Income (in)equality in the United States

[utgibbs]

Well when you qualify it as "old M. Friedman" argument it's clear what you view is.

I'm suggesting that 40 years of data exists that may challenge that old "hand up" argument. A "voting against their economic interests" argument also relies on the idea that the hand up from the gov has a positive effect. I've yet to see compelling data that is the case. Proponents of this view often argue we haven't done enough (kinda like the stimulus) as a way to explain the non-conclusive data. Could it be that all that govt intervention has been for naught?

You've seen the data many times, I believe:

And we can use BPV's metric:

 

[sjt18]

1. Strong regulations on capital flight

How about an elimination of the onerous tax system and reduction of the causes for "capital flight"? Once again a short sighted liberal idea that would actually make the problem worse.

2. Simple, transparent, and progressive tax code with supertax on speculation transactions

How about the Fair Tax so consumption is taxed rather than production? You know, we need production for jobs and wealth creation? Oh, that's right, you believe wealth creation is the product of gov't fairies sprinkling magic dust rather than private collection and improvement of resources...

3. Destroying the Santa Clara vs Pacific Railroad Supreme Court Decision; break-up of monopoly capital

Maybe... in exchange for a repeal of Davis-Bacon and application of monopoly/trust laws to unions.

On the other side of that, while we are deconstructing the "social safety net" we should do the same for investors. No longer should the gov't insure private investments so there is no or limited risk of loss.

The ethanol industry is a perfect example. Politicians of both parties constructed a statute that allowed people with money to invest in ethanol plants with absolutely no risk. They could make a profit but their losses were insured by the federal gov't... they could not lose their principle.

Of course this is the kind of gov't action that your progressive ideals facilitate, right?

4. Strict laws on executive compensation relating it to the lowest paid employees at the company, including bonus structures

If you will agree that all liberals must pay a 75% of their income in income taxes... off the top, no deductions.

When will you ever get it in your head... IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY!!! Give your money away first, live in a shack... then throw stones at others.

5. National Health Service, single payer system

Stupid idea... so no. The ONLY acceptable way to do that would be in the form of vouchers... and an education voucher system should go right with it.

6. Manhattan Project II decarbonizing grid, transport, and agriculture

This was roundly blown out of the water in a very, very long and redundant thread awhile back. Until you learn where wealth comes from and how it is created and PROPERLY distributed in a free society... you really should refrain from talking about this. It just makes you look even more oblivious.

7. Education *

Agreed. Change the USC to state that all states must provide educational vouchers to parents equivalent to 2/3 the per student cost of public schools to be used at the parent's school of choice. The only restriction would be annual grade equivalency exams on math, english, and applied science.

Moreover, the Federal gov't should shut down the Dept of Ed and prohibit future interference in curriculums or policies.

There are others as well, but it may be best to end on a little lecture:

One of the few great thinkers of the 20th century, John Rawls, developed a theory of justice. In a thought experiment behind "the veil of ignorance" where no one new where they would be in life when the veil is raised (trust fund kid, black Angolan in UNITA territory, middle class Italian, Michael Jordan, etc) the system of justice people would adopt would not be utilitarianism, but rather they would tolerate inequality so long as it worked for the least advantaged.

These are 20th century thoughts, but instead we are going 12th century - feudal. It is important to reverse the reversals of the last forty years which has seen the greatest wealth redistribution in history - from the bottom to the tip-top.

You could not possibly be more wrong about history or human nature. If the last 40 years have taught us anything it is that if you subsidize sloth and irresponsible behavior... you will get more of it plus the bonus of a crime riddled, violent, even barbaric society.

We are headed toward 12th century totalitarianism, feudalism, and misery... but because we are giving up our individual rights and responsibilities to the "king"... we are coming to accept the notion of an elite class of "nobles" with the wisdom to rule us all. We are moving away from our founding ideals concerning the sovereignty of the individual.

EVERYTHING you prescribe here except maybe making the centralization of capital more difficult will move us even further tqward what you say you don't want.

 

[sjt18]

You've seen the data many times, I believe:

So basically you just demonstrated that wages have flat lined during the era of big gov't. Some of us have been telling you for a long time that gov't efforts and programs supposedly designed to resolve this problem are either failures because the Progressive ideal is wrong or else a cynical effort to create a permanent class system in the US with political "elites" and then all others.

