We're #1!...

[Ivytalk]

Gotta love Scandinavia. Hot women, solid middle class!

High taxes, profligate social spending, crappy cars.

[kalm]

Gotta love Scandinavia. Hot women, solid middle class!

High taxes, profligate social spending, crappy cars.

Low poverty, low crime, happy people!

(We bought a 1999 Saab 900 new and it was truly a pile of shit so I agree on the car thing)

[Ivytalk]

Gotta love Scandinavia. Hot women, solid middle class!

High taxes, profligate social spending, crappy cars.

Low poverty, low crime, happy people!

(We bought a 1999 Saab 900 new and it was truly a pile of **** so I agree on the car thing)

See the loveli lakes .. the wonderful telephone system...and mani interesting furry animals...

[kalm]

Low poverty, low crime, happy people!

(We bought a 1999 Saab 900 new and it was truly a pile of **** so I agree on the car thing)

See the loveli lakes .. the wonderful telephone system...and mani interesting furry animals...

[GannonFan]

A healthy economy MAKES things.

The problem is, we do make things, a lot of things. People keep repeating this weird notion that America is no longer a manufacturing nation when the opposite is true - we still make more than anyone else in the world. The problem is that with automation and innovation, we don't need the huge workforce that manufacturing had in America 20 and 30 years ago. We are so much more productive now because of engineered solutions and automation that we make exponentially more than we made 30 years ago but we do it with exponentially less of a workforce. And that problem isn't easy to fix and I would argue you don't want to fix it. You don't want to make the manufacturing processes so inefficient again that you require 10 guys to do the work that one guy can do today. In the long run, that's not a recipe for a healthy economy.

[JoltinJoe]

A healthy economy MAKES things.

The problem is, we do make things, a lot of things. People keep repeating this weird notion that America is no longer a manufacturing nation when the opposite is true - we still make more than anyone else in the world. The problem is that with automation and innovation, we don't need the huge workforce that manufacturing had in America 20 and 30 years ago. We are so much more productive now because of engineered solutions and automation that we make exponentially more than we made 30 years ago but we do it with exponentially less of a workforce. And that problem isn't easy to fix and I would argue you don't want to fix it. You don't want to make the manufacturing processes so inefficient again that you require 10 guys to do the work that one guy can do today. In the long run, that's not a recipe for a healthy economy.

I don't disagree with you and I never said that we don't make things. My point was simply that manufacturing, as a component of GDP, is down significantly over the past 35 years. And that is why our middle class is treading water.

My statement was intended more as a disabuse of the notion that we can prosper as an investor and services economy. We need manufacturing.

Note too, that it is not that our middle class is floundering. It is still extremely comfortable in comparison to other economies. But it is not growing in prosperity, as we have come to expect.

[kalm]

The problem is, we do make things, a lot of things. People keep repeating this weird notion that America is no longer a manufacturing nation when the opposite is true - we still make more than anyone else in the world. The problem is that with automation and innovation, we don't need the huge workforce that manufacturing had in America 20 and 30 years ago. We are so much more productive now because of engineered solutions and automation that we make exponentially more than we made 30 years ago but we do it with exponentially less of a workforce. And that problem isn't easy to fix and I would argue you don't want to fix it. You don't want to make the manufacturing processes so inefficient again that you require 10 guys to do the work that one guy can do today. In the long run, that's not a recipe for a healthy economy.

I don't disagree with you and I never said that we don't make things. My point was simply that manufacturing, as a component of GDP, is down significantly over the past 35 years.

My statement was intended more as a disabuse of the notion that we can prosper as an investor and services economy. We need manufacturing.

Switch the word manufacturing with production and I think even Ganny might agree.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't disagree with you and I never said that we don't make things. My point was simply that manufacturing, as a component of GDP, is down significantly over the past 35 years.

My statement was intended more as a disabuse of the notion that we can prosper as an investor and services economy. We need manufacturing.

Switch the word manufacturing with production and I think even Ganny might agree.

Ok, done.

[GannonFan]

I don't disagree with you and I never said that we don't make things. My point was simply that manufacturing, as a component of GDP, is down significantly over the past 35 years.

My statement was intended more as a disabuse of the notion that we can prosper as an investor and services economy. We need manufacturing.

