Bernie Sanders Thread

[FLVOL_79]

When this trend is corrected, would be a start. Productivity of the American worker has increased at a higher rate than their compensation. Basically you're working harder, but you're not being paid as much as workers once were for that same amount of effort. At the same time, compensation for the upper class hasn't stagnated.

This info is from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the EPI (Economic Policy Institute).

The modern business model fosters more production by less workers at lower compensation rates. It's just a fact of life.

Do more with less...that is the mantra because turd world countries are going to compete with you big time thanks to stupid trade agreements.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

The modern business model fosters more production by less workers at lower compensation rates. It's just a fact of life.

Do more with less...that is the mantra because turd world countries are going to compete with you big time thanks to stupid trade agreements.

You're right and I can't be the only one who sees a flaw in that philosophy? People are actually defending the idea of fewer Americans being hired and being paid lower wages so that the company can make larger profits, that they hope will be reinvested into the business? To do what with? Hire as few workers as possible and pay them low wages in exchange for record productivity levels?

And all of the trade agreements were opposed by Bernie for that very reason. Companies could make more profit (for shareholders, exexutives, owners, etc) by producing overseas with cheaper labor and just ship it back to consumers here in the U.S. Except the consumer in the U.S. doesn't have the buying power they once had because so many of those jobs (particularly manufacturing) were once theirs and they have since been outsourced thanks to those trade agreements.

 

[BeecherVol]

Average worker pay should have kept up with productivity levels, not exceeded it. That would be money for nothing. Kind of like how many CEOs today earn their 7 figure salaries.

So you feel that it was properly distributed from the 40's through the 70's +/-.

 

[mrorange211]

Kind of like how many CEOs today earn their 7 figure salaries.

Oh, that's rich. Look everyone we have a comedian on the board now.

 

[McDad]

That's true, a person can be productive without doing back breaking labor, but does that mean workers from the 40s to the 70s (arguably the most prosperous time in American history) were overpaid for their production?

And is it okay that people are now being paid roughly half that of their productivity levels? Would it benefit more Americans if they had that extra income from their productivity? Or is it best that it goes to the executives/owners?

Interestingly enough, that same time frame was when Americans began getting themselves in high debt. Probably because their expected standard of living (the American Dream) was no longer being sustained by their wages, forcing many to rely on credit.

Point 1: those employeed were likely neither overpaid nor underpaid. Just as it mostly exists today.

Point 2: the morality of what employees make compared to executives depends on your perspective. Employees try to find work which pays the most. Executives try to find the best salaries? Which one is greedy? Which one isnt? Who has the most moral position?

Point 3: interesting theory.

 

[BeecherVol]

Interestingly enough, that same time frame was when Americans began getting themselves in high debt. Probably because their expected standard of living (the American Dream) was no longer being sustained by their wages, forcing many to rely on credit.

Sounds a lot like the federal government in a way.

 

[Mtntrout]

Gold star. You are correct!

I feel sorry for anyone who lives in this country and actively pursues a more powerful central government to correct their perceived social injustices. It really only boils down to the phrase he used, "wealth redistribution". That's what it is really about.

Poverty is deserved and earned, got it.

 

[DC_Vol]

Poverty is deserved and earned, got it.

Honestly, trout, this is why I cannot take you socialists serious.

There is absolutely no substance here. You just assigned to me a false position and then argued with yourself. This is the empty rhetoric you mentioned earlier.

It's bumper sticker material at best.

 

[McDad]

Honestly, trout, this is why I cannot take you socialists serious.

There is absolutely no substance here. You just assigned to me a false position and then argued with yourself. This is the empty rhetoric you mentioned earlier.

It's bumper sticker material at best.

Hey DC, you think they're are more socialists now compared to 20 years ago or about the same but more comfortable being vocal?

 

[DC_Vol]

Hey DC, you think they're are more socialists now compared to 20 years ago or about the same but more comfortable being vocal?