Good job of destroying everything you've tried to argue all this time.

 

[DC Vol]

So basically you just demonstrated that wages have flat lined during the era of big gov't. Some of us have been telling you for a long time that gov't efforts and programs supposedly designed to resolve this problem are either failures because the Progressive ideal is wrong or else a cynical effort to create a permanent class system in the US with political "elites" and then all others.

Good job of destroying everything you've tried to argue all this time.

And computer assisted workplaces have seen robust gains in productivity?

If wages kept up, I'd be making $1mil/year and the dollar would be worthless in the global market.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I have yet to see anyone justify a red penny of incremental wage growth in America. Some keep talking about it as if the leveling off is somehow argument that the capitalist system is to blame for the market seeking a level as to the value of labor. The leveling, presumably inflation adjusted, shows that we have found that level. Given that our labor force is far and away the most expensive in the world and that we can now near seamlessly outsource jobs overseas, I'm astounded that our wage rates aren't moving back toward the rest of the world's.

 

[utgibbs]

So basically you just demonstrated that wages have flat lined during the era of big gov't. Some of us have been telling you for a long time that gov't efforts and programs supposedly designed to resolve this problem are either failures because the Progressive ideal is wrong or else a cynical effort to create a permanent class system in the US with political "elites" and then all others.

Good job of destroying everything you've tried to argue all this time.

Complete opposite. They have flat-lined during the adoption of neoliberal policies espoused by Friedman. Policies promoting capital flight, liberalization of trade, privatization of commonly-held production, and intense financialization / speculation of economic activity.

In addition, this has been coupled with the reversal, under Reagan, of decreasing government deficits relative to GDP. In other words, where former borrowing went towards promoting the prosperity of the population at large, where current borrowing since Reagan has gone straight to the Welfare-Dads. Ronnie Raygun should be renamed "Ronnie the Red."

What is clear is that the Keynesian policies of the preceeding three decades greatly increased real wealth - wages, home ownership, and a number of other metrics, while, at the same time, decreasing debt relative to GDP.

 

[utgibbs]

I have yet to see anyone justify a red penny of incremental wage growth in America. Some keep talking about it as if the leveling off is somehow argument that the capitalist system is to blame for the market seeking a level as to the value of labor. The leveling, presumably inflation adjusted, shows that we have found that level. Given that our labor force is far and away the most expensive in the world and that we can now near seamlessly outsource jobs overseas, I'm astounded that our wage rates aren't moving back toward the rest of the world's.

They certainly would be had it not been for the 100 year fight of liberalization. Certainly there have been a coterie of hard-lined ideologue counter-revolutionaries who would like to see it and call for it always - wage caps, no bargaining power for labor, no minimum wage, etc.

The capitalist systems modus operandi (sigh, why do I have to teach this?) is to make cheap and sell dear. Labor specialization had almost nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with breaking apart the labor process to identify its "cheap" constituents. The trend is inherently capitalist.

Of course, the trend coincides with the adoption of neoliberal policies. It is no coincidence. It was planned and executed to perfection.

 

[bam15]

Well when you qualify it as "old M. Friedman" argument it's clear what you view is.

I don't know that govt cheese has any effect positive or negative. Those selling it though rely firmly on a view that a lending hand from Uncle Sam is the hand up that folks need.

I'm suggesting that 40 years of data exists that may challenge that old "hand up" argument. A "voting against their economic interests" argument also relies on the idea that the hand up from the gov has a positive effect. I've yet to see compelling data that is the case. Proponents of this view often argue we haven't done enough (kinda like the stimulus) as a way to explain the non-conclusive data. Could it be that all that govt intervention has been for naught?


I also have a suspicion that the hand up can become a crutch and if that makes me a M. Friedman clone then so be it. Unfortunately, the data is inconclusive so we have to fall back on political philosophy rather than scientific proof.

No, merely stating what his position was -- it so happens that I was watching some of his lectures @ Stanford yesterday, which is why it came to mind.

Thanks for explaining.

 

[droski]

2. Simple, transparent, and progressive tax code with supertax on speculation transactions

i'd love for you to explain specifically how we determine what is speculation and what isn't. this should be fun.

