your definition of oligarchy is quite arbitrary
I concede this: I intended this word as colorful metaphor rather than a precise descriptor. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with s/oligarchy/cabal/g. Obviously corporate executives do not have -archy level governmental power over citizens.
Yet.
How do you measure productivity?
I tracked it down; yes this graphic uses GDP to measure productivity.
There is this silly notion that public sector consumption should actually be counted as production. Since there is no objective way to measure public sector "productivity" (since it is not part of a market),
I don't follow. Does not the private sector produce goods and services for the public sector to consume? Granted: there is a problem with no-bid contracts and inflationary billing to the government. Granted: the public sector is anchored to political power instead of floating on the economic sea as the private sector does. But the public sector participates in many markets.
Yes, the government distorts markets. Ideally it does so in such a way as to enforce an accounting for externalities like pollution with impacts that would otherwise be ignored or at best delayed until after their deleterious effects have already caused harm, or to ensure equal opportunity through such actions as trust-busting. I don't know a better way to accomplish these important goals other than government. Free markets don't do it: monopoly is a natural tendency of an unregulated market. Free markets don't account for the commons until they are already tragic.
also it is quite common for the public sector to be horribly inefficient with its "funds".
Also granted. This is an interesting approach to that issue.
The next top markets are real estate (13% [of GDP]),
Surely new construction and remodelling (5% of GDP) count as productivity? I'm not so sure about rental income and particularly 'imputed' rental income...
the financial/insurance industries (8%), and health care (8%).
and I'm a little squigged by these, too. It seems that "Gross Domestic Product" doesn't measure 'what we produce' so much as 'how much money we move', which is perhaps not as useful for comparative analysis of income level over time, but IMO is still an extremely important metric. Currency is the blood of the economy; the economy is healthy when currency moves and circulates, regardless of who moves it. The more hands it passes through the better. The economy is unhealthy when the flow of currency is dammed or forced to recirculate in small segments.
I believe that raising the average wage will have a better impact on the economy as a whole than raising executive compensation.
Please please watch this video if you haven't. The most evocative part IMO, paraphrased: "I make 50 times as much as [laborer X] but I don't buy 50 pairs of pants, 50 cars, 50 meals for each one he buys."
You may believe that income inequality is a social ill, but forcing its removal only serves to destroy the coordination required for a properly function market, thus lowering everyone's standard of living.
I don't necessarily agree that limiting the income ratio by law is the right approach. I do believe that it is an important metric for determining how fair, free, and just our economy actually is.
What I propose is removing barriers to entry and other mechanisms of the state that cripple competition in the market, thus reducing productivity and everyone's standard of living.
I agree. What do you think about the Fair Tax, under which, as I read it: we tax consumption instead of income and profit, ensure all citizens are nudged above the poverty line, and encourage a strong business climate with drastically reduced business taxes.
Oh, also one thing I couldn't pass up: Have you ever wondered why the price of tuition is so damn high, relative to 1950? Could it possibly be that the ridiculous ease of gaining access to student loans has pushed demand, thus prices, through the roof?
Could be. Demand has also increased because the value of a degree has been inflated via clueless HR departments and hiring managers.
I wonder your thoughts on the other half of the figures I gave:
1950: $0.75/hour * 20 hours * 50 weeks = $750 wages
$42 * 12 months = $504 rent
2013: $7.25/hour * 20 hours * 50 weeks = $7250 wages
$602 * 12 months = $7224 rent
Average rent has moved from 2/3 of a part-time worker's minimum wage to nearly 100%. Note that my part-time figure is half-time, making rent in 1950 1/3 of a full-time minimum wage worker's income. That's the rule of thumb I always heard: spend no more than 1/3 your income on housing.
Minimum wage workers cannot follow that rule of thumb today.
Increasing the minimum wage, which you seem to be implying would be good, can only ever accomplish one thing: increased unemployment by those whose labor cannot fetch such a wage.
Increasing the minimum wage increases the supply of money across a wider base of consumers, who by definition can contribute more to the economy than fewer, richer consumers. Ref: Hanauer's talk still linked above. Think of crowdsourcing capital investment. Increasing the minimum wage will likely also increase the artificially low prices at fast food restaurants and discount retailers, which while it sounds scary I think would be a net benefit for our culture, economy, and health.