It is obviously just my opinion, but I think there are more. There used to be a certain amount of shame of taking someone else's money or getting a free ride via the system (and before anyone protests, I'm talking about the people who abuse it...I do like the handicapped and the children!!).

The stigma is largely gone. People brag about it. The Democrats are running a socialist candidate! There are more of them, and there is less shame in admitting it

But you wouldn't know that here, because all of the socialist guys and girls are going to be net givers. Go back and read about it. They are just compassionate people.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

So you feel that it was properly distributed from the 40's through the 70's +/-.

According to EPI and BLS numbers, yes. For the most part, wages kept up with productivity. In the 70s, it stopped. For middle class worker, at least.

Since then, a disproportionate amount of our country's wealth and income has gravitated towards the top percentile. I understand it is a matter of perspective and morality, these are just my thoughts on the matter.

One side says the "1%" (or upper class) are the ones who create jobs and healthy economies with their wealth, and that by asking them to pay higher tax rates would kill their drive and stifle innovation. They may even leave the country!

The other side says that the "99%" or the middle and lower class consumers create jobs by buying products and services, and that the 1% don't actually spend a very high percentage of their earnings, choosing instead to invest in financial markets and foreign speculations (or whatever promises the highest ROI).

There are only so many homes, cars, islands, etc a person can own, and many of them still have millions (or billions) collecting interest somewhere in the world. Where as, if that excess income had went to the producers (as it did from the 40s to the 70s) then maybe there would be more buying power in the middle class and less personal debt (due to not having to rely on credit to maintain expected standard of living).

 

[McDad]

It is obviously just my opinion, but I think there are more. There used to be a certain amount of shame of taking someone else's money or getting a free ride via the system (and before anyone protests, I'm talking about the people who abuse it...I do like the handicapped and the children!!).

The stigma is largely gone. People brag about it. The Democrats are running a socialist candidate! There are more of them, and there is less shame in admitting it

But you wouldn't know that here, because all of the socialist guys and girls are going to be net givers. Go back and read about it. They are just compassionate people.

The first socialist ever met was while i was in high school. I was a busboy. He was a dishwasher in his mid-thirties. I felt badly for him because he got so worked up when i didn't agree with his views. Lots of people talked socialist propaganda in college. I think most of them returned to their roots after getting into the real world.

To your opinion, I agree. I don't see Bernie getting this much traction 20-30 years ago.

 

[Mtntrout]

The first socialist ever met was while i was in high school. I was a busboy. He was a dishwasher in his mid-thirties. I felt badly for him because he got so worked up when i didn't agree with his views. Lots of people talked socialist propaganda in college. I think most of them returned to their roots after getting into the real world.

To your opinion, I agree. I don't see Bernie getting this much traction 20-30 years ago.

You should look up the 1956 Republican campaign platform. This country used to be much more socialist and concerned for the common good. It changed with Reagan.

 

[Mtntrout]

Honestly, trout, this is why I cannot take you socialists serious.

There is absolutely no substance here. You just assigned to me a false position and then argued with yourself. This is the empty rhetoric you mentioned earlier.

It's bumper sticker material at best.

you're presenting a case that anyone can succeed, it is just a matter of work right? No socioeconomic barriers? Where if one is poor then they are obviously just not working hard enough?

 

[McDad]

You should look up the 1956 Republican campaign platform. This country used to be much more socialist and concerned for the common good. It changed with Reagan.

How would reading about the campaign platform of 60 years ago help me today?

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

The first socialist ever met was while i was in high school. I was a busboy. He was a dishwasher in his mid-thirties. I felt badly for him because he got so worked up when i didn't agree with his views. Lots of people talked socialist propaganda in college. I think most of them returned to their roots after getting into the real world.

To your opinion, I agree. I don't see Bernie getting this much traction 20-30 years ago.

I have encountered the same types. Most of them had a chip on their shoulder or did it for the shock value. Or they felt slighted, envious, and entitled.

