Wages have hardly grown since the 1980s | LSE Research 

Interesting that LSE chose 1980 instead of the actual start point of 1971. What happened in 1971? Good question. The answer is we transitioned to an entirely unbacked fiat currency-based monetary system. Ever since, wage gains have not kept pace with productivity gains. Rather than identifying the symptoms of the problem, perhaps it would benefit the world to look at the cause? In addition to wage stagnation, wealth inequality skyrocketed as tremendous objective inflation (not the goal-seeked, hedonically adjusted variety) diluted the cost of debt and spiked the price of assets. The majority of inflation seen in the developed world since 2009 has manifested in asset price inflation. Whether those assets be stocks, real estate, vehicles, etc. The cause is the same. Too much money chasing too few REAL things. If it weren't for crypto assets acting as a monetary sponge, all of the aforementioned assets would be even more expensive. And objectively speaking, less than 10% of households own 90%-95% of assets (depending on your data source) Asset inflation isn't inherently bad per se, however, with stagnating wages pricing approximately 80-90% of consumers out of the market, the massive income and wealth inequality is an outcome predictable by anyone (whose paycheck doesn't require them to not recognize it). The solution is simple. We need to return to a monetary system backed by REAL tangible assets and credit growth needs to be severely constrained. While we're at it, it wouldn't hurt if the financial professionals who broke the law, were actually criminally prosecuted instead of being bailed out and monetarily rewarded when they commit fraud. Nevertheless, none of those things will occur. Too many individual's wealth, prestige, and power depend on the system remaining the same. Oh well. Back to diagnosing the symptoms I guess.

Does LSE endorse this view and promise to something about its lingering problem of junior teaching staff and new professorial appointments?

I don't think this video actually answers the question. It just mentions that automation hurts jobs and that there is a metric called 'productivity', which doesn't have a bearing on worker wages either... (If there is some market force connecting the two cases and related to the title of the video, it isn't explained)

Everyone needs healthcare is growing sector, but yet the government has a obsession with cuting healthcare spending every year

If there’s a pay increase at the hospital is a great fucking statement because my mom rarely get a pay increase and she’s a nurse Meanwhile, politicians get like six pay increases a year

You got something on consumption inequality?

Well the main issue is neoliberalism and US governments are very much to blame for this system, which has seen wage stagnation and wealth inequality widening. Also, the US is one of the few countries without a nationalised health system. That's a huge issue as it turns healthcare into a commodity meaning it costs a lot to access hurting the poor the most, and workers are essentially at the mercy of the "free market" and can be paid peanuts.

I believe the answer is simple. Value is determined by scarcity. It’s supply and demand. If you have a lot of people competing for the same job then the price (of labour) falls. If you had more businesses competing for workers the price (of labour) would rise. You have an increasing population and job opportunities haven’t kept pace.

Right, comparing a manufacturing industry's productivity per worker with a service industry's. So because productivity increase in services due to worker skills are inherently only marginal, the wage increase inherently lags. And with employment of generally skilled workers having shifted towards the services sector, the average wage increase correspondingly lags even more, only following inflation. If this is an unwanted situation/trend, the problem imho is that the services sector does not compete on productivity, just on costs. Quality in services is mostly subjective and unquantifiable. E.g. a 'good' teacher makes as much salary as a 'not so good' teacher. The only distinguishing performance indicator is that more experience assumes better skills and improved productivity. But acquiring more experience, thus higher wage, theoretically only requires hanging in there and not breaking the many rules, written and unwritten. If a manufacturing company cannot find enough workers, it cannot easily change what it produces nor its quality, just the quantities, thus affecting profitability. If a service company however cannot find enough workers of the type it needs for a certain type of service, it can easily change what it offers. E.g. a restaurant switching to home deliveries during lockdown by firing serving staff and hiring delivery workers. If it can't find the drivers, it could simply switch to take away only with assigned time slots. So obviously the wages model from manufacturing, increasing productivity leads to increasing wages/shortage of workers affects profitability cannot be applied to services as straightforwardly.

Not bad, unexpected

Yeah, I learned about trickle down economics in high school, but it wasn’t until one of my land. Ladies pointed out to me that the rich man hordes all is well while the poor man spends all his wealth which makes the rich man’s wealth, worthless, and the poor man’s wealth, worthless to the poor man, need more wealth to get by in the Richmond has more wealth, but it’s worth less. It would be easier if the rich paid their fair share in the poor, who couldn’t afford to pay taxes don’t pay taxes because if you can’t afford to pay taxes, you should not have to pay taxes. If you can’t afford to pay taxes, you should be able to, and I’m pretty sure most people who get tax dodges now Are getting away with it because of lobbying and that they have so much money to play with that they don’t know what to do with Celine, make fake money in the economy so they can make their money look bigger. And how they make fake money is by taking money that doesn’t exist, like stocks and selling those nonexistent money to essentially a charity, because you know the money was going to go up in value like insider trading Our entire economic system of capitalism is literally the snake eating its self The communist snake dies of starvation well the capital of snake eat itself into with gluttony in greed We need a healthy balance between a time in a snake and a E snake. That’s why we need a socialist capitalism. The ideas of a free market with the values of Socialism, so anybody can start their own business with no government stopping them, but if they do start a business and are very profitable, the government has to take a percentage of their profits and put it back into the society they took it from Because that’s the problem we have we have big corporations, making record profits they’re not making by or just barely skating by every year they’re making projected profits at alarming rate And they basically have turned the value of the dollar into faith that all these companies are going to continue being worth something tomorrow because it’s all these companies had something happened to them like I don’t know the collapse of the dollar society would collapse, have nothing to fall back on because the dollar is backed by credit And yet, so let’s just say all that debt is wiped away it would collapse dollars. It’s all these companies run on debt. Because they make money from money that doesn’t exist. Capitalism was necessary to drive the economy after World War II, but we’ve gone too far for profit and start need to re-distributed into the society Because it’s trickle up economics, not trickle down all the money from below goes up to the top and stays there Forever

Thats why President Trump said we need a robot tax