 

[DC Vol]

I have yet to see anyone justify a red penny of incremental wage growth in America. Some keep talking about it as if the leveling off is somehow argument that the capitalist system is to blame for the market seeking a level as to the value of labor. The leveling, presumably inflation adjusted, shows that we have found that level. Given that our labor force is far and away the most expensive in the world and that we can now near seamlessly outsource jobs overseas, I'm astounded that our wage rates aren't moving back toward the rest of the world's.

Average hours worked balanced out with GDP puts the US wage almost at a 1-1 parity with France and Germany ($26/hour). It's above UK ($22/hour) and way above Japan ($18/hour) and Korea ($13/hour). The difference between US and France and Germany? Income distribution between top and bottom earners. Cost of living, also, in France and Germany is considerably higher even in the rural areas which makes a strict comparison almost impossible.


If I recall all countries listed had a far healthier (or aesthetic, given opinion) income distribution than the US. If you take out the top 5% and bottom 5% of earners in each listed... the US would be considerably behind the other countries. Especially when you consider the average US worker is putting in almost 400 more hours/year than the average French or German worker.

 

[volinbham]

No, merely stating what his position was -- it so happens that I was watching some of his lectures @ Stanford yesterday, which is why it came to mind.

Thanks for explaining.

my bad on the MF :hi:

 

[volinbham]

Complete opposite. They have flat-lined during the adoption of neoliberal policies espoused by Friedman. Policies promoting capital flight, liberalization of trade, privatization of commonly-held production, and intense financialization / speculation of economic activity.

In addition, this has been coupled with the reversal, under Reagan, of decreasing government deficits relative to GDP. In other words, where former borrowing went towards promoting the prosperity of the population at large, where current borrowing since Reagan has gone straight to the Welfare-Dads. Ronnie Raygun should be renamed "Ronnie the Red."

What is clear is that the Keynesian policies of the preceeding three decades greatly increased real wealth - wages, home ownership, and a number of other metrics, while, at the same time, decreasing debt relative to GDP.

You are completely ignoring the expansive growth of government during the time period. You can moan about government policies of Reagan being the cause but if you are pointing a finger at govt policies you have to consider the effect of ALL OF THEM.

 

[volinbham]

I have yet to see anyone justify a red penny of incremental wage growth in America. Some keep talking about it as if the leveling off is somehow argument that the capitalist system is to blame for the market seeking a level as to the value of labor. The leveling, presumably inflation adjusted, shows that we have found that level. Given that our labor force is far and away the most expensive in the world and that we can now near seamlessly outsource jobs overseas, I'm astounded that our wage rates aren't moving back toward the rest of the world's.

I agree. It's been hinted at in this thread a few times.

What's also missing is any logic regarding why incomes SHOULD change at the same rate.

I would imagine the working family today compared to my parents generation has at least 2 cars (vs. 1), multiple TVs (vs. 1 maybe 2), cell phones, at least one computer, eats out more frequently, has a larger home and have a higher percentage of children that go to college.

 

[utgibbs]

You are completely ignoring the expansive growth of government during the time period. You can moan about government policies of Reagan being the cause but if you are pointing a finger at govt policies you have to consider the effect of ALL OF THEM.

Which time period?

There is no doubt Reagan reversed the trend of decreasing deficits relative to GDP.

If anything, government contracted under the Reagan doctrine, didn't it? I thought the Keynesian period was Big Gov. It makes one wonder where the money went, actually.

 

[utgibbs]

I agree. It's been hinted at in this thread a few times.

What's also missing is any logic regarding why incomes SHOULD change at the same rate.

I would imagine the working family today compared to my parents generation has at least 2 cars (vs. 1), multiple TVs (vs. 1 maybe 2), cell phones, at least one computer, eats out more frequently, has a larger home and have a higher percentage of children that go to college.

So in other words, more growth will not impact QoL in the slightest.

And thus has Capitalism run its unsustainable course.

But, of course, that is NOT what the data is saying at all. In fact, those additional toys have been bought by a second member of the household joining the work force over the last forty years. In other words, the data is actually more damning than it would immediately appear. And it is pretty damning anyway.

 

[therealUT]

fact is low income people are far more easily outsourced. lost in the rich raping the poor garbage is that we now have a world labor force and americans face labor competition far more than they did in prior years. this isn't a recipe for the unwashed masses making more money.

"Rich raping the poor", huh? Interesting.

Anyway, the rich should not be blamed for the current state of labor competition. Leave that to the huddled masses demanding ever increasing minimum wages.