Switch the word manufacturing with production and I think even Ganny might agree.

You'll have to explain to me how that will make any difference to the actual employment of more people, which is the crux of the problem. We make or produce plenty of stuff, we just don't need swaths of people to do that any more.

[kalm]

Switch the word manufacturing with production and I think even Ganny might agree.

You'll have to explain to me how that will make any difference to the actual employment of more people, which is the crux of the problem. We make or produce plenty of stuff, we just don't need swaths of people to do that any more.

We don't produce enough stuff to meet the standard of living, public debt, or sales expectations of the middle class, balanced budget advocates, or retail.

In other words, you still should be striving to produce more than you import, whether it's textiles or software.

[travelinman67]

Hey Tman,

Fancy that, Marx was right about capitalism and the hippies were right about the environment and social justice.

You old fuck.

You're all off.

Go dig up Commerce Dept. raw data from 1970 to date.

The decline began in 1972. GDP made a sharp turn following two notable incidents: The first oil embargo and the establishment (passage) of EPA Clean Water/Air Act.

U.S. industry took a one-two punch that year and began scaling back. Fewer jobs;less prosperity;declining quality of life;shifting education goals away from core skills.

Your "bait" assertion is antithetical.

The "environmental" protection laws.and tightening energy infrastructure of the early 70's are the foremost causors of our nation's failing quality of life.
Socially, the foremost contributor has been the allowance of No-Fault divorce.


You know I'm right...

...time to man up and take responsibility.

[OL FU]

Hey Tman,

Fancy that, Marx was right about capitalism and the hippies were right about the environment and social justice.

You old ****.

You're all off.

I have noticed life is more fun that way

[Pwns]

Before we go crazy with the protectionism, can't we try public investment in R&D?

There's a bottleneck of drugs waiting to go to clinical trial that limits on manpower and funding have created. There could be many billions to be made off of some of these drugs. There is also the potential to be a world leader in implementing personalized medicine via genetic tests.

There are plenty of frontiers in computer technology that could possibly be sped up with some public investment in research. Quantum computing, anyone?

Same thing goes with the automotive industry. Why can't our automakers be tops in the world?

This is basically what Germany did to increase manufacturing in their country. And you'll notice they are producing things like cars, machines, and chemical products. Not pots, pans, and blue jeans.

[kalm]

Before we go crazy with the protectionism, can't we try public investment in R&D?

There's a bottleneck of drugs waiting to go to clinical trial that limits on manpower and funding have created. There could be many billions to be made off of some of these drugs. There is also the potential to be a world leader in implementing personalized medicine via genetic tests.

There are plenty of frontiers in computer technology that could possibly be sped up with some public investment in research. Quantum computing, anyone?

Same thing goes with the automotive industry. Why can't our automakers be tops in the world?

This is basically what Germany did to increase manufacturing in their country. And you'll notice they are producing things like cars, machines, and chemical products. Not pots, pans, and blue jeans.

Agreed. But how are you going to pay for it?

[Pwns]

Before we go crazy with the protectionism, can't we try public investment in R&D?

There's a bottleneck of drugs waiting to go to clinical trial that limits on manpower and funding have created. There could be many billions to be made off of some of these drugs. There is also the potential to be a world leader in implementing personalized medicine via genetic tests.

There are plenty of frontiers in computer technology that could possibly be sped up with some public investment in research. Quantum computing, anyone?

Same thing goes with the automotive industry. Why can't our automakers be tops in the world?

This is basically what Germany did to increase manufacturing in their country. And you'll notice they are producing things like cars, machines, and chemical products. Not pots, pans, and blue jeans.

Agreed. But how are you going to pay for it?

I guess we can dip into the federal government's magic vault that never runs out of money. Seems to work in paying for a lot of other things with less potential for a return on investment.

[kalm]

Trickle up economics? According to Picketty and his exhaustive research, the numbers and historical data simply don't support what we've been doing since Reagan…

Balzac, who famously wrote that “behind every fortune lies a great crime,” lived in a world the vast majority of us would not want to see recur, a world in which merit and hard work mattered little.

