5 ms·

It kinda worked after world war two in the wake of the New Deal (which incidentally was instituted in a depression and a >90% top tax rate). In the 1970s, dereg

It kinda worked after world war two in the wake of the New Deal (which incidentally was instituted in a depression and a >90% top tax rate). In the 1970s, deregulation took over and worker wages began to stagnate and decline. Tax rates fell. Since 2007 when the banks imploded and were bailed out on the people's dime (the people weren't bailed out), we've been unable to fix the economy with monetary policy. Demand has been slack for a decade and economists are freaking out. What's going on? Why is civil society disintegrating? Why is the fascist right rising? Why are white people's life expectancy declining? Neoliberal reforms (deregulation, private capital, sale of nationalized industries, etc) that were instituted in central america, south america, Russia, and others basically destroyed them. In particular, the wave of desperate people arriving at our borders are in significant part due to US support of neoliberal policy and the support of violent regimes in El Salvador, Guatamala, Chile, Argentina, and on and on. You have to ask yourself, why are we facing problems now? We're the global superpower! Even more so, why are the economic maladies present throughout the western world at a time when we should be at the peak of our civilization? This was something that stumped me for a long time. Shouldn't problems be regional? How is it possible for Donald Trump, Brexit, Geert Wilders, and Marine le Penn to occur at the same time? There's a systemic problem. Think about it.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>In the 1970s, deregulation took over and worker wages began to stagnate and decline. Labour productivity growth has been very tepid since the 1970s, concurrent with an expansion of regulations and social spending. To give just a couple of examples: the EPA and OSHA were both created in the early 1970s, and have had a documented negative impact on manufacturing productivity. The Empire State Building was built in 18 months. With today's regulations, that would be totally impossible. This idea that the US saw a rise in neoliberalism in the 1970s is a myth. The opposite is true. Only at the international level is it true, with the market reforms of China, India and numerous other developing countries, and the international situation is looking better than it ever has, with average wages doubling over the last 20 years.
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  While I should look up a chart, I'm not able to at the moment, but I'd point out that computerization should have added a large constant factor to labor productivity starting in the 90s, you'd expect wages to rise proportionally if that's the case (and for the jobs displaced to be replaced with high wage jobs too). I can point out banking deregulation, airline deregulation, oil extraction deregulation.... it hasn't been a uniform march in a single direction, but there has been significant deregulation in core industries. One might point out that the construction industry is now safer, as in fewer people die per building. It's not really possible to justify any deaths for construction in reasonable circumstances. The question is has a doubling of wages kept pace with the increase in wealth in those countries? I suspect 2x is far below the wealth that was produced. It would be helpful to discuss a particular example.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    >>but I'd point out that computerization should have added a large constant factor to labor productivity starting in the 90s, you'd expect wages to rise proportionally if that's the case (and for the jobs displaced to be replaced with high wage jobs too). Computerisation provided a brief boost to labour productivity in the late the 1990s, but that quickly vanished. Labour productivity growth has been at/near century-long lows since the early 2000s, and from the early 1970s to mid 1990s. I would dispute that we've seen an overall reduction in banking regulations. From what I've heard from those inside the financial industry, the costs of regulatory compliance have risen enormously. Less anecdotally, filing fees for initial public offerings have also increased significantly. All classic signs of rent-seeking. And then there's KYC/AML/ATF regulations, that have seen enormous growth since the early 1970s, and especially since 911. On top of all of this a new class of affirmative action type regulations and regulatory pressure that encourages banks to increase lending in particular neighbourhoods where disadvantaged groups are overrepresented has emerged over the last 40 years and steadily become more pervasive. Beyond the financial sector, any broad measure of the scope of regulations shows that it has increased significantly since the 1970s, at rates far exceeding economic or population growth. >It's not really possible to justify any deaths for construction in reasonable circumstances. Numerous people die everyday from numerous causes. A more developed economy generally lowers the risk of death from many causes. So you can definitely justify voluntarily assumed risks in employment, that are associated with more workplace deaths, with a more rapid rate of construction specifically, and economic development generally. But whether fewer regulations is desirable somewhat beside my point. My main point is that by no reasonable standard has the US become more 'neoliberal' (free market) economically. >>The question is has a doubling of wages kept pace with the increase in wealth in those countries? I suspect 2x is far below the wealth that was produced. Our primary concern should be increasing median wages and reducing poverty, not ensuring equally distributed gains. In any case, it's been pretty equally divided. One third of developing countries have seen income equality improve, one-third have seen it remain the same, and one third have seen it worsen.
reallynotaputin 9y ago
> Neoliberal reforms (deregulation, private capital, sale of nationalized industries, etc) that were instituted in central america, south america, Russia, and others basically destroyed them. What exactly was destroyed in Russia? I don't know about other places, but in Russia reforms destroyed only big war machine. My grandfather till 90's (USSR collapse) had to work on 2 jobs and maintain three dachas[1] to get food for my family. That days everybody had dachas to get fresh food. Casual food like potatoes or tomatoes. Now we even have something that looks like an education, not just ideological brainwashing and today's graduates not believing in magic and extrasensory[2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha [2]: http://goo.gl/jczKsG http://goo.gl/jczKsG

