I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on these points;
You're free to disagree with the fact that wages have gone down over the past 30-40 years, but it's still a fact, proven over and over again through many different sources.
we seem to be going around in circles. But assuming you are right and comparable jobs pay less today than they did yesterday; whats the point?
That it's bad for the economy.
Corporations have never been about the worker, they want to impress the shareholder; thats nothing new. Today there is a lot more going on than there was yesterday. Today there is more regulations which makes it more difficult to make a profit and more tempting to move jobs overseas where there are less regulations; there is more competition from foreign companies than there was yesteryear, and the American worker has to compete against the foreign worker who is willing to work for a lot less pay; something that wasnt as much as an issue years ago. All this makes it more difficult for companies to make a profit and because they still want to impress the share holder, the worker gets cut.
I agree that many of the economic policies that have been adopted in this country are to blame for our own problems. One such example is outsourcing, which should be curbed, or at least taxed punitively, but the GOP stands fully in favor of it. Another is giving tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the very rich, especially at a time when other such expenses were being incurred (a war started under false pretenses), causing a massive deficit that is currently being used and abused for political gain.
But, I'm not as much interested in causes as I am in solutions. We can debate the causes all we like, but until we do something to fix the situation, nothing will change, and it will just get worse and worse.
I also believe because the average household has 2 incomes the average person can afford more "stuff" than yesterday;
Depending on the stuff, perhaps. Stuff is often cheaper nowadays, because of outsourced manufacturing, which also means less manufacturing jobs for Americans. This results in a net loss for working people.
Everybody has a cell phone that cost $100 per month, everybody pays $150-200 per month just to watch TV and get internet access, these are things that nobody had to pay for years ago but today everybody has them.
Sure, but look at all the money we're saving on buggy whips and bowler hats!
If you look at the houses being built, every house has a walk-in closet something that was rare years ago; why? Because people have more clothes today. With clothes made overseas with cheap labor, it allows stores like walmart to sell cheap clothes so even though the average pay is less, you can buy more stuff with less. Not just clothes, but appliances, toys, tools, lots of stuff.
And less jobs, because very few of those things are made here in the good old USA.
Overall, a net loss for working people.
I was reading in a magazine about how it was common in the late 1950 thru early 1960s to see cars in the junk yard with 55-60k miles on it. Today such a car would be on a used car lot with a sign in the window posting low miles! Many cars have warranties of up to 100,000 miles! Something that would have been unheard of yesterday.
True. Cars often do last longer, but more people today own a car than was the case in the 50s and 60s. Back them, my father took the streetcar to work; today, I drive instead. So does my wife. It's a different world.
I guess what I am trying to say is, a lot of things have changed; some for the better, some for the worse. So what do you suppose we should do about the worse?
I've offered a few suggestions. In the end, the middle and working classes need more of the economic pie, because without their spending habits fueling the economy, it won't function as well as it could. The simple fact of capitalism is, 20% of the population cannot spend enough money to sustain an entire economy and allow for growth. More people need more money to spend.
In short, we need more jobs. And throwing money at rich people hoping they'll create jobs because they have money to burn won't cut it. The only thing that will justify more jobs in a capitalist economic is consumer demand. If more consumers have more money to spend, businesses will hire more people to make things and provide services to earn that money, and we'll all sleep better to the constant hum of capitalism.
I dont remember you showing such a chart; Ive been asking for something like that for the longest. Any chance you can repost it?
It was just
a couple pages back, post 516:
I disagree. I believe the rich does more moving money around than the middle class and poor.
They can't. Mathematically. There's less of them.
20% of the population is less than 80% of it. That's just basic math. And when only 20% of the population control over 80% of the money, well, they cannot move around as much money as 80% of the population can.
I believe the middle class and poor will use a larger percentage of their money to pay bills and maybe put a few bucks in the bank.
Less in the bank, more in bills and stuff, traditionally. But paying bills and stuff, that's what capitalism is all about!
The rich will invest more and that is better for the economy
If that investment results in more jobs, I'd agree with you. Overall, that has not been the case of late.
I dont think income inequality is a bad thing, because I dont believe the rich gets richer by taking from the poor
And you'd be wrong. Allow me to demonstrate: where did the increase of money the rich have gotten over the past 30-40 years come from? And don't say it was "created" somehow, as if from thin air, the money they earn has to come from somewhere.
Look at this chart:
The rise for the rich almost exactly corresponds to the decline for the rest of us.
But the debt never grew to 11% of our GDP had it!
Why is that a problem, all by itself?
Maybe thats why it never became an incident.
The share of GDP didn't cause our credit rating to go down. S&P stated their reasons, and it wasn't because of the debt's ratio to the GDP alone.
Well I guess we can disagree on the number, but at least you recognize that these people exist!
Sure. Mitt Romney and his family exist, that we can easily agree on!
Before you claimed nobody; not a single person escaped the effects of the recession;
Nope. I never said that. The rich have done extremely well for themselves over the recession, and they're still making out like gangbusters!
now youre saying its just a small number who escaped its effects.
Around 20% of the population, give or take.
You may be taking baby steps but at least you are heading in the right direction! Keep it up! Soon you will be walking like me!!!
I dunno about that, I tend to rely on facts more than general assumptions.
But I can hope we, at least, find some degree of common ground. Either way, I'm still enjoying our exchange, it's very illuminating!
-- A2SG, not to mention helping hone my google reflexes!
