how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
3 edits | reply to Mr Matt
Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by Mr Matt: Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth. Here are the CORRECT numbers:
10% of the population controls 30% of the income -
»www.cia.gov/library/publications···rRow=#us
United States lowest 10%: 2%
highest 10%: 30% (2007 est.)
And compare to the WORLD avgs:
World lowest 10%: 2.5%
highest 10%: 29.5% (2003 est.) »sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri···lth.html
And as for WEALTH distribution the top 20% of the population owns 85% of the wealth. NOT 2% owning 95% as you claim.
And an interesting chart:
More info:
»www.wider.unu.edu/publications/w···8-03.pdf
Check Table 1 | | |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S.....
i've only made more than $20k one year in my life but i'm grateful to those evil high-earners who pay 10,100, or 1000x the taxes that the avg person does....we don't need to villify them and steal their money.... | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by jfd15:and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S..... The question is whether that's fair.
For example, I doubt you'd suggest that the top 10% should pay 10% of the taxes in the US. Clearly you have your own ideas about what's "fair." So, we're just negotiating "fair." Should it be 71% or, 78% ?
The problem with the idea that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share is that, since taxes were made less progressive (in the early '80s), the top 10% have increased their share of every dollar earned to its highest level since 1929 (when wealth disparity was at its highest levels). From 34% to 46%. About a 33% increase.
But, more revealing is that almost *all* the top one-tenth's share gains, went to the top 1%, or the top "centile," who doubled their share of national cash income from 9% to 19%.
Even within the top centile, however, the distribution of gains was radically skewed. Nearly 60% of it went to the top *tenth* of 1% of the population, and more than a fourth of it to the top *one-hundreth* of 1% of the population.
Overall, the top tenth of 1% more than tripled their share of cash income to about 9%, while the top one-hundreth of 1%, or fewer than 15,000 taxpayers, quadrupled their share to 3.6% of all taxable income. Among those 15,000, the average tax return reported $26 mil of income in 2005, while the take for the entire group was $384 bil.
In 2005, the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1% had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population.
30 years ago, Ronald Reagan asked, "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He used this rhetorical question to get elected and reduce the progressivity of taxation. (And, eliminate various regulations which allowed government-backed Savings & Loans to be pillaged.).
Today, if we ask the same question, we're met with jeers of "socialism." | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Mr Matt: Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth. Here are the CORRECT numbers: 10% of the population controls 30% of the income - That was a tricky switch of terms (from "wealth" to "income"). When the wealthiest individuals earn their income from investing their wealth, controlling 30% of the national income signifies something far larger about the disparity of national wealth used to control that income.
There's no way to spin as positive our growing disparity of either wealth or income.
We were told 30 years ago that shifting the tax burden away from the wealthiest individuals would result in "trickle-down" benefit to all.
Instead, the average American's inflation-adjusted income has declined while the top 10% has grown (the top 1% at obscene rates of growth).
This trend of income inequality does not portend greatness. See:
(Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/189649-wealth-disparities-in-u-s-approaching-1920s-levels)
See also the Gini index which shows the same trend. And, worse, that we are increasingly having more in common with Mexico, Brazil and Russia.[1] Nations where individuals have the vote, but real political power is held by the wealthy elite.
The same trend is seen in wealth disparity (not merely income disparity):
quote:
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[14]
According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]
-- »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributi···d_States
quote:
Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."[2]
-- »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_ine···d_States
These trends can only be worsening when the financial industry was bailed out (so what amounted to "bets" could be paid off). And, at the same time, record numbers of Americans have lost jobs, downgraded to poor jobs.
There's nothing positive about this.
Note to the "it's mine, I wanna keep it" crowd: reduced disparity doesn't equal "equality." Nobody of any significance wants perfect "equality." It's just a matter of how unequal we can be without undermining a sense that this nation exists to benefit everyone.
For example: America's exports are decimated by China's manipulated currency. The result is American jobs lost. We won't retaliate against China because we need China to keep North Korea in line.
The result? Common Americans are paying for the nation's strategic defense. What kind of "wealth transfer" is that? Why shouldn't those who's incomes are growing pay more to offset the effect of low-level Americans losing their jobs as a result of unfair trade? Trade that remains unfair because "we" have a national interest in allowing it to continue?
