Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 02:14pm PT
|
100 years ago, most Americans spent most of their time growing food to feed themselves. Took the whole family to do it. Now, thanks to mechanized agriculture, almost nobody grows food anymore, and our time is freed-up to do other productive or entertaining things.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 02:47pm PT
|
Rick,
What Cyprus tried to do explicitly, the Fed may have been doing for the last 4 1/2 years. As a letter to the Wall Street Journal today pointed out, the effectively zero rate of interest is really just a depositor fee to fund the banking system.
I personally think that the effects of QE [fill in the blank] are something the media of all stripes overlook. I rather suspect that the demographic with the most money in interest-bearing deposit accounts are the retired, most of whom are probably members of "The Greatest Generation." We've been robbing them, by taking away the interest on their savings, to support our spending on ourselves. For shame.
Ken,
A while back, I referred to certain critics of the current wealth distribution as "enviers." After considering your comments and those of John M., I decided and stated that I was wrong to call them "enviers." Unfortunately, the video you post makes me think that I wasn't as far off the mark initially as I thought.
As Dave and others point out, the material standard of living for virtually every socio-economic stratum of the U.S. has improved dramatically in the last 100 years. The point of the video is not that "the 99%" are doing worse; it's that "the 1%" are doing better. The relevant question, to me, is this: If we change the relative wealth distribution over the long run, who will be better off and who will not be better off, in absolute, not relative, terms?
Using the implicit logic of that video, I should be happier if I get no raise -- as long as everyone else I work with gets no raise -- than I would be if I got a 5% raise, but everyone else got a 10% raise. Sorry, but I don't measure my well-being on a comparative scale.
John
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 05:18pm PT
|
John,
Yes ,i agree our seniors who are dependent on interest earnings to augment their fixed incomes are being robbed blind.Also you can't ignore the fact that we've had massive inflation (regardless of the bogus C.P.I. index) while wages and earnings for almost all demographics have stagnated or actually declined.In short, our standard of living for the first time in 100 years or so is declining in real terms. When the whole global free trade push started over 20 years ago and one of it's stated purposes was to raise up the third world-this can't be accomplished without lowering America's standard of living.We are not through this process yet, much worse times are ahead. With our massive debt and inevitable increases in interest rates to come, the government will loot the citizenry through greatly increased tax rates for all income groups to perpetuate it's existence. With full implementation of Obamacare the working populace will also see, in effect, a huge increase in taxes as they subsidize healthcare for those not working. I believe there will be death panels for the baby boom generation as acute long term care will simply be unaffordable for so large of a demographic considering the lower volume of those below supporting the system. These are just two of many problems facing this country, cultural degradation issues are just as serious.A conscious decision by the powers-to-be as New World Order implies with U.N. agenda 21? Who knows. I do know that humanity is best with new frontiers to explore and the IT age seems like a turn inwards instead of adventure outwards.Almost like a diversion.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 06:06pm PT
|
will happen in Italy, Spain, and Europe.
Uh yeah italy & spain are in europe. jeez.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Right outside of Delacroix
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 06:15pm PT
|
Has the standard of living for the average American changed for the better or worse in the past 100 years?
As labor unions slowly gained strength, and the New Deal co-opted parts of the Socialist Party platform, things like Social Security, unemployment insurance, worker's rights, the standard of living rose for the average American indeed. This culminated in the '60s. Even a working class slob could afford a home and send his children to college.
Then folks lost sight of the past, the conservatives reemerged. The average Americans standard of living has been in slow decline ever since.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 07:20pm PT
|
Also Gary the US didn't lose WWII. We came out so far ahead that we could afford to underwrite the middle classes with entitlements and goose egg interest student loans. The middle class flourished and paid taxes with under inflated currency. When I was a kid everything was free. Now it always costs more and more. A lot of the downward spiral has to do with the fact that high-paying manufacturing jobs has all traveled to cheaper labor markets overseas where they have a lower standard of living. I don't see anyway of easily correcting this situation myself. Moving citizen armies to break down trade barriers just doesn't seem a viable option in the nuclear age.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 08:48pm PT
|
John E,
With respect to your "enviers" comment, I return to a question I asked you before, which I did not see you address (you may not have seen):
This inequality which is getting progressively worse, does not pose to you any limit: if the trend continues, ALL the wealth, and ALL the effective income will go to the 1%, as an extreme.
Surely you don't accept that as being good, because you and me, my friend, will not be addressed as "Lord".
So what is the limit that you think is healthy? There must be some.
Otherwise, we move to a royalty-servant system.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 09:02pm PT
|
Kos, I find your question remarkably difficult to answer, only because I find it difficult to find comparative data for 100 years.
