3 ms·

The problem with that theory is that it's wrong on the facts. The federal government has consistently been about 19% of GDP since the 1950s. Your wages are no m

The problem with that theory is that it's wrong on the facts. The federal government has consistently been about 19% of GDP since the 1950s. Your wages are no more eaten up by bureaucracy than was your grandfather's. See epi.org. Wage income has been flat for the median earner since 1979, despite 128% productivity growth. Nearly all benefits to increased productivity went to the top 10%; 80% of that went to the top 0.1%. Return on capital is doing nicely. Return on labor, not so much. For the 2/3 of the workforce with no college degree, real wages since 1979 fell 28%. Before you start feeling smug about getting on the right side of that divide, remember they vote, too. Ergo: President Trump, the man who promised to restore their jobs (and wages). How to let everyone participate in a prosperity so unevenly distributed is the central problem of our time. The solution will not be found in flexible work hours. It will require a lot of work, starting with understanding that the capitalists will not give up their winnings easily.

someguydave 10y ago
Except your facts don't conflict with the idea that government expansion in the private sector is causing costs to rise. It's may be true that the total share federal government spending as a share of GDP hasn't changed. I think it's more important to look at the ways government policy has picked winners in the private sector. In other words I regard government intrusion in the market as a cause of inequality you bemoan, not an effect. Another point: did you read yummyfajita's ancestor post? He writes (quoting Elizabeth Warren): "The Two Income Trap shows that income rose 75%. Mortgage expenses rose 70% (for a 66% bigger house [1]), two cars cost 55% more than 1 car, health insurance cost 60% more, etc. In fact, the main expense that rose faster than income was taxes (140%) - everything else rose more slowly." [1]https://www.nar.realtor/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument https://www.nar.realtor/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Op...

someguydave 10y ago

Except your facts don't conflict with the idea that government expansion in the private sector is causing costs to rise. It's may be true that the total share federal government spending as a share of GDP hasn't changed. I think it's more important to look at the ways government policy has picked winners in the private sector. In other words I regard government intrusion in the market as a cause of inequality you bemoan, not an effect. Another point: did you read yummyfajita's ancestor post? He writes (quoting Elizabeth Warren): "The Two Income Trap shows that income rose 75%. Mortgage expenses rose 70% (for a 66% bigger house [1]), two cars cost 55% more than 1 car, health insurance cost 60% more, etc. In fact, the main expense that rose faster than income was taxes (140%) - everything else rose more slowly." [1]https://www.nar.realtor/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument https://www.nar.realtor/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Op...