[1] For Russia's Gini value, see here. | |
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·World Lynx
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S..... i've only made more than $20k one year in my life but i'm grateful to those evil high-earners who pay 10,100, or 1000x the taxes that the avg person does....we don't need to villify them and steal their money.... Well hoss, if more people had better paying jobs there would be more taxable income that could be collected by the government to support you.
As Mr. Matt put it, the Reagan 'trickle down' did not work. The rich are going to do everything in their power to not spend a penny more than they have to. They have off-shored most industrial labor, they incorporate their main office in the Cayman Islands (less taxation) and other tax friendly nations.
You see companies now selling more products and concentrating more on China because that where a bigger chunk of their sales are at. Why? Because...ding.ding.ding! They have most of the jobs over there! People have jobs and have money to spend! But wait! The U.S. can't collect taxes off of them! Uh oh! 
Who's gonna pay your income when Joe Blow no longer has a job over here?  | |
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
I'd be interested to see what the "overall" numbers look like instead of just the percentages of distribution. For example, if during that time, the poorest still doubled their income while the richest quadrupled their income, even the poorest are still FAR better off. If there's more wealth in the system, everyone is benefiting, even if some are gaining at a more rapid rate. Trying to make everything as equal as possible just creates a system where everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator... | |
| reply to amigo_boy
We are turning into a third world country, where the aristocrats rule, and the poor live in slums. We are loosing the middle class as a result of corporate and millionaire greed. Soon we will have small opulent walled and gated areas, surrounded by vast slums, just like India and Venezuela. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to lakerfan82
said by lakerfan82:For example, if during that time, the poorest still doubled their income while the richest quadrupled their income, even the poorest are still FAR better off. I was talking about the share of every available dollar of income. You can't double or quadruple that share without someone losing share.
That's why "trickle down" didn't work. The average American's income went down after being adjusted for inflation. Average income for 90% of population peaked in 1973 at $33k. By 2009 it was $29k.
The top centile (1%) doubled their share of the national income. The top 1/10th of 1% tripled their share. The top 1/100th of 1% quadrupled.
It's the same concept as CEO pay rising from 33 times the average worker's income in 1977, to 300 times in the year 2000. Ultimately that money comes from somewhere. It's less compensation available to the average worker who makes up 90% of a corporation's employees. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:We are turning into a third world country, where the aristocrats rule, and the poor live in slums. We are loosing the middle class as a result of corporate and millionaire greed. Soon we will have small opulent walled and gated areas, surrounded by vast slums, just like India and Venezuela. What seems odd to me is how Americans, even those who are victims of growing economic/financial disparity, have an almost hero-worship notion of "self made" wealth.
The growing disparity of wealth is a direct consequence of social policy. Even Adam Smith recognized that "economies" don't exist in a vacuum. He called it a "political economy."
Average workers (including well-educated tech workers) lose jobs as a result of society intervention in global trade -- ironing out "free trade agreements" that force western norms of commerce upon signatories. Essentially leveling the playing field for businesses who were already free to engage in trade before those "agreements." But, those agreements do not level the playing field for workers. Americans are still forced to pay for sewers, water treatment, animal welfare, child labor protection, and environmental protection. Then allowed to compete against those who don't.
Average Americans also lose their jobs as a result of national defense concerns. China artificially pegs its Yuan to the US Dollar. If the Yuan were allowed to float to it's real market value it would destroy China's export-based economy (which was built through the destruction of America's jobs).
Our society not only turns a blind eye to that currency manipulation, we give China our coveted "Most Favored Nation" status.
Why? Because China is North Korea's only ally. We need China to lean on NK.
So, now we have average Americans bearing an inordinate cost of national security(!).
And then, when we ask if the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of the cost of our society, we're met with screaming about "socailsim" -- often from the same average worker who's seen a steady decline in their income, standard of living, etc.
The wealthiest Americans have seen their wealth rise as a result of
- Reducing taxes and regulations.
- Not regulating the over-the-counter derivative market in 1997, and prohibiting states from regulating Credit Default Swaps (as insurance) in 2001.
- Repealing Glass-Steagall (a post-Depression safeguard against excessive banking speculation with socially-gauranteed depositor money) in 1999.
- Bailing out the wealthiest Americans after all those deregulatory acts didn't work out. (It was those with the most accumulated wealth who would have lost the most if our financial system collapsed. They depended on that system paying them back.).
