The middle class is shrinking

[MachZer0]

Perhaps because there's never been a sustainable society in which this "ideal" has ever been enacted.

That's exactly the point

 

[MachZer0]

Look around you, America is headed towards 3rd world nation status.

When capital flows up to the few and not down to society as a whole, more poor are produced and a 3rd world nation is created.

50million people living in poverty in America IS as large and even larger population than many other 3rd world countries. We have in effect a 3rd world nation living in side of this nation.

It's a shame how we treat our own people.

.

It's the tinkering with capitalism that causes our possible demise to loom.

 

[dlamberth]

It's the tinkering with capitalism that causes our possible demise to loom.

Ya...the protections were removed.
.

 

[MachZer0]

unchecked pure laissez faire capitalism can produce third world living conditions.

You wish to debate this point please explain the "Guilded Age" in the U.S.

Just for the record, it's "Gilded Age"

 

[dlamberth]

Another aspect of Capitalism being broken in America is the International card. In the chase of profits, the American worker is being abandoned. All I can figure out is that those profits are more important than America is for the greedy.

The result is a shrinking middle-class.
.

 

[Umaro]

Another aspect of Capitalism being broken in America is the International card. In the chase of profits, the American worker is being abandoned. All I can figure out is that those profits are more important than America is for the greedy.

The result is a shrinking middle-class.
.

This is the part that makes me question the pure free market. We're constantly told that if we just got rid of all the regulations that things would be better, but would that really be true for most workers? If the owners have already shown their willingness to just straight up abandon American workers, and have been pocketing productivity gains for years instead of sharing it with the workers who generated it, why should I believe they won't just pocket the difference if we remove the regulations? They say for instance "If I didn't have to provide benefits or clean up my pollution I could pay more to my workers," but history has shown they're likely to just pocket that extra cash. I have absolutely no reason to believe lowering regulations will help me as an average worker.

 

[dlamberth]

I have absolutely no reason to believe lowering regulations will help me as an average worker.

Me either.

.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Another aspect of Capitalism being broken in America is the International card. In the chase of profits, the American worker is being abandoned. All I can figure out is that those profits are more important than America is for the greedy.

The result is a shrinking middle-class.
.

Define middle-class

 

[thaumaturgy]

We're constantly told that if we just got rid of all the regulations that things would be better, but would that really be true for most workers?

If history is anything to go by the answer is a resounding no.

The progressive movement was developed during the late 19th early 20th century precisely because the controls on the free market weren't there. It was as close to laissez-faire free market capitalism as we've seen on these shores since the industrial revolution.

What many of our conservative friends forget is that the problems in the cities and in industry and business were pretty bad.

But the flip side to that coin is that the conservatives who are businesspeople as well would be advised to look to that era of American history as well.

Most of those people who own businesses would have been crushed since "competition" was also unregulated. Trusts ruled the day. TR wasn't just out there touring Yellowstone. He was fighting for the small businesses as well.

If the owners have already shown their willingness to just straight up abandon American workers, and have been pocketing productivity gains for years instead of sharing it with the workers who generated it, why should I believe they won't just pocket the difference if we remove the regulations?

My wife worked for years in environmental consulting at some of the most messed up places you can imagine. She saw the results from unrestrained environmental "non-control".

There are many industries today who want to do the "right" thing with regards to the environment, but a great deal more only do what is necessary to maintain the letter of the law without excessive expenditures.

When the fines get high enough the "impetus" to do the right thing becomes "easier" to achieve.

For the last 30 years as I've watched the top marginal tax rate has dropped. We were assured more tax breaks at the top = more work for the rest of us. At the same time jobs were being dismantled and sent overseas.

So we already know what fewer regulations would do for American business.

They say for instance "If I didn't have to provide benefits or clean up my pollution I could pay more to my workers," but history has shown they're likely to just pocket that extra cash. I have absolutely no reason to believe lowering regulations will help me as an average worker.

