I wonder if we can agree on the economic divide. Ref article

[Trigeek]

They say the blame lies, in large measure, with decades of failed federal policy decisions—allowing the minimum wage to deteriorate, overtime coverage to dwindle, and the effectiveness of labor law to decline, undermining union power. They also cite a shift in corporate culture that has elevated the interests of shareholders over those of workers, an ethos that took root 50 years ago this week with the publication of an essay by University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman.

Many of these developments, Rolf points out, have been driven by the belief that an unfettered free market would generate wealth for everyone. Thanks to the RAND study, he says, “we now have the proof that this theory was wrong.”

https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1?fbclid=IwAR2upZskTkItRKaAZobIKKfQfUpzH3ALsr1ZFMnYU83t4EGhsQJoydM1njM

 

[Trigeek]

What are you talking about? I post something about orange s and you start talking about apples?

 

[goodknightfl]

My grandparents did not live anywhere near as well as I do, They had 6 kids and were in a house smaller than mine is. My parents as well, had 4 kids and a bit larger, but older home, with 3 bedrooms. they had 1 car most of the time, had one TV, a Fridge, Stove, and we kids had a couple of Transistor radios.
Fast forward 1 generation to me, My kids each ad their own rooms, with a stereo, and TV in each, As a kid I never had a new bike, my kids each had 3 or 4. We always had 2 cars and usually a Motorhome. You can say the income gap is bigger, but bottom line lifestyles for average people continue to improve. People considered in poverty today, Have a roof over their head, most have a car, almost all have appliances the like of which no one ever thought of 50 years ago, TV's computers, internet, often cable and Cell phones.

If this is the result of Gov't failures, I vote the Gov't fails a hell of a lot more.

 

[Boosted87]

What my friends on the right don't seem to get, is that it's the folks on the left who are actually fighting to save what we know as free-market capitalism. The trends in wealth concentration are unsustainable. The possible outcomes form a pretty small list:

(1) An oligarchy formed via populism and strong-man government. It's a logical conclusion to wealth concentration that never reverses. You can function this way. It's basically like the feudal lords ensuring the serfs have just enough entertainment, food, and wine that's actual revolution isn't worth it. As you consolidate power, you can extract more and more from the populace since you can do things like poison your political rivals without consequence.

(2) A reasonable course reversal with taxes and policies meant to start recovering the multi-decade gap. A modern "new deal" of sorts, attacking key pain points like healthcare and education, corporate culture, and leadership that tracks the average US income at the same fidelity as the S&P 500 as a measure of economic success. I honestly think Elizabeth Warren's detailed plans is the best prescription to begin this kind of reversal.

(3) An extreme course reversal. The closer you get to (1) being achieved, the higher the risk of (3) happening. The more disconnected your economic system comes form the people, the more willing they are to buy into extreme solutions. This is how you end up with an ACTUAL socialist authoritarian/demagogue.

So if you are really a fan of our mixed capitalist economy - and not just a fan of the stock market going up at the expense of non-investors - then you should be looking for actual solutions to this problem. I think Warren is on the right path but I'd LOVE to see conservative thinkers who see this problem propose alternative solutions.

 

[Boosted87]

My grandparents did not live anywhere near as well as I do, They had 6 kids and were in a house smaller than mine is. My parents as well, had 4 kids and a bit larger, but older home, with 3 bedrooms. they had 1 car most of the time, had one TV, a Fridge, Stove, and we kids had a couple of Transistor radios.
Fast forward 1 generation to me, My kids each ad their own rooms, with a stereo, and TV in each, As a kid I never had a new bike, my kids each had 3 or 4. We always had 2 cars and usually a Motorhome. You can say the income gap is bigger, but bottom line lifestyles for average people continue to improve. People considered in poverty today, Have a roof over their head, most have a car, almost all have appliances the like of which no one ever thought of 50 years ago, TV's computers, internet, often cable and Cell phones.

If this is the result of Gov't failures, I vote the Gov't fails a hell of a lot more.

Your explanation is precisely why this sort of transfer is even possible. You're not wrong that "lifestyles" have improved. But that on it's own is not enough to justify these numbers.

It's akin to the serf saying "my parents shack leaked and they only ate table scraps. Our roof has no leaks and our Lord let's us eat 1 pig a month." Meanwhile, the Lord has built 3 new estates in the time he repaired your roof.

 

[DaShuckster]

We are the super power with China. Socialism never works.

So we are the super power with China, huh?

Funny, I could have sworn China operates a socialist market economy.