Piketty argues that we are headed back in that direction, however, through misguided government policies that encourage dynastic wealth and favor returns to capital over income from labor. His dark vision is one in which even the strivers will have a tougher time, and more modest fortunes, than those whose primary basis for their riches is ancestry.

We need not return to the much greater wealth disparities of the Belle Époque, or what in America we call the Gilded Age, when industrialization and mass production produced fortunes unimaginable to those who had lived only a few decades before.

To make smarter choices, however, requires understanding the financial dynamics of the modern world and the legal structures that make them possible. Piketty’s new book is an important contribution to understanding what we need to do to produce more growth, wider economic opportunity and greater social stability.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... omics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

Trickle up economics? According to Picketty and his exhaustive research, the numbers and historical data simply don't support what we've been doing since Reagan…

Balzac, who famously wrote that “behind every fortune lies a great crime,” lived in a world the vast majority of us would not want to see recur, a world in which merit and hard work mattered little.

Piketty argues that we are headed back in that direction, however, through misguided government policies that encourage dynastic wealth and favor returns to capital over income from labor. His dark vision is one in which even the strivers will have a tougher time, and more modest fortunes, than those whose primary basis for their riches is ancestry.

We need not return to the much greater wealth disparities of the Belle Époque, or what in America we call the Gilded Age, when industrialization and mass production produced fortunes unimaginable to those who had lived only a few decades before.

To make smarter choices, however, requires understanding the financial dynamics of the modern world and the legal structures that make them possible. Piketty’s new book is an important contribution to understanding what we need to do to produce more growth, wider economic opportunity and greater social stability.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... omics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I knew that "book" would give you a hard-on. "Progressive" pornography.

[kalm]

Trickle up economics? According to Picketty and his exhaustive research, the numbers and historical data simply don't support what we've been doing since Reagan…




http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... omics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I knew that "book" would give you a hard-on. "Progressive" pornography.

I'm sorry economic history has a "progressive" bias.

[Baldy]

I knew that "book" would give you a hard-on. "Progressive" pornography.

I'm sorry economic history has a "progressive" bias.

One man's Marxism is another man's economic philosophy.

[JohnStOnge]

Haven't read all the posts since I was last here but thought I'd reference a recent report on how median income has changed in the United States over time. At http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; there is a report on various things issued by the CBO on December 4, 2013. It uses data/estimates collected/generated 1979 through 2010. If you go to the right side of the page you can click on a link for an Excel file labeled "Supplemental Data."

Once in the Excel file click the link labeled "Median Household Income, 1979 to 2010." The numbers are inflation adjusted to be reported in 2010 dollars. What you will see is that "unadjusted" after tax median household income in 2010 is estimated as being 40% higher than it was in 1979 ($65,800 vs. $46,900). Also, the estimate for median after tax income "adjusted for household size" for 2010 is 48% higher than that for 1979. There was some dip during the economic disturbance that affected 2008 through 2010. But the unadjusted figure for 2010 is only 0.9% below its 2008 peak and the adjusted figure for that year is only 1.0% below its 2007 peak.

Again, people are much better off in terms of income now than they were in what people appear to look at as the "Golden Days" of the American Middle Class. I would say that when people refer to those "Golden Days" they're referring to time prior to 1980. Probably something like 1950 through 1975. And the typical "Middle Class" person or family living in the United States now has a much higher inflation adjusted income than the typical person or family living in the United States then did.

Though I don't have the data right now I'd also bet that the "typical" Middle Class person or family in the United States now has more stuff and lives a far more comfortable lifestyle now. They have better televisions and more of them. Probably more cars. Bigger houses. More entertainment options. Better climate control in their homes. Personal computers. Mobile phones/devices. GPS to navigate while driving. On and on.

As I've said before if you sent a kid from the "typical" middle class family of today back in the to live in the conditions characterizing the "typical" middle class family of 1970 they'd think they'd been sent to something like a Siberian Gulag. They'd be horrified.

[JohnStOnge]

A comment on a quote in the caption of the picture at the top of the article linked to start this thread:

A woman pictured said:

“You have mostly lower level and high and not a lot in between.”

That statement is going to be seen by many readers as accurately describing the situation. But it's another example of perception with respect to the American Middle Class not being reality.