CryptoPunk 9y ago

>>In the 1970s, deregulation took over and worker wages began to stagnate and decline. Labour productivity growth has been very tepid since the 1970s, concurrent with an expansion of regulations and social spending. To give just a couple of examples: the EPA and OSHA were both created in the early 1970s, and have had a documented negative impact on manufacturing productivity. The Empire State Building was built in 18 months. With today's regulations, that would be totally impossible. This idea that the US saw a rise in neoliberalism in the 1970s is a myth. The opposite is true. Only at the international level is it true, with the market reforms of China, India and numerous other developing countries, and the international situation is looking better than it ever has, with average wages doubling over the last 20 years.

SapphireSun 9y ago
While I should look up a chart, I'm not able to at the moment, but I'd point out that computerization should have added a large constant factor to labor productivity starting in the 90s, you'd expect wages to rise proportionally if that's the case (and for the jobs displaced to be replaced with high wage jobs too). I can point out banking deregulation, airline deregulation, oil extraction deregulation.... it hasn't been a uniform march in a single direction, but there has been significant deregulation in core industries. One might point out that the construction industry is now safer, as in fewer people die per building. It's not really possible to justify any deaths for construction in reasonable circumstances. The question is has a doubling of wages kept pace with the increase in wealth in those countries? I suspect 2x is far below the wealth that was produced. It would be helpful to discuss a particular example.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >>but I'd point out that computerization should have added a large constant factor to labor productivity starting in the 90s, you'd expect wages to rise proportionally if that's the case (and for the jobs displaced to be replaced with high wage jobs too). Computerisation provided a brief boost to labour productivity in the late the 1990s, but that quickly vanished. Labour productivity growth has been at/near century-long lows since the early 2000s, and from the early 1970s to mid 1990s. I would dispute that we've seen an overall reduction in banking regulations. From what I've heard from those inside the financial industry, the costs of regulatory compliance have risen enormously. Less anecdotally, filing fees for initial public offerings have also increased significantly. All classic signs of rent-seeking. And then there's KYC/AML/ATF regulations, that have seen enormous growth since the early 1970s, and especially since 911. On top of all of this a new class of affirmative action type regulations and regulatory pressure that encourages banks to increase lending in particular neighbourhoods where disadvantaged groups are overrepresented has emerged over the last 40 years and steadily become more pervasive. Beyond the financial sector, any broad measure of the scope of regulations shows that it has increased significantly since the 1970s, at rates far exceeding economic or population growth. >It's not really possible to justify any deaths for construction in reasonable circumstances. Numerous people die everyday from numerous causes. A more developed economy generally lowers the risk of death from many causes. So you can definitely justify voluntarily assumed risks in employment, that are associated with more workplace deaths, with a more rapid rate of construction specifically, and economic development generally. But whether fewer regulations is desirable somewhat beside my point. My main point is that by no reasonable standard has the US become more 'neoliberal' (free market) economically. >>The question is has a doubling of wages kept pace with the increase in wealth in those countries? I suspect 2x is far below the wealth that was produced. Our primary concern should be increasing median wages and reducing poverty, not ensuring equally distributed gains. In any case, it's been pretty equally divided. One third of developing countries have seen income equality improve, one-third have seen it remain the same, and one third have seen it worsen.

reallynotaputin 9y ago

> Neoliberal reforms (deregulation, private capital, sale of nationalized industries, etc) that were instituted in central america, south america, Russia, and others basically destroyed them. What exactly was destroyed in Russia? I don't know about other places, but in Russia reforms destroyed only big war machine. My grandfather till 90's (USSR collapse) had to work on 2 jobs and maintain three dachas[1] to get food for my family. That days everybody had dachas to get fresh food. Casual food like potatoes or tomatoes. Now we even have something that looks like an education, not just ideological brainwashing and today's graduates not believing in magic and extrasensory[2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha [2]: http://goo.gl/jczKsG http://goo.gl/jczKsG