Nor should you. I've worked in industry now for about 12 years. When times are good they find ways to tell us that there's no raises, when times are bad we are told to tighten our belts. Yet the executive suite still gets raises and huge bonuses (often about 100%-200% of their base salary).

The stock goes up, the CEO gets huge bonuses and raises, the stock tanks and the CEO is lead out the door with a couple tens of millions of dollars.

All one need do is open a business news site anytime in the past 10 years and see the game played out over and over and over and over again.

If we are currently seeing a "recovery" in the DJIA why is the average worker still struggling?

Here's all you need to know about what unrestrained, unregulated business looks like (and this is from a restrained and regulated world we live in today):

"The final figures show that the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. That works out to a 23 percent gain from 2009." (SOURCE)

What more evidence do you need that it will not work out if restrictions are lifted further?

Do we really have to pull the trigger on the gun pointed at us?

 

[JustMeSee]

Define middle-class

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If history is anything to go by the answer is a resounding no.

The progressive movement was developed during the late 19th early 20th century precisely because the controls on the free market weren't there. It was as close to laissez-faire free market capitalism as we've seen on these shores since the industrial revolution.

What many of our conservative friends forget is that the problems in the cities and in industry and business were pretty bad.

But the flip side to that coin is that the conservatives who are businesspeople as well would be advised to look to that era of American history as well.

Most of those people who own businesses would have been crushed since "competition" was also unregulated. Trusts ruled the day. TR wasn't just out there touring Yellowstone. He was fighting for the small businesses as well.



My wife worked for years in environmental consulting at some of the most messed up places you can imagine. She saw the results from unrestrained environmental "non-control".

There are many industries today who want to do the "right" thing with regards to the environment, but a great deal more only do what is necessary to maintain the letter of the law without excessive expenditures.

When the fines get high enough the "impetus" to do the right thing becomes "easier" to achieve.

For the last 30 years as I've watched the top marginal tax rate has dropped. We were assured more tax breaks at the top = more work for the rest of us. At the same time jobs were being dismantled and sent overseas.

So we already know what fewer regulations would do for American business.



Nor should you. I've worked in industry now for about 12 years. When times are good they find ways to tell us that there's no raises, when times are bad we are told to tighten our belts. Yet the executive suite still gets raises and huge bonuses (often about 100%-200% of their base salary).

The stock goes up, the CEO gets huge bonuses and raises, the stock tanks and the CEO is lead out the door with a couple tens of millions of dollars.

All one need do is open a business news site anytime in the past 10 years and see the game played out over and over and over and over again.

If we are currently seeing a "recovery" in the DJIA why is the average worker still struggling?

Here's all you need to know about what unrestrained, unregulated business looks like (and this is from a restrained and regulated world we live in today):

"The final figures show that the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. That works out to a 23 percent gain from 2009." (SOURCE)

What more evidence do you need that it will not work out if restrictions are lifted further?

Do we really have to pull the trigger on the gun pointed at us?

When someone has as their creed "Profit at any price" they're not likely to care much for regulations designed to protect the rest of us, or about improving the bargaining position of ordinary workers, or about the increasing discrepancy of incomes between the CEO and the workers. Profit must come at any cost - even if it comes at the expense of the workers or the environment.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That's exactly the point

So why would someone think that it would be a good idea to try to build a society today in which there isn't at least some modest "commonweal"?

Again, I am impressed by the verbiage of our very own U.S. Constitution.

ARticle I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

To fantasize about a society in which there is not "common welfare" is to dream of the various societies in which that has been tried and found lacking.

Again, I can't help but be brought back to history time and again.

The French Revolution. Regardless of how people remind us that the difference between wealthy and poor is not a real concern, it's just "envy", I remember what horrors can be wrought by people backed into a corner.

Commonwealth is a natural human "thing". Societies have done it since we banded together as hunter-gatherers.

 

[lordbt]

And to the founders, General welfare meant what?