Do you think businessmen were not greedy prior to 1983? I imagine they were just as greedy, if not more so. What changed? Due to ever-increasing technology, it has become cheaper to not only outsource labor jobs to foreign markets, but also to mechanize and automate many other domestic labor jobs within the US, than to hire an American citizen at the Federal Minimum Wage (or, hire union labor at percentages and brackets based off of the minimum wage).

The attitudes of the wealthy capitalists have not really changed all that much in the past two-hundred years. What has changed is that they are now being faced with earning less money by employing Americans or earning more by employing foreign workers in foreign lands.

You really want money back in America? You really want to lessen income disparity? Repeal the Federal Minimum Wage.

 

[volinbham]

long time no see trut

 

[volinbham]

Which time period?

There is no doubt Reagan reversed the trend of decreasing deficits relative to GDP.

If anything, government contracted under the Reagan doctrine, didn't it? I thought the Keynesian period was Big Gov. It makes one wonder where the money went, actually.

Government has not contracted in the least - the growth rate has changed at times but it's been in full on growth mode for decades.

 

[NEO]

"Rich raping the poor", huh? Interesting.

Anyway, the rich should not be blamed for the current state of labor competition. Leave that to the huddled masses demanding ever increasing minimum wages.

Do you think businessmen were not greedy prior to 1983? I imagine they were just as greedy, if not more so. What changed? Due to ever-increasing technology, it has become cheaper to not only outsource labor jobs to foreign markets, but also to mechanize and automate many other domestic labor jobs within the US, than to hire an American citizen at the Federal Minimum Wage (or, hire union labor at percentages and brackets based off of the minimum wage).

The attitudes of the wealthy capitalists have not really changed all that much in the past two-hundred years. What has changed is that they are now being faced with earning less money by employing Americans or earning more by employing foreign workers in foreign lands.

You really want money back in America? You really want to lessen income disparity? Repeal the Federal Minimum Wage.

I totally agree with this. Minimum wage is way too high. The problem is welfare is too easy to get on the American labor force has become lazy.

 

[utgibbs]

"Rich raping the poor", huh? Interesting.

Anyway, the rich should not be blamed for the current state of labor competition. Leave that to the huddled masses demanding ever increasing minimum wages.

Do you think businessmen were not greedy prior to 1983? I imagine they were just as greedy, if not more so. What changed? Due to ever-increasing technology, it has become cheaper to not only outsource labor jobs to foreign markets, but also to mechanize and automate many other domestic labor jobs within the US, than to hire an American citizen at the Federal Minimum Wage (or, hire union labor at percentages and brackets based off of the minimum wage).

The attitudes of the wealthy capitalists have not really changed all that much in the past two-hundred years. What has changed is that they are now being faced with earning less money by employing Americans or earning more by employing foreign workers in foreign lands.

You really want money back in America? You really want to lessen income disparity? Repeal the Federal Minimum Wage.

As I said, plenty of counter-revolutionaries....

 

[utgibbs]

Government has not contracted in the least - the growth rate has changed at times but it's been in full on growth mode for decades.

So, Reagan and Bush I and Bush II are the most guilty and obviously began this process.

:hi:

 

[IPorange]

So, Reagan and Bush I and Bush II are the most guilty and obviously began this process.

:hi:

It's really not a party-based issue. You can scale the data any number of ways to make different arguments.

 

[BigPapaVol]

So, Reagan and Bush I and Bush II are the most guilty and obviously began this process.

:hi:

this presumes that the congress isn't the heavy in pulling purse strings, which is absolute lunacy.

 

[milohimself]

how many jobs really require higher math on a regular basis?

FWIW I'm a beast on a TI-89.

 

[utgibbs]

It's really not a party-based issue. You can scale the data any number of ways to make different arguments.

That's not the data I'm presenting though, IP. Showing the Gross ND is something of a red herring. Every household can live with debt so long as you are living sustainably.

Moreover, it is a powerful tool indicating the growth of the Executives power and influence in government since Ronnie Raygun. However, I would certainly agree it hasn't been a Party issue since Reagan (Clinton got lucky that the microchip finally matured under his administration). However, there is NO denying the Reagan administration reversed over 30 years of borrowing policy, and that rapid financialization of economic wealth - again, begun before RR but certainly empowered by his cotorie of ideologues - has demanded this reversal.