GENERALLY, I would say the middle class is much better off, due to the social programs enacted by democrats.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 09:03pm PT
|
oh Ken
you just don't get it, do you?
you see, the more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the already extremely wealthy,
the more likely and appreciative they are to hire an extra gardener
this greatly benefits the economy, "creates jobs"
studies have been done about this strange and nonsensical "defense" of the wealthy by those who don't have a chance in hell of being even remotely wealthy
when interviewed, these people say oh no! don't make the rich pay ANY more taxes.
because.....wait for it.
"because someday I hope to be rich and if I am then I don't want to pay any more taxes"
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 10:43pm PT
|
Dave K....You are right about more choices and higher standard of living unfortunately a large part of America struggles to afford these choices..Since 1999 the living wage has fallen behind inflation while wall street wallows in profits...I call Vons the 5 dollar store...Just about everything in there costs 5 bucks...Now if you work for minimum wage it is difficult to buy many of those 5 dollar items and this doesn't include the other necessities to live....The new battle cry of the middle class is " i'm lucky to have a job " and that's the way the elite want you to feel...Same as it ever is only getting worse....
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 10:45pm PT
|
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com/2013/03/self-made-men-and-participation-trophy.html#links
I've written over and over on this theme, but its true: people sense something is terribly wrong, particularly with America. But their aim is totally off, so they are shooting at their own foot instead of the target. They blame businesses, capitalism, and the free market rather than cronyism, vast government overreach, wasteful spending, and a culture of getting everything without doing the work to get it.
When you're raised to think you are a special gleaming diamond, a unique wonderful snowflake that gets a graduation ceremony for going from the 5th to 6th grade, and a prize for simply playing in a game instead of winning, the idea of having to work hard to accomplish something is alien. Its outside your entire world's reference, you have nothing to compare it to.
Raised in a bubble of protection to keep them from skinning a knee, told they are golden star dust from birth, and praised for doing only what they ought, young people grow into middle aged people without a clue how life works or what it takes to make it.
So you have people on the streets angry that they're expected to pay back a loan, angry that they have to pay for a house, angry that they can't live on that McDonald's fry cook job, and calling for the government to fix it all.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2013 - 10:57pm PT
|
Ok, fair.
What has happened is that we have fallen behind other countries in all of these things, with the possible exception of food. That one is because we are the largest food producing machine on the planet.
Infant mortality?
Life expectancy?
Available transportation?
Types and availability of leisure?
Availability and variety of food?
Means of communication?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2013 - 12:30am PT
|
I think we agree on that Coz.
Of course, it means that we should be burned on crosses by Teabaggers.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2013 - 04:01pm PT
|
his inequality which is getting progressively worse, does not pose to you any limit: if the trend continues, ALL the wealth, and ALL the effective income will go to the 1%, as an extreme.
Surely you don't accept that as being good, because you and me, my friend, will not be addressed as "Lord".
So what is the limit that you think is healthy? There must be some.
Otherwise, we move to a royalty-servant system.
Ken, you're right. I didn't see the question the first time. In answer, I don't particularly care about the supposed increase in concentration of wealth nearly as much as I care about how the least fortunate fare in absolute terms. If a more equal wealth distribution increases the absolute wealth of the least fortunate in the long run, then that would be good. If it diminishes the absolute wealth of the least fortunate in the long run, that would not be good.
Frankly, extrapolating trends on a straight line seldom survives logical analysis. If our wealth is as concentrated as people say (and I remain skeptical of this, since our data on wealth is not nearly as accurate as that on income), and -- and this is a big condition -- the identity of the wealthy remains relatively stagnant, then that certainly would seem uncomfortable, but I think the evidence -- with due respect to (but great disagreement with) New World Order -- of wealth buying our government or turning us back into either serfs or lords is much weaker than the somewhat alarmist view I see expressed so often. Joe Hedge certainly seems convinced that the left will be in ascendancy for the foreseeable future. I don't see that as likely if the concentration of wealth disenfranchises ordinary people.
Of equal importance, I don't see that the identity of the wealthy is in any way constant. There are still lots of people making small fortunes starting with nothing, and many making small fortunes starting with big ones.
I also find Robert Reich's thesis -- that the concentration of wealth has made Americans poorer because the super-wealthy invest internationally, thus depriving the U.S. of investment funds -- questionable both as a matter of economic fact and of morality. The implicit moral argument is that the residents of the U.S. have some inherent right to be better off materially than the rest of the world. It is, in effect, saying that it's wrong to make the rest of the world richer if it means that our middle class isn't as wealthy as we would like. Put more starkly, it implies that the American middle class can only stay comfortable by insuring that the world's poor don't get richer. I have yet to see a satisfactory system of morality or ethics that justifies this.