A perfect example of how we generally are not "self made" is Forbes list of the 75 wealthiest individuals in all recorded history.
Of those 75, fourteen (a whopping 20%) were born in one country, within the same 10 years. They were Americans born between 1831 and 1840. One decade, in one country, which coincided with the greatest abundance of natural wealth accrued through the social policy of "Manifest Destiny." (A religious excuse to remove Native Americans from their lands.).
If you were born in 1831-1840, into a generation that is about to finalize the "indian question," (using a social premise that God wants you to have their stuff) you had more opportunity than those who live today under the premise that it's "free trade" to force you to pay for a high standard of living, and then "allow" you to compete with those who don't (after spending years negotiating "free trade" agreements to benefit financial and commercial markets).
A really good examination of how "self made" is mostly a myth is Outliers: The Story of Success (Gladwell). I highly recommend it.
To me, it's amazing how average Americans are losing ground and yet cling to a near-cultish worship of "self-made wealth." Adam Smith fingered "the disposition to admire, and to almost worship, the rich and powerful," as "the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." | |
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
Again, you can say that out of every dollar, group A received X% and group B only received X/4%, but if there are significantly more dollars in the system (which is the case), group B's status can still improve.
Its just like Android vs iOS. Currently, in terms of market share, Android is behind iOS. However, by 2014, Google is projected to have the largest marketshare, taking "share" from iOS. But guess what, because the market for smartphone operating systems in 2014 will be almost double what it is now, iOS will be selling nearly twice as many phones and making twice as much money as they do currently even as Google will be making 4 times as much money. Both improve on their current status even as one takes "share"...
In addition, I have a hard time believing that someone making $33k in 1973 is "better off" than someone making $29k in 2009. Technology improvements over the last 35 years have increased standards of living greatly. Is someone in 1973 making $33k going to be able to afford a computer or a plane ticket? I'd like to see some disposable income statistics from '73 to '09... | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by lakerfan82:Again, you can say that out of every dollar, group A received X% and group B only received X/4%, but if there are significantly more dollars in the system (which is the case), group B's status can still improve. How would the status improve when their inflation-adjusted incomes have remain flat or dropped?
See:
- »www.declineoftheempire.com/2010/···ing.html
- »sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news···d43b1856
said by lakerfan82:In addition, I have a hard time believing that someone making $33k in 1973 is "better off" than someone making $29k in 2009. Technology improvements over the last 35 years have increased standards of living greatly. Is someone in 1973 making $33k going to be able to afford a computer or a plane ticket? Those improvements in standards of living apply to everyone, right?
OTOH, we had regulatory rollbacks which led to bailing out the financial industry and benefiting some Americans (with invested capital) more than others (common workers).
You could say "hey, they still have a job... so they benefited from the bailout too." But, they didn't quite benefit in the same way as Goldman Sach's employees receiving record bonuses.
I think most people thought "trickle down" would be a little more substantial than these examples.
I do agree with you that the notional "value" of compensation changes over time with the goods and services that can be bought.
For example, when people complain about the deflationary nature of fiat currency (how a dollar won't buy what it did 50 years ago), I always respond that someone like Babe Ruth would have eagerly exchanged his 1940s dollars for today's dollars -- dollars which can purchase a treatment for cancer.
Therefore, I do agree with you that it's hard to compare the "value" of dollars 50 years ago to today's dollars. But, that tends to apply to the entire population. Just as Jaime the janitorial guy can buy a computer for $300, a corporation's CEO can buy a Lear Jet (when such was was not available to most CEOs 50 years ago).
There's really no way to spin this nation's growing wealth and income disparity. Comparing flat wages of 90% of the population to 1/100th of 1% quadrupling theirs isn't going to reasonate with too many people outside the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1%, and who had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population. | |
1 edit | said by amigo_boy:Therefore, I do agree with you that it's hard to compare the "value" of dollars 50 years ago to today's dollars. But, that tends to apply to the entire population. Just as Jaime the janitorial guy can buy a computer for $300, a corporation's CEO can buy a Lear Jet (when such was was not available to most CEOs 50 years ago). What if the only reason Jaime the Janitorial guy has a job is because the evil CEO bought a Lear jet from the company Jaime works at? I could honestly care less what people who make more than me spend their money on while my standard of living continues to improve.