 

[MachZer0]

So why would someone think that it would be a good idea to try to build a society today in which there isn't at least some modest "commonweal"?

Again, I am impressed by the verbiage of our very own U.S. Constitution.

ARticle I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

To fantasize about a society in which there is not "common welfare" is to dream of the various societies in which that has been tried and found lacking.

Again, I can't help but be brought back to history time and again.

The French Revolution. Regardless of how people remind us that the difference between wealthy and poor is not a real concern, it's just "envy", I remember what horrors can be wrought by people backed into a corner.

Commonwealth is a natural human "thing". Societies have done it since we banded together as hunter-gatherers.

Uh, it says common defense, not common welfare. Common defense and general welfare of the United Sates. In other words, common defense of the country and general welfare of the country, not the individual citizens

 

[thaumaturgy]

When someone has as their creed "Profit at any price" they're not likely to care much for regulations designed to protect the rest of us, or about improving the bargaining position of ordinary workers, or about the increasing discrepancy of incomes between the CEO and the workers. Profit must come at any cost - even if it comes at the expense of the workers or the environment.

I work in industry. I make a pretty decent wage. It is stagnant to negative when you take into account the cost of living. But it's not bad. I don't have anything against profit per se.

I have something against gigantic profit and, as you point out, the philosophy of "profit at any price".

In modern American industry we do have people who will do whatever it takes to make profit. There is no defense of this attitude. No rational defense. There are people who will defend the concept of "profit" as if it is a monolithic entity. They are partisans for profit and yet harbor in their breast a viper.

The small business people on this board, like Lordbt (supposedly a small businessman) actually would in many ways suffer should regulations fall away from the market.

That is why I don't fully understand the defense of laissez-faire free market. These people would be crushed.

Let's take an example such as Wal Mart. My hometown is like every other small midwestern town. The downtown is dead and dying while everyone goes to the Wal Mart on the outskirts of town.

If Lordbt actually is a small businessman as he claims then perhaps he's seen other small businesses in his town collapsed by WalMart.

But it isn't just the towns themselves. WalMart requires of their suppliers a constant decrease in wholesale costs to WalMart. It is non-stop pressure on the supplier which is leveraged off of WalMart's status as one of the top sellers in the U.S. of just about everything from pickles to bikes.

Pressure like that ultimate facilitates driving American companies to China for production. (LINKY)

WalMart used to tout "buy American" but now WalMart alone makes up about 10% of all Chinese imports to the U.S.

To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas.(LINK)

It's all well and good to get cheap stuff and to elevate the Chinese labor force's standard of living. So long as we all recognize we are signing our own eviction notice. WE are driving ourselves to the brink.

Small business owners like lordbt are the ones to suffer first (supposed small business owners I should stress, since he likes to maintain his questioning about my credentials, I am returning the favor to him and not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is necessarily who he says he is).

If everyone is on board with this "plan" then fine. Just please don't any of the MachZero's or lordbt's or any one else on that side of the aisle complain when the final bill comes due.

When you push people into a corner history tells us what happens.

We don't even need to wonder.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I work in industry. I make a pretty decent wage. It is stagnant to negative when you take into account the cost of living. But it's not bad. I don't have anything against profit per se.

I have something against gigantic profit and, as you point out, the philosophy of "profit at any price".

In modern American industry we do have people who will do whatever it takes to make profit. There is no defense of this attitude. No rational defense. There are people who will defend the concept of "profit" as if it is a monolithic entity. They are partisans for profit and yet harbor in their breast a viper.

The small business people on this board, like Lordbt (supposedly a small businessman) actually would in many ways suffer should regulations fall away from the market.

That is why I don't fully understand the defense of laissez-faire free market. These people would be crushed.

Let's take an example such as Wal Mart. My hometown is like every other small midwestern town. The downtown is dead and dying while everyone goes to the Wal Mart on the outskirts of town.

If Lordbt actually is a small businessman as he claims then perhaps he's seen other small businesses in his town collapsed by WalMart.