Go to the page linked in my previous post. This time, after opening the Excel file, click the link labeled, "Number of Households, Average Income, and Shares of Income for All Household, by Before-Tax Income Group 1979 to 2010." It's link #3.

Then scroll down to row 81 to view "Average After-Tax Income (2010 dollars)."

Every quintile is indicated as having substantially higher after tax income in 2010 than it did in 1979. 49% higher for the lowest 20 percent, 37% for the second quintile, 36% for the third (middle) quintile, 45% for the fourth quintile, and 85% for the top quintile.

Go to the next tab labeled "Income Group Minimums." Too much to write about there but you can browse around and see that the minimums for all the income group/family size combinations except for those involving the lowest quintile were much higher in 2010 than they were in 1979. The lowest quintile minimum is always 0 because, obviously, the lowest quintile is always going to include some people who didn't have any income.

The woman in the picture has no clue. There's more "in between" now than there was during the Golden Age of the American Middle Class. A LOT more. And she's not the only one. It's a widespread myth. Like I'm watching one of the Fox News financial shows right now…Forbes on Fox I think…and they're actually discussing the topic of this thread. The whole discussion is based in part on the premise that the American Middle Class is not as well off as it was "back in the day" and that premise is false. It just is. The American middle class has not been "shrinking" and it has not been losing ground financially.

[Ivytalk]

Trickle up economics? According to Picketty and his exhaustive research, the numbers and historical data simply don't support what we've been doing since Reagan…

Balzac, who famously wrote that “behind every fortune lies a great crime,” lived in a world the vast majority of us would not want to see recur, a world in which merit and hard work mattered little.

Piketty argues that we are headed back in that direction, however, through misguided government policies that encourage dynastic wealth and favor returns to capital over income from labor. His dark vision is one in which even the strivers will have a tougher time, and more modest fortunes, than those whose primary basis for their riches is ancestry.

We need not return to the much greater wealth disparities of the Belle Époque, or what in America we call the Gilded Age, when industrialization and mass production produced fortunes unimaginable to those who had lived only a few decades before.

To make smarter choices, however, requires understanding the financial dynamics of the modern world and the legal structures that make them possible. Piketty’s new book is an important contribution to understanding what we need to do to produce more growth, wider economic opportunity and greater social stability.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... s-piketty-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
capitalinequalityeconomics.html

Reading about Piketty's book on Al Jazeera. Kalm, you must have had multiple orgasms.

[kalm]

Trickle up economics? According to Picketty and his exhaustive research, the numbers and historical data simply don't support what we've been doing since Reagan…



http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... s-piketty-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
capitalinequalityeconomics.html

Reading about Piketty's book on Al Jazeera. Kalm, you must have had multiple orgasms.

Why?

[Ivytalk]

Reading about Piketty's book on Al Jazeera. Kalm, you must have had multiple orgasms.

Why?

Because.

[JohnStOnge]

I had an epiphany today that, while inflammatory, is a legitimate matter to consider. Recall that I previously quoted this from the article:

Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.

Well, you know what's been happening over time which would be consistent with seeing 55 to 65 year olds in the United States compare relatively well with others of their age group in the rest of the industrialized world while those between 16 and 24 do not? Ethnic demographics have been changing.

I posted some time back in some other thread that when you look at standardized test scores and are objective about it you have to reach the conclusion that the average aptitude capability of the United States population as measured by standardized testing is going to be lower under projected ethnic demographic trends than it would be if those trends were not in place. And I think I may be seeing something that's consistent with that expectation.

If you go to http://www.census.gov/population/www/do ... /tab01.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and do a little math you can see that 81% of the United States population was non Hispanic White or Asian/Pacific Islander in 1980. Know what the most recent estimate (2012) of that percentage is? If you go to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01000.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and do a little math you will find that it's estimated at 68%.

If you were to ask ahead of time if one expected the relative level of "literacy, numeracy and technology skills" of the United States population to decline as compared to the populations of rest of the industrialized world if it's ethnicity proportions changed the way they've changed the answer, if one were to be honest and objective about it, would be "yes."

Of course to really look at it you'd have to also look at how the ethnicities of the other countries changed. But it's something to look at.

I know talking about such things is taboo. But it's reality.