There's really no way to spin this nation's growing wealth and income disparity. Comparing flat wages of 90% of the population to 1/100th of 1% quadrupling theirs isn't going to reasonate with too many people outside the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1%, and who had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population.
Since we already agree that it is extremely hard, if not impossible to compare the "value" of a dollar over that length of time, this fairness argument is essentially meaningless. If everyone's status (standard of living, etc) is improving, you can't argue that one group is worse off. You are complaining that one group's standard of living is improving at a faster rate than another group but acting like that other group is turning into a refugee camp when in reality their standard of living continues to improve. All you are doing is playing class warfare games. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by lakerfan82:I could honestly care less what people who make more than me spend their money on while my standard of living continues to improve. Unfortunately, standards of living are not improving for millions of Americans. Ronald Reagan validated the concept of asking "are you better off than you were" in 1980. It's perfectly reasonable to ask how we're better off 30 years later. If some benefited inordinately than others.
If you're not concerned with that, good for you. Most are concerned with issues such as the average worker carrying the burden of our national defense interests (by being forced to "compete" in a market where China's currency is manipulated to the disadvantage of the American worker -- and our society won't stand up for our national interest in this regard because we need China's help with North Korea. That is a direct nationa-defense cost borne inordinately by one class of American. While other Americans have seen their incomes quadruple.).
said by lakerfan82:You are complaining that one group's standard of living is improving at a faster rate than another group but acting like that other group is turning into a refugee camp when in reality their standard of living continues to improve. We're talking about two different things. One is the income used to buy goods and services that are available. And, the goods and services that are available -- and their quality/availability changes over time.
Income disparity has grown enormously. The average American's income has remained flat over 30 years, while the Americans in the top 10% have seen their incomes grow (and even quadruple in the top 1/100th of 1%).
That's a significant shift in who can buy and enjoy the improved goods and services which we both agree exist.
Your point is, those improved goods and services may not have existed if the top 1/100th of 1% of the population couldn't have increased their incomes by a whopping 400%.
The problem is: you don't know that. We had tremendous increases in the quality and availability of goods and services between 1900 and 1970. We did that without the kind of income disparity we've witnessed the past 30 years.
Your argument is like the person who said CEO pay increasing from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1977 to 300 times in the year 2000 was a result of (or, resulted in) increased GDP over that period.
But, we had the same increases of GDP for the 23 years prior to 1977 when CEO pay didn't vastly outpace the average American's.
said by lakerfan82:All you are doing is playing class warfare games. And you're naive if you believe "ox goring" doesn't exist. It's a natural result of individuals leaving the Lockean "state of nature" and forming societies for their "mutual benefit."
As soon as you have more than two people coming together to sacrifice their individual interests for "mutual benefit" there will be disagreements about what constitutes "mutual."
Wealthy people need the "consent of the governed" for things like international trade agreements negotiated by society, and to benefit financial and commercial markets -- at the expense of labor markets.
Businesses don't offshore jobs because they like those workers. They like them because they'll work cheaper. And they work cheaper because they don't have the same coerced standard of living American workers do. A direct undermining of this nation's "common" or "national" interests.
It's just a fact of life that people with shared interests will group together and discuss how their shared interests are affected by other subgroups who have similarly joined together to promote their own.
IMO, flinging the "class warfare" term is just a cheap attempt at getting people to stay in line. Stay "in their place." Don't ask how society is used to benefit some at the expense of others. (Like the use of "socialism" while hoping nobody will point out how we enjoy "socialism" in our daily lives -- even those flinging the term for self-serving purposes.).
If you don't believe what I describe is occurring, I strongly encourage you to read the book "Outliers." It gives multiple examples of how opportunities are a result of society's influences and rules. Not merely available to everyone equally. | |
| said by amigo_boy:Unfortunately, standards of living are not improving for millions of Americans. Ronald Reagan validated the concept of asking "are you better off than you were" in 1980. It's perfectly reasonable to ask how we're better off 30 years later. If some benefited inordinately than others. This is where we continue to disagree. How are standards of living not improving for "millions of americans?" I'd like an example other than "from 1973 to 2009, the wages of millions of Americans stayed flat." If the value of those "flat wages" has increased, the standard of living has increased. I don't have time to address the rest of your response, but I would love to see you give more examples of how standards of living haven't improved for even the lowest class. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by lakerfan82:If the value of those "flat wages" has increased, the standard of living has increased. You're obviously being disingenuous.