 

[firm_bizzle]

What my friends on the right don't seem to get, is that it's the folks on the left who are actually fighting to save what we know as free-market capitalism. The trends in wealth concentration are unsustainable. The possible outcomes form a pretty small list:

(1) An oligarchy formed via populism and strong-man government. It's a logical conclusion to wealth concentration that never reverses. You can function this way. It's basically like the feudal lords ensuring the serfs have just enough entertainment, food, and wine that's actual revolution isn't worth it. As you consolidate power, you can extract more and more from the populace since you can do things like poison your political rivals without consequence.

(2) A reasonable course reversal with taxes and policies meant to start recovering the multi-decade gap. A modern "new deal" of sorts, attacking key pain points like healthcare and education, corporate culture, and leadership that tracks the average US income at the same fidelity as the S&P 500 as a measure of economic success. I honestly think Elizabeth Warren's detailed plans is the best prescription to begin this kind of reversal.

(3) An extreme course reversal. The closer you get to (1) being achieved, the higher the risk of (3) happening. The more disconnected your economic system comes form the people, the more willing they are to buy into extreme solutions. This is how you end up with an ACTUAL socialist authoritarian/demagogue.

So if you are really a fan of our mixed capitalist economy - and not just a fan of the stock market going up at the expense of non-investors - then you should be looking for actual solutions to this problem. I think Warren is on the right path but I'd LOVE to see conservative thinkers who see this problem propose alternative solutions.

All of this. We are headed towards #1, Canada is headed towards #2. Canada has a much more sustainable economy over the next 100 years than we do. You can only push people so far.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Your explanation is precisely why this sort of transfer is even possible. You're not wrong that "lifestyles" have improved. But that on it's own is not enough to justify these numbers.

It's akin to the serf saying "my parents shack leaked and they only ate table scraps. Our roof has no leaks and our Lord let's us eat 1 pig a month." Meanwhile, the Lord has built 3 new estates in the time he repaired your roof.

This is what is happening in the middle eastern countries. The kings give their people just enough and keep them fat so they won't revolt.

The consolidation of companies is the problem. The money never stays local. Big company buys small company, moves the HQ to the coasts. All profits get shifted to the coasts and middle America and 2nd level cities (Orlando) get screwed. People love the convenience and lower prices of mega companies (Walmart, Uber) and like GoodnightFL says, their quality of life gets better because they can afford more amenities. However, they are essentially just trading stuff (bikes) for healthcare and paid leave.

 

[Crazyhole]

A great depression would go a long ways towards resetting things. I know that's an unpopular opinion but its true.

 

[Trigeek]

This is what is happening in the middle eastern countries. The kings give their people just enough and keep them fat so they won't revolt.

The consolidation of companies is the problem. The money never stays local. Big company buys small company, moves the HQ to the coasts. All profits get shifted to the coasts and middle America and 2nd level cities (Orlando) get screwed. People love the convenience and lower prices of mega companies (Walmart, Uber) and like GoodnightFL says, their quality of life gets better because they can afford more amenities. However, they are essentially just trading stuff (bikes) for healthcare and paid leave.

King Luis 14. Right

 

[firm_bizzle]

A great depression would go a long ways towards resetting things. I know that's an unpopular opinion but its true.

No, that would just make the rich, richer.

The Sentinel had an article a few weeks ago about the number of recessions in America. Our country is just one big Ponzi scheme of people trying to get rich working the system. 47 recessions since the start of this country.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Boosted87]

A great depression would go a long ways towards resetting things. I know that's an unpopular opinion but its true.

That carries great risk though. You don't know what system you come out with on the other side. That's fertile soil for extreme ideology.

 

[Crazyhole]

That carries great risk though. You don't know what system you come out with on the other side. That's fertile soil for extreme ideology.

Unfortunately its probably too late to avoid that. Politics and economics are so intertwined now that no matter what measures are taken, a total reset is inevitable. Societally, we have a problem on both the low end and high end of wealth and I'm not sure that can be remedied with public policy or taxation.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Unfortunately its probably too late to avoid that. Politics and economics are so intertwined now that no matter what measures are taken, a total reset is inevitable. Societally, we have a problem on both the low end and high end of wealth and I'm not sure that can be remedied with public policy or taxation.

We need more of a social safety net, get rid of the GMOs in the food and exercise more but the "all lives matter" crowd "knows their rights!"

 

[Crazyhole]

I would be on board with a wealth tax just as long as there are dollar for dollar credits on consumer spending, and that the tax revenues are directly used to invest in capital improvements by individuals. If that money just goes into the general fund, all we will see is bigger and more bloated government.