But it isn't just the towns themselves. WalMart requires of their suppliers a constant decrease in wholesale costs to WalMart. It is non-stop pressure on the supplier which is leveraged off of WalMart's status as one of the top sellers in the U.S. of just about everything from pickles to bikes.

Pressure like that ultimate facilitates driving American companies to China for production. (LINKY)

WalMart used to tout "buy American" but now WalMart alone makes up about 10% of all Chinese imports to the U.S.



It's all well and good to get cheap stuff and to elevate the Chinese labor force's standard of living. So long as we all recognize we are signing our own eviction notice. WE are driving ourselves to the brink.

Small business owners like lordbt are the ones to suffer first (supposed small business owners I should stress, since he likes to maintain his questioning about my credentials, I am returning the favor to him and not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is necessarily who he says he is).

If everyone is on board with this "plan" then fine. Just please don't any of the MachZero's or lordbt's or any one else on that side of the aisle complain when the final bill comes due.

When you push people into a corner history tells us what happens.

We don't even need to wonder.

That is why "profit at any price" is a dangerous ideology. Everything is expendable, and nothing is valued over and above its potential to increase the share of profit. It's all about maximising profit and minimising cost, even if that means socialising the costs to the community at large. And this is deemed good and even defended in the name of liberty!

 

[EdwinWillers]

So why would someone think that it would be a good idea to try to build a society today in which there isn't at least some modest "commonweal"?

Again, I am impressed by the verbiage of our very own U.S. Constitution.

ARticle I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

To fantasize about a society in which there is not "common welfare" is to dream of the various societies in which that has been tried and found lacking.

Heavy sigh...

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS

SOURCE = FEDERALIST #41

Translation - that phrase "general welfare" doesn't mean what you think it means, or what many today would like to believe it means.

What it in fact DOES mean is listed in the specific enumerated powers that follow.

General phrase --> recitation of the particulars which explain and qualify the general phrase.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The enumerated powers of congress, conferred on the congress by the Constitution of the United States (Article 1, Section 8)

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To provide and maintain a Navy;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

[Defn: General Welfare & Common Defense] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Translation - that phrase "general welfare" doesn't mean what you think it means, or what many today would like to believe it means.

Are you sure?

I note you rely on Madison in the Federalist Papers for this. What about one of the other founding fathers, Hamilton who had this to say about the phrase "general welfare" (does anyone but Madison get a say here?)

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

Alexander Hamilton
Report on Manufactures
The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)

further to expand on his interpretation:

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money. (ibid)

So seems that some folks other than myself and a few crazed libruls had a somewhat more expansive view of the potential of this phrase.

May I insert a "heavy sigh" here?

 

[mzungu]

If times are bad and profits are low, get rid of the employee to make profits better.

Capitalism is all about profits. Period!!

.

Exactly; Capitalism in its present unregulated state is possibly the most inhuman economic system ever devised by man. It has many names like: Globalisation, Chicago Doctrine, Neo liberalism, Libertarianism, Neo Conservatism.

The old style capitalism would not have allowed for monopolies to flourish and thus become "too big to fail". It would not have allowed Goldman Sachs to dictate to the world like some global dictator.

Classic capitalism had REGULATIONS to keep in check the system and thus offer equal opportunity! Add to that socialism (public education, Law enforcement, Health, and general social based services and you have a viable system where a society can not only enjoy its fruits of labour but enjoy the security it offers too. A good example "Was" the Scandinavian countries; Where capitalism lived side by side with socialism.

Now all we have is a bunch of Vultures circling the world ready to tear our carcasses after they are finished wringing us dry. Soros, Goldman Sachs, standard and Poors, etc are just such parasites that need to be gotten rid of!
If it takes a revolution to do so then so be it. After all one cannot praise the American revolution while denouncing the occupy wall street movement. Such attitudes are nothing more than hypocrisy.

If we do not revolt; Then they will end up charging us for the very air we breathe!