5 ms·

40 years old here, and I have seen much more pain than benefit over the last 30 years. Early in my youth I was exposed to libertarianism, and I was taken in - i

by ap22213 11y ago

40 years old here, and I have seen much more pain than benefit over the last 30 years. Early in my youth I was exposed to libertarianism, and I was taken in - it sounded so simple and logical and effective. But, over time I saw the effects of globalization, free trade, and deregulation. They've been selling us, the masses, on it for 40 years. Why haven't salaries and demand for jobs increased? They always say it's because of the existing tariffs, regulations, unions, etc. 'Trust us,' they say, 'just a little bit longer - more deregulation and free trade, and it will happen. Trust us.' I've literally heard that same claim for as long I can remember. Maybe I'm a minority. I'm the first college educated person in my family (most with 'gifted' level IQs - like that matters!). The rest were working class. Then, I've seen them slowly lose jobs, fall below the poverty line. Now, I make a good salary, and I have to send money back to my family because they're unable to find jobs, pay for transportation, pay for education or health care or housing. Luckily, they are still able to pay for food! It's like I'm an immigrant in my own country, sending money back to the old country. Just weird. I am very happy that we have been able to raise standards of living for many who had been earning less than a dollar a day. But, this has come at the expense of the working and middle class in many 'rich' countries. There were and are much better ways to achieve the same goal. Instead of pressuring the benefiting countries to migrate to democracy and rule of law, we instead caved into our primal demand for low-cost junk. (Yay! $5 t-shirts. Thank you, Stefan Persson) Now, we have autocratic and corrupt countries with as much leverage as we used to have. The capitalists have been selling us Powerball tickets for 40 years, and we keep lining up to buy them.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Why haven't salaries and demand for jobs increased? Because non-wage compensation is tax advantaged so it's cheaper for companies to increase compensation there. If they spent $1 more on health care, you get $1 more worth of health care. If they spend $1 more on wages, you get $0.80 in your take home pay. Real compensation per hour has increased, both across the economy and in manufacturing. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRMS https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRMS That increase just comes in the form of health benefits/retirement/etc. If you want to fix this, eliminate the Obamacare employer mandate and push everyone to the exchanges and increase taxes on non-wage benefits. (You can make it revenue neutral by reducing taxes on wages commensurately.) There were and are much better ways to achieve the same goal. What are some of these "much better ways" to reliably and effectively achieve the same goal?
- astazangasta 11y ago
  The problem is increased payments to a bloated health care sector with costs growing faster than inflation does not actually amount to a real increase in compensation.
- ap22213 11y ago
  For one, we should not allow trade with countries that do not have some base level of rule of law, human rights, anti-corruption, safety nets, military control, and democratic rule. Capitalism is a game, and games still work even when there are rules in place. The rules just have to be consistent and enforced. I'm not against people getting rich. Some people like that. But, allowing those people to make us throw out important rules of the game just because it makes the game harder for them is really short-sighted.
  - fidget 11y ago
    Why is it better to be repressed and out of work than be repressed and in work?
- ap22213 11y ago
  Also, I've seen your posts before. Often, you post links to data. I like data, and each time you post a link, I check it out. But, in the past I've been convinced that you had cherry picked your data or misrepresented it. But, when I've queried you about it in the past, I'd gotten no response.
  - refurb 11y ago
    He's linking to data from the Federal Reserve. What makes you think it's cherry picked? The fact that total compensation has increased over the past 20-30 years is not a secret. It's well known.
    - ap22213 11y ago
      Cherry picking means presenting one set of data that supports an argument while ignoring others that don't. The data isn't from the fed but from BLS. And, a reading of the descriptions of what that data contains shows that it includes all non-farm works, including managers and executives, and even private business owners. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ricw 11y ago
This isn't a 40 year old trend but rather has been happening ever since weavers were replaced by machines some 200 years ago (ever since the industrial revolution). The trends of rationalisation, automation, economies of scale and now globalisation all have the same effect. Replacing low value labour with higher value labour. That's what competitive economies do and keeps them competitive (vs others, such as Cuba that just stay stuck in time). It's for the greater good, even if some temporarily will hit hardship. Understandably though, this isn't how people who are hit by this hardship think of globalisation..
- ap22213 11y ago
  I think most of us get that. But, the goal of all of this should be improvement of general well-being. And, clearly that's not happening. Sure, some people are getting crazy rich, but it's not trickling down into the general population.
  - ricw 11y ago
    I disagree. In absolute terms we have never been richer. And that's really what counts. Relative richness is "just jealousy" and not a real measure of wealth. Though people do of course compare themselves through relative means..
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > In absolute terms we have never been richer. Simply not true; there was a time in this country when a middle class lifestyle worked on one income leaving one parent free to raise kids. Those times are over, the middle class has been virtually destroyed and two income families are now the norm just to get by. That's not a relative comparison, that's an absolute decrease in lifestyle. That technology has progressed making computers cheap means diddly squat.
    - chillwaves 11y ago
      Any incremental progress over time results in increased wealth, but that's a rather low bar. Should think of how much better or worse things could be, not just that they improved. Technology has been increasing, innovation has been increasing (with time). That's a very low standard of expectation.
johngalt 11y ago
What would it cost to have a device similar to an android tablet 40 years ago? Billion dollars? Now you can get them for $100. What would it cost to have access to the sum of human knowledge instantly 40 years ago? In video/text/audio form? Now they hand out wifi free in coffee shops. In each case people/industries were displaced while generating enourmous wealth. The value of your paycheck may be lower, but what it can buy is incalculably more valuable. I would rather been poor now than rich 40 years ago.
- hiram112 11y ago
  The value of my paycheck can not buy an average home in my city. I'm not talking about a large McMansion, but a house built in 1940. It's great that I can buy an IPhone, but basic necessities in life like shelter, children, etc. are being priced above the middle class in many area. Sure I could move to a cheaper area, but then I wouldn't have a job.
- collyw 11y ago
  The "sum of human knowledge" is not available on the internet. A lot of it yes, but not everything. And there is also plenty of misinformation on the internet as well. 30 years ago my library did a good job of coming up with most of the information that I needed.
griffordson 11y ago
> Luckily, they are still able to pay for food! It's like I'm an immigrant in my own country, sending money back to the old country. Just weird. Well said. I don't have any answers, but wanted you to know that you are not alone in that feeling. It is incredibly disorienting to see the impact of income inequality so clearly in your own family in a single lifetime. It is even worse when you know that your children aren't interested in pursuing one of the few paths that can lead to financial security and are going to face a very difficult future if you aren't able to provide them with a safety net of your own.

by ap22213 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Why haven't salaries and demand for jobs increased? Because non-wage compensation is tax advantaged so it's cheaper for companies to increase compensation there. If they spent $1 more on health care, you get $1 more worth of health care. If they spend $1 more on wages, you get $0.80 in your take home pay. Real compensation per hour has increased, both across the economy and in manufacturing. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRMS https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRMS That increase just comes in the form of health benefits/retirement/etc. If you want to fix this, eliminate the Obamacare employer mandate and push everyone to the exchanges and increase taxes on non-wage benefits. (You can make it revenue neutral by reducing taxes on wages commensurately.) There were and are much better ways to achieve the same goal. What are some of these "much better ways" to reliably and effectively achieve the same goal?

astazangasta 11y ago
The problem is increased payments to a bloated health care sector with costs growing faster than inflation does not actually amount to a real increase in compensation.
ap22213 11y ago
For one, we should not allow trade with countries that do not have some base level of rule of law, human rights, anti-corruption, safety nets, military control, and democratic rule. Capitalism is a game, and games still work even when there are rules in place. The rules just have to be consistent and enforced. I'm not against people getting rich. Some people like that. But, allowing those people to make us throw out important rules of the game just because it makes the game harder for them is really short-sighted.
- fidget 11y ago
  Why is it better to be repressed and out of work than be repressed and in work?
ap22213 11y ago
Also, I've seen your posts before. Often, you post links to data. I like data, and each time you post a link, I check it out. But, in the past I've been convinced that you had cherry picked your data or misrepresented it. But, when I've queried you about it in the past, I'd gotten no response.
- refurb 11y ago
  He's linking to data from the Federal Reserve. What makes you think it's cherry picked? The fact that total compensation has increased over the past 20-30 years is not a secret. It's well known.
  - ap22213 11y ago
    Cherry picking means presenting one set of data that supports an argument while ignoring others that don't. The data isn't from the fed but from BLS. And, a reading of the descriptions of what that data contains shows that it includes all non-farm works, including managers and executives, and even private business owners. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ricw 11y ago

This isn't a 40 year old trend but rather has been happening ever since weavers were replaced by machines some 200 years ago (ever since the industrial revolution). The trends of rationalisation, automation, economies of scale and now globalisation all have the same effect. Replacing low value labour with higher value labour. That's what competitive economies do and keeps them competitive (vs others, such as Cuba that just stay stuck in time). It's for the greater good, even if some temporarily will hit hardship. Understandably though, this isn't how people who are hit by this hardship think of globalisation..

ap22213 11y ago
I think most of us get that. But, the goal of all of this should be improvement of general well-being. And, clearly that's not happening. Sure, some people are getting crazy rich, but it's not trickling down into the general population.
- ricw 11y ago
  I disagree. In absolute terms we have never been richer. And that's really what counts. Relative richness is "just jealousy" and not a real measure of wealth. Though people do of course compare themselves through relative means..
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > In absolute terms we have never been richer. Simply not true; there was a time in this country when a middle class lifestyle worked on one income leaving one parent free to raise kids. Those times are over, the middle class has been virtually destroyed and two income families are now the norm just to get by. That's not a relative comparison, that's an absolute decrease in lifestyle. That technology has progressed making computers cheap means diddly squat.
  - chillwaves 11y ago
    Any incremental progress over time results in increased wealth, but that's a rather low bar. Should think of how much better or worse things could be, not just that they improved. Technology has been increasing, innovation has been increasing (with time). That's a very low standard of expectation.

johngalt 11y ago

What would it cost to have a device similar to an android tablet 40 years ago? Billion dollars? Now you can get them for $100. What would it cost to have access to the sum of human knowledge instantly 40 years ago? In video/text/audio form? Now they hand out wifi free in coffee shops. In each case people/industries were displaced while generating enourmous wealth. The value of your paycheck may be lower, but what it can buy is incalculably more valuable. I would rather been poor now than rich 40 years ago.

hiram112 11y ago
The value of my paycheck can not buy an average home in my city. I'm not talking about a large McMansion, but a house built in 1940. It's great that I can buy an IPhone, but basic necessities in life like shelter, children, etc. are being priced above the middle class in many area. Sure I could move to a cheaper area, but then I wouldn't have a job.
collyw 11y ago
The "sum of human knowledge" is not available on the internet. A lot of it yes, but not everything. And there is also plenty of misinformation on the internet as well. 30 years ago my library did a good job of coming up with most of the information that I needed.

griffordson 11y ago

> Luckily, they are still able to pay for food! It's like I'm an immigrant in my own country, sending money back to the old country. Just weird. Well said. I don't have any answers, but wanted you to know that you are not alone in that feeling. It is incredibly disorienting to see the impact of income inequality so clearly in your own family in a single lifetime. It is even worse when you know that your children aren't interested in pursuing one of the few paths that can lead to financial security and are going to face a very difficult future if you aren't able to provide them with a safety net of your own.