 

[Ace of Knights]

A great depression would go a long ways towards resetting things. I know that's an unpopular opinion but its true.

The problem is we kind of just had that (not on a prolonged timeline) and the opposite happened. Established large business and big box retailers banked, see Walmart, Home Depot, Target, etc. quarterly profits. Established chain restaurants struggled but will survive. Stock Market went bananas.

But your local businesses got crushed.

 

[firm_bizzle]

The problem is we kind of just had that (not on a prolonged timeline) and the opposite happened. Established large business and big box retailers banked, see Walmart, Home Depot, Target, etc. quarterly profits. Established chain restaurants struggled but will survive. Stock Market went bananas.

But your local businesses got crushed.

And they are about to get crushed again.

 

[Crazyhole]

The problem is we kind of just had that (not on a prolonged timeline) and the opposite happened. Established large business and big box retailers banked, see Walmart, Home Depot, Target, etc. quarterly profits. Established chain restaurants struggled but will survive. Stock Market went bananas.

But your local businesses got crushed.

I see your point, but it isn't what I'm talking about when I refer to a depression. The fed stepped in and bailed out businesses and individuals to avoid an actual free-market correction, plus the state governments put restrictions on who can do what. The measures they took actually had the opposite effect of what a real depression would bring.

 

[goodknightfl]

What my friends on the right don't seem to get, is that it's the folks on the left who are actually fighting to save what we know as free-market capitalism.

By becoming Socialist?? OK that makes perfect sense to me.

 

[firm_bizzle]

By becoming Socialist?? OK that makes perfect sense to me.

No. Avoiding revolt which hyper-capitalism leads to. The result is a swing to the other extreme, socialism, which nobody wants.

 

[Crazyhole]

No. Avoiding revolt which hyper-capitalism leads to. The result is a swing to the other extreme, socialism, which nobody wants.

Everybody is fine with socialism, because everybody thinks they will be on the winning end of it. Only stupid people suffer under socialism and nobody thinks they are stupid.

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

What are you talking about? I post something about orange s and you start talking about apples?

Trump Redhat

 

[Crazyhole]

No. Avoiding revolt which hyper-capitalism leads to. The result is a swing to the other extreme, socialism, which nobody wants.

Trying to wrap my mind on what hyper capitalism is. The nature of a free market economy is that people have the choice whether to engage in commerce or not, and if they do, pay only what they feel is a fair price for a product or service. How do you go "hyper" with that system?

 

[firm_bizzle]

Trying to wrap my mind on what hyper capitalism is. The nature of a free market economy is that people have the choice whether to engage in commerce or not, and if they do, pay only what they feel is a fair price for a product or service. How do you go "hyper" with that system?

A sports metaphor, the New York Yankees. The people with money prevent others from getting ahead in order to protect their money. Change the rules, buy out start ups, whatever to eliminate competition. Mega companies buy out small businesses, the money gets funneled out of local communities and into the big cities. The people end up working for smaller wages but believe that their lifestyle is better because they have a big TV.

 

[Crazyhole]

A sports metaphor, the New York Yankees. The people with money prevent others from getting ahead in order to protect their money. Change the rules, buy out start ups, whatever to eliminate competition. Mega companies buy out small businesses, the money gets funneled out of local communities and into the big cities. The people end up working for smaller wages but believe that their lifestyle is better because they have a big TV.

Lost me at "change the rules". Thats antithetical to the free market.

 

[goodknightfl]

No. Avoiding revolt which hyper-capitalism leads to. The result is a swing to the other extreme, socialism, which nobody wants.

Wrong, the base of the Democratic party does want it.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Wrong, the base of the Democratic party does want it.

AOC and Bernie aren't the base of the Democratic Party.

 

[Boosted87]

Trying to wrap my mind on what hyper capitalism is. The nature of a free market economy is that people have the choice whether to engage in commerce or not, and if they do, pay only what they feel is a fair price for a product or service. How do you go "hyper" with that system?

My view is that the natural order of ALL economic systems is for wealth to concentrate. This is just a function of human nature. The richer you get, the more lawyers and accountants you employ. Everyone copies each other's succesfull strategies. Loopholes in the system are discovered, exploited, and maximized. Outsized influence with politicians keep those loopholes around longer than they should. Same logic with corporations, except that can extend now to weakening unions, opposing minimum wage increases, etc. As wealth concentrates, the balance tips further.

It's really hard to criticize any individual or corporation for maximizing profits or reducing tax liability through legal means. But the collective effect is what we see in this data.

So no matter how good your system is, it decays over time, and always in this direction. Only being pro-active can maintain a steady state or reverse the trend.