5. stock plans
6. 401k plans
7. other payroll taxes
Last time I checked, these often added 40% or more over the takehome pay.
Also, the pay is based on the value the employee as an individual provides, not the value the company as a whole created. Just like the compensation for pro football players varies in a single team.
It's like saying, a CEO gets a housing allowance and travel allowance and can expense most of their meals, so the entry level worker is doing okay.
This hasn't been true for at least two decades. Employee compensation severely lags productivity increases, and the capital class captures the entirety of the benefit of that lag.
The more productive a worker is, the more they get paid, as such workers are more in demand.
No. If that were true CEOs and VCs would get paid pennies, and most software programmers would get paid close to minimum wage today (programs are slower and buggier than they were 20 years ago despite having 100x or more increase in hardware resources and offering the same or reduced functionality).