I don't consider myself a socialist, but many here would label me as one because I believe in ideologies espoused by most Americans post WW2

 

[McDad]

I have encountered the same types. Most of them had a chip on their shoulder or did it for the shock value. Or they felt slighted, envious, and entitled.

I don't consider myself a socialist, but many here would label me as one because I believe in ideologies espoused by most Americans post WW2

Be selective in the ideologies, though. Many aren't congruent with present-day America.

 

[DC_Vol]

you're presenting a case that anyone can succeed, it is just a matter of work right? No socioeconomic barriers? Where if one is poor then they are obviously just not working hard enough?

No, I presented observations about socialism. And noted that I pitied those who pursued a solution of a more powerful central government with the goal of taking from others to correct perceived injustices.

 

[BeecherVol]

The first socialist ever met was while i was in high school. I was a busboy. He was a dishwasher in his mid-thirties. I felt badly for him because he got so worked up when i didn't agree with his views. Lots of people talked socialist propaganda in college. I think most of them returned to their roots after getting into the real world.

To your opinion, I agree. I don't see Bernie getting this much traction 20-30 years ago.

His current traction has more to do with the alternative tripping all over herself.

 

[FLVOL_79]

That's true, a person can be productive without doing back breaking labor, but does that mean workers from the 40s to the 70s (arguably the most prosperous time in American history) were overpaid for their production?

And is it okay that people are now being paid roughly half that of their productivity levels? Would it benefit more Americans if they had that extra income from their productivity? Or is it best that it goes to the executives/owners?

Interestingly enough, that same time frame was when Americans began getting themselves in high debt. Probably because their expected standard of living (the American Dream) was no longer being sustained by their wages, forcing many to rely on credit.

+1 times ∞

The economy functions on people and businesses using credit and not having liquidity. Saving money is bad..using credit good...in Uncle Sams fairy tale world.

 

[BeecherVol]

According to EPI and BLS numbers, yes. For the most part, wages kept up with productivity. In the 70s, it stopped. For middle class worker, at least.

Since then, a disproportionate amount of our country's wealth and income has gravitated towards the top percentile. I understand it is a matter of perspective and morality, these are just my thoughts on the matter.

You have explained your stance well and in a very cordial manner.

Morality has an interesting place here. I have had similar discussions on here amongst other avenues regarding it, government and taxes/wages. I think morality starts with the individual. If you are forced against your will to pay more in wages or taxes for the sake of morality you no longer have that.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

You have explained your stance well and in a very cordial manner.

Morality has an interesting place here. I have had similar discussions on here amongst other avenues regarding it, government and taxes/wages. I think morality starts with the individual. If you are forced against your will to pay more in wages or taxes for the sake of morality you no longer have that.

I appreciate it. It's hard to get anywhere when we veer off of polite conversation into name calling. You guys all have excellent points, and I respect your views as well. I think many of us are wanting similar outcomes, we just want to get there on different avenues, if that makes any sense.

I try to look at taxes as a not only a legal obligation, but also my moral duty to help the less fortunate, the sick, and the elderly. Not to mention as a way to benefit our society as whole.

Like I have mentioned numerous times, we all have benefited from taxation, we just seem to take those benefits for granted. Not to sound too much like Elizabeth Warren, but it is difficult to find someone in the U.S. that has "made it" completely on their own. If they didn't receive an education from a public school, their employees, partners, bankers, brokers, etc likely did. They probably benefited from their goods and services being delivered quickly and efficiently via our highway and interstate system. Their drivers might have even saved time and fuel by utilizing GPS technology, which was developed by NASA. They probably also haven't contracted any deadly diseases because of the CDC.

I'm not saying that our government is the most amazing and faultless thing ever. I'm not a statist. It has its flaws, to be sure. I just don't understand the anti-government rhetoric from people whose lives are generally better in many ways because of things our government is responsible for.

 

[Gramps]

 

[DC_Vol]

Almost Gramps

 

[Gramps]

Almost Gramps

Excellent. .. .well played. :hi: