I just ignored it because it was not relevant to my question or the conversation.

It was the answer to your question, as asked; if you are really trying to say something else, why not be honest and come right out with it?
Why do you mention Atlas Shrugged? Is this a clue to your real agenda? What is in your imagination here?
I’ll give you the answer again: The fact that the most productive segment of our economy not only produces more, but works longer hours, shows that our system can adapt to the socialist pressures put on it. It does so by rewarding productivity. As the rest of the workforce slacks, the productive do what is necessary to keep things going.
Hope you got it this time, but I suspect you are looking for an answer the fits your agenda, not the actual facts of the matter.

Thank goodness for affirmative action! NOT!!!!!

U.S.A.
Work = Money
Work hard = more Money
Work hard & Smart = more & more money

No work = No money

Get a Job

I Am Shocked!!!

I was surprised to hear that the normal relationship between income and hours worked appears to be changing. I suppose it might make sense if higher income types have to work more in order to service their increased debt load and to compensate for their lower savings rate. That seems truer to me than the increased opportunity cost of not working although I’m certainly no expert.

But this revelation did not answer my question, which was “how do you account for the fact that this is the first time this has been true in a quarter century?”

Read everything I wrote; it’s in there.

Even so, the more productive members of our economy are also working more hours, which is evidence of how much the productive are carrying the rest.

It’s the redistribution, as I explained already. Not only are the achievers producing more value, we’re working more hours. Get it now?
Maybe you just reacted before you read and understood what I wrote; you also missed this:

The hours worked by a burger flipper and an engineer are not of equal value, either to the individuals involved or to the economy in general.

I highlighted the part you missed. In a free country, your brand of class envy thinking is inappropriate. Our system works better without it.

Obama wants to put everyone out of work. That’ll make everything fair.

If anything, the Republican presidents who have proposed budgets for 20 of the last 28 years have been, in general, lowering taxes, dropping the level of social services, deregulating industries, and generally slowly unraveling any social safety net.

I believe proposed is the operative word here.

social safety net = welfare

If more people read and understood Atlas Shrugged instead of engaging in class warfare the ‘unraveling’ of the social safety net wouldn’t be a problem. If more people worked as hard as they bitched about someone having more than they do we wouldn’t have a problem.

Some people prefer to whine, the rest of learned long ago that jealousy and envy are the tools of the lazy and don’t accomplish anything. Work accomplishes things.

In case you are wondering I never even heard of Ayn Rand or her books until I was in my 30′s. I was too busy working. And EARNING my keep.

The answer you’re giving to my question is “This is the first time in more than a quarter century that high wage earners have worked more hours than low wage earners because the hours worked by a burger flipper and an engineer are not of equal value, either to the individuals involved or to the economy in general.”

Nope. That’s not my answer; I have given it to you enough times already; I don’t think you are emotionally ready for the truth here.

I brought up “Atlas Shrugged” because it couldn’t be more obvious where your political views come from if you had a user icon of yourself dry-humping Ayn Rand’s leg.

I have never read the book. I have read Marx extensively, though, so I can see right through you. Your prejudices are obvious. Be content in your ignorance.
If you ever decide to learn something, crack a basic econ book. Read Milt Friedman. He worked for the New Deal until he saw the light.

You have a lot to learn, SJ, but I’m afraid your prejudiced mind is unable to absorb much real knowledge.

Since the metric is “hours worked” and not the level of productivity, that might explain it to you. The hours worked by a burger flipper and an engineer are not of equal value, either to the individuals involved or to the economy in general. Even so, the more productive members of our economy are also working more hours, which is evidence of how much the productive are carrying the rest.
Not only is it a “duh” moment to the max, but it illustrates how the redistributionists look upon the productive sector of our economy as a cash cow.

Rob

Is it nepotism if the relative you promote is qualified?

Depends on the situation.

Is it sexism if you choose a man over a woman because he is more qualified than her?

Clearly it isn’t.

I don’t think America’s most successful people get that way by hiring their retarded nephews, or refusing to hired better qualified employees because of their gender or race.

Success and money are entrenched. There are exceptions to that rule, but I speak from specific experience. My wife attended one of the best law schools in the world and went through the interviewing and hiring process. We were surprised when we compared the male-female and white-minority ratios at the leading firms. We ate dinner with many of these firms and listened to them talk about their hiring of such-and-such a famous or rich person’s son, etc. At interviews, which are done en masse at the school during the beginning of the ’2L’ and ’3L’ years, people who’s daddies worked at firms were, surprisingly, more apt to get ‘call backs’ and ‘offers’. Moreover, people who went to private high schools or grew up in Rye, NY or Greenwich, CT were also had an advantage, callback-wise. Its like getting onto a journal, credentials wise, but proves nothing about competency. Women who do become associates do not get promoted to partner as fast as men or as often as men. The moral of the story is…

It didn’t bother us because she found a firm who is more interested in merit than a rich upbringing and familial connections. Hard work works, but some have to work harder for no relevant reasons… In fact, we get a kick out of the fact that, when one of those privileged kids goes up against my wife in some legal matter, they will get their ass kicked by a formerly poor, minority female. Stuff like that messes with the chauvinist, nepotists all the more.

Get some.

To deny the nepotism and sexism which are especially present among the more wealthy occupations in our society is folly.

Is it nepotism if the relative you promote is qualified? Is it sexism if you choose a man over a woman because he is more qualified than her?

I don’t think America’s most successful people get that way by hiring their retarded nephews, or refusing to hired better qualified employees because of their gender or race.