Standards of living are relative. We pick a point at which we call something "poverty" despite the fact that quality of process food or building construction has increased; or the price of clothing has gone down; or that the impoverished can make phone calls cheaper using calling cards.
Extreme wealth is regarded similarly.
When a handful of Americans have quadrupled their inflation-adjusted income, that too is relative to the millions who have remained flat, or lost ground.
That's quadruple the income to buy the better (higher-value) goods which you imply is the only measure of "standard of living."
It's perfectly natural for individuals to ask who is benefiting from society, and if it is disproportionate enough to be considered corrupt (i.e., deregulating an industry, encouraging massive accumulations of wealth through deregulation, and then bailing out those same beneficiaries when the party ended badly.).
You object that this is "class warfare." But, even Adam Smith (the darling of libertarians) recognized that markets exist within a polity. He referred to economies as not simply "economies." He called them "political economies."
He even validated so-called "class warfare" when he wrote:
quote:
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.
-- Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments pt i, sec. i, ch iii, para 28 (1759).
| |
| said by amigo_boy:You're obviously being disingenuous. Standards of living are relative. We pick a point at which we call something "poverty" despite the fact that quality of process food or building construction has increased; or the price of clothing has gone down; or that the impoverished can make phone calls cheaper using calling cards. I'm not being disingenuous. Because you can't prove that the so called impoverished are actually "worse" off now than 35 years ago, you resort to comparing them against the rich and cry foul. Again, lets break it down. Lets say you have a neighbor who makes exactly the same amount of money and has virtually identical net worth. Then, lets say you both wake up a year later and you have 2 more cars in your drive way and you've added another 800 square feet to your house. Your neighbor, on the other hand, has 8 additional cars and has actually bulldozed his house and built a new house that is 4 times the size of yours. You're basically trying to convince me that you aren't better off because your neighbor has accumulated four times more possessions than you in the same time frame. That is a complete crock. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by lakerfan82:Because you can't prove that the so called impoverished are actually "worse" off now than 35 years ago, you resort to comparing them against the rich and cry foul. The problem is that, according to you, if air and water quality improved compared to 35 years ago, you would insist that our standard of living has increased -- despite growing wealth and income disparity.
Using your definition, Americans would never have anything to complain about. A dozen people could control 99% of the nation's wealth and income. You'd dismiss it as "but, the price of hot dogs is actually lower today than they were 35 years ago." (Forget that fewer people can afford a hot dog).
said by lakerfan82:You're basically trying to convince me that you aren't better off because your neighbor has accumulated four times more possessions than you in the same time frame. That is a complete crock. If a neighbor accumulated four times more possessions as a result of laws giving him an advantage over their neighbors, you can bet those neighbors would be questioning whether the laws serve everyone, or are corrupted to serve a few.
The problem with your analogy is: how do you account for one neighbor being sacrificed at the altar of China's manipulated currency, because it's in all the neighbors' interest to keep China happy and our diplomatic proxy to North Korea?
There are many social issues that don't distill well down to the level of Fred and Ernie: two neighbors sharing a beer, and who would get upset if they caught the other's hand in their pocket. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to lakerfan82
said by lakerfan82:Again, lets break it down. Lets say you have a neighbor ... Let's explore how consistently you would employ your argument.
Let's say you have a neighbor who wants to convert her home into a late-night biker bar. It would be a "complete crock" to believe you could stand in the way of your neighbor's perfect right to dispose of her property any way she wishes.
Yet, that's exactly what we do at the societal level through zoning laws and building codes.
Are you saying that because those laws do things that you'd never dream of doing to your neighbor (if you broke the relationship down to its simplest components), you oppose zoning laws and building codes?
IMO, your argument is typical, self-serving, libertarian rhetoric.
You have resorted to individual-to-individual comparisons to attack the notion that society should exist to serve the interests of all (which does involve coercion). I.e., what we do at a societal level wouldn't look "pretty" at an individual level. Therefore, it must be wrong at a societal level.
But, as expected, I doubt you would apply that criteria consistently (building codes, zoning laws, food & drug quality laws, the SEC and banking regulations). Why? Because you value one or all of those coercive social interventions in individual relationships. You just don't value the one under discussion. Therefore, you use a self-serving rhetorical device to attack it.
Food-quality is another good example. Who are you to impose upon your neighbor that they must buy food that meets your standards of quality and inspection? That would be a "complete crock!"