There's also a lack of factual economic backing for the thesis, because it assumes that only the rich would invest internationally. The opportunity is there for everyone, and many pooled investment funds (often in the form of large pension and retirement systems) do so. While certain "captured" retirement funds (I've represented several union pension funds over the years that would be in this category) look not only to the rate of return but to helping out their friends in making investment decisions, most are looking for the optimal return, considering safety, stability, etc. If that happens to be outside the U.S., that strikes me as an issue unrelated to wealth concentration.
Finally, in all of this talk, I see very little sound economic theory come into play. I believe that the most important factor affecting the relative return to capital and labor in the last 40 years has been the greatly increased labor participation rate, particularly by women, coupled with the decreased saving rate. The Law of Diminishing Returns says that if I increase one factor of production (i.e. labor), without a proportionate increase in other factors of production (i.e. capital), the rate of return on the disproportionately higher factor of production falls, because you have to use inferior factor combinations.
If we examine real wage data during the last 40 years, they show real wages increasing rather slowly, while the return to capital has increased at a greater rate. That's exactly what economic theory would predict, since the supply of labor rose faster than the supply of capital.
(DISCLAIMER: I'm talking about averages here. I often see people purporting to show how "obscenely" the share of profit rose by comparing total profits to average wages. Anyone who does that is either ignorant or dishonest. You can make a meaningful comparison of totals to totals to determine the relative share of income, or you can compare average profit rates to average wage rates, but average-to-total comparisons are worthless).
(SECOND DISCLAIMER: I am the father of daughters and an older brother of sisters, so I think the increased participation opportunities for women in the American economy is a good thing.)
And frankly, I still don't see the arguments that ordinary people "can't save on their incomes." If I look at the material possessions of my Baby Boomer generation and compare them -- at similar stages in life -- to those of our parents, I can only conclude that delayed gratification was not part of our lifestyle, and now we're paying the price with insufficient assets to retire comfortably.
While I know we don't disagree as much as this response suggests, Ken, I really have a very hard time getting alarmed by the statistics I see about relative wealth.
John
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
|
That's exactly what economic theory would predict, since the supply of labor rose faster than the supply of capital.
Exactly what Malthus predicted 200 years ago, more or less.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2013 - 05:02pm PT
|
Regarding the thread topic, Wealth Distribution
can we discuss WHY we have tens of millions of Americans who badly WANT to find a job but are unable to ?
We have the highest number of people in this category in American history, even more in gross numbers than during the Depression
We continue to turn out literally millions of college graduates who are lucky to find even a part time job at Starbucks
We have people with Masters degrees and Doctorates unable to find work.
I submit for discussion that this grand human experiment we call capitalism has very perhaps reached its maximum ability to provide "full" employment (5%) in America, that we have entered a new economic reality for the foreseeable future
The causes, the reasons for this new chronic and unsolvable mass unemployment issue cannot be solved by government, nor can it be solved by the private sector, it just is what it is.
Productivity is at all time historic highs, robots and machines now do the jobs that literally millions of Americans used to do, millions of jobs have been outsourced overseas to both compete in a global market and to boost corporate earnings, etc etc etc
The result of all this is record high corporate profits, a roaring stock market driven by earnings,
and a rapidly growing part of our populations that from cradle to grave is essentially unemployable, though no "fault" or lack of will of their own.
The "safety net" we have in place for the poor and near poor will remain a major driver of deficits and the national debt regardless of which political party is in power, these are built in structural pure spending issues.
comments?
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2013 - 05:50pm PT
|
We have people with Masters degrees and Doctorates unable to find work.
I submit for discussion that this grand human experiment we call capitalism has very perhaps reached its maximum ability to provide "full" employment (5%) in America, that we have entered a new economic reality for the foreseeable future
The causes, the reasons for this new chronic and unsolvable mass unemployment issue cannot be solved by government, nor can it be solved by the private sector, it just is what it is.
Where can I rent a Mexican robot with a Masters or Ph.D. to pull weeds in my backyard this afternoon? Accept your cruel fate middle-class untermenschen!
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2013 - 08:25pm PT
|
There is no one reason for the lack of jobs, but lets face it, we shipped our jobs overseas and are no longer competing effectively in many fields of manufacture.
A college education is not a guarantor of a good job.
We ARE creating a giant underclass, and the people in the 1% elite will be the ones who figure out a successful way to exploit the new paradigm.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 11:03am PT
|
Here is some more good evidence of how corporations are redistributing wealth around the globe. And they're not distributing it to the lazy entitled liberals (big surprise, eh). They're selling "capitalism" to gullible Americans but they're delivering socialism for themselves. Have a look and see what you think. This system is not favoring or supporting democracy, quite the opposite.
http://werenotbrokemovie.com/
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!