Yet, I doubt you would argue for an anarchy of unregulated food. Where willing buyers and sellers is paramount. Where caveat emptor is the only rule.
IMO, like your use of the term "class warfare," your distillation of this topic down to two individuals is just a cheap rhetorical device to strike an emotional chord that you're not entitled to. | |
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:The problem is that, according to you, if air and water quality improved compared to 35 years ago, you would insist that our standard of living has increased -- despite growing wealth and income disparity. Using your definition, Americans would never have anything to complain about. A dozen people could control 99% of the nation's wealth and income. You'd dismiss it as "but, the price of hot dogs is actually lower today than they were 35 years ago." (Forget that fewer people can afford a hot dog). Sure, if the only thing that improved was air quality, or the only thing that improved was the cheaper price of a hot dog, you'd be absolutely right. However, its the combination of all these improvements that makes a difference. Better air quality along with cheaper clothes, better processed foods, better and more efficient manufacturing processes, etc that lead to higher disposable income, better value, and therefore a higher standard of living even in the face of so called "flat" wages.
If a neighbor accumulated four times more possessions as a result of laws giving him an advantage over their neighbors, you can bet those neighbors would be questioning whether the laws serve everyone, or are corrupted to serve a few. the same laws apply to everyone in that example so your retort doesn't even make sense...
The problem with your analogy is: how do you account for one neighbor being sacrificed at the altar of China's manipulated currency, because it's in all the neighbors' interest to keep China happy and our diplomatic proxy to North Korea?
There are many social issues that don't distill well down to the level of Fred and Ernie: two neighbors sharing a beer, and who would get upset if they caught the other's hand in their pocket.
You keep bringing up China and North Korea as if they're the source of all our problems. I fail to see your point. Hypothetically, even if the China/North Korea "problem" were no longer there, the jobs would be going to the next cheapest country. Given the realities of our time, we live in a global society. Companies generally have 3 choices to stay competitive, whether you like it or not: A) Keep all their employees in the US and raise prices on their products, which will eventually lead to the company going out of business and a loss of ALL the jobs B) Keep the factory in the US and automate as much of the process as possible, but the American manufacturing employees still lose their jobs C) Move the factory to China or some other country and the American manufacturing employees lose their jobs. All three choices lead to job loss and there's really not much you can do about it, even through regulation or protectionism. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by lakerfan82:Better air quality along with cheaper clothes, better processed foods, better and more efficient manufacturing processes, etc that lead to higher disposable income, better value, and therefore a higher standard of living even in the face of so called "flat" wages. At least we've established that you have your threshold of what is acceptable increase in standard of living. Even you expect something beyond merely improved air and water quality.
Others expect that society's rules (facilitating commerce, global trade, deregulating risky financial behaviors) would lead to a proportional increase in benefit to all Americans. Not just a handful (as has been the case as wealth and income disparity grows to levels not seen since 1929.).
said by lakerfan82:the same laws apply to everyone in that example so your retort doesn't even make sense... Obviously those laws don't apply to everyone... when some Americans are more prone to losing their jobs due to offshoring labor (while other Americans give themselves bonuses for "cutting costs" through offshoring jobs).
Or, when some Americans benefited from non-regulation of financial derivatives. And then benefited from social bailout of the results of that experiment gone awry.
said by lakerfan82:You keep bringing up China and North Korea as if they're the source of all our problems. I fail to see your point. China manipulates its currency to keep its exports attractive to US consumers. China prevents its currency from floating to its true market value. This makes the price of China's manufactured products artificially low, eliminating the possibility of American manufacturing labor from competing.
The US has been afraid to tackle this issue because, for one thing, the US needs to curry favor with China to influence N. Korea.
You don't see this, nor the unfair impact it has upon some Americans, because it contradicts your simplistic worldview.
said by lakerfan82:Companies generally have 3 choices to stay competitive, ... All three choices lead to job loss and there's really not much you can do about it, even through regulation or protectionism. China's currency manipulation helps companies make the right choice for China. Not for American citizens.
The US's interest in currying favor with China is therefore borne by some Americans (those who lose jobs to offshoring manufacturing to China) more than others.
But, you can't see that because you need to distill the world down to convenient and simplistic analogies of Fred and Ernie, two neighbors sharing a beer, who would never dream of offending each other. | |
|
