5 ms·

I strongly agree with your argument regarding economic-class determinism or whatever it's called. After all, some of the most progressive policies for the poor

I strongly agree with your argument regarding economic-class determinism or whatever it's called. After all, some of the most progressive policies for the poor in this country were passed by the wealthiest presidents (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson). However, if you're suggesting that Silicon Valley CEOs are in favor of libertarian free trade, I think I agree more with the article and disagree with you. Silicon Valley CEOs loyalty is not to free trade, it's to their globalist lifestyle and outlook on life. Indeed, most of these people seem to be hardcore monopolists, and with no shame for it either.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>After all, some of the most progressive policies for the poor in this country were passed by the wealthiest presidents (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson). You mean regressive policies that hurt the poor, right? The War on Poverty marked the end of the decline in the American poverty rate. The social welfare state gradually sapped American industrial vitality and the labour productivity growth that had been fueling wage gains across all income classes for decades.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore, hasn't for decades upon decades. Probably worth asking if you assert that American corporate taxes are the highest in the world: sometimes there are just major, major reality-based differences in the discourse and it's useless talking any further. I know I can't believe some of your axioms here, unfortunately.
  - ericd 9y ago
    I'm curious what you mean by that, because I've never heard anyone seriously argue against that assertion. Our top marginal corporate tax rate is one of the highest, according to Wikipedia [1], though companies are generally pretty good at not being too profitable and therefore not paying a very high tax rate, if that's what you mean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St... Excerpt: In 2014 the United States had the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent (consisting of the 35% federal rate plus a combined state rate), exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates However, the average corporate tax rate in 2011 dipped to 12.1%, its lowest level since before World War I, largely due to the great recession and a bonus depreciation tax break.
    - Applejinx 9y ago
      You do understand the difference between marginal and baseline tax rates? That word 'marginal' did not slip by me, I'm afraid.
      - ericd 9y ago
        Yes, I do, and no, it wasn't meant to "slip by you", which is why I asked if you meant that companies were good at not being profitable, and thus never made it to the top rate.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    It's tracked labour productivity growth very closely: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage_fig1.png?w=639&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C457px https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage...
    - notacoward 9y ago
      That graph shows the exact opposite. From near-parity with the output figures in 1947-1972, wage/compensation struggle to stay about half that in 2005-2014. In other words, the workers are not benefiting in proportion to productivity.
      - CryptoPunk 9y ago
        It's still highly correlated for most of recent history, meaning for most of the last 50 years. 2005 to 2014 is only a nine year period, and even during this period, compensation growth has been well half (0.9 vs 1.5) of output growth.
        notacoward 9y ago
        Beyond the obvious cherry-picking, that's some pretty serious statistical gamesmanship you're into. Maybe you should consider this little thing we call exponential growth, or "compounding" to a finance type. Let's look at the "Hourly Compensation (Output Price)" figures, which are the most favorable to your argument. * For 1947-1972 it fell behind output by 0.2% per year, which sounds small, but that's 4.6% for the entire period. * In 1972-1994 workers fell behind by another 4.1% * In 1994-2005 (half the time) workers fell behind by another 2.9% * In 2005-2014 (even less time) workers fell behind by another 4% Over the entire span, workers' compensation has only increased 85% as much as productivity. More importantly, the gap is growing, not shrinking. Even using yearly figures to make differences look small, then grouping those numbers into oh-so-convenient unequal intervals, can't turn this into evidence of your original claim that wages have kept pace with productivity growth.
        9y ago
- CalChris 9y ago
  Ummm, no. The poverty rate continued to decline until the mid-70s. There was in fact a rapid decline with the beginning of the War on Poverty. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un...
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    Per capita social spending was vastly greater in the 1980s than the 1970s and it was vastly greater in 1990s than the 1980s: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov4/16fivethirtyeight-gov4-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv... https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov6/16fivethirtyeight-gov6-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
    - CalChris 9y ago
      I'm not sure what that has to do with the poverty rate continuing to decline until the mid-70s and then staying down. You said something about the regressive policies that hurt the poor. You haven't shown any evidence for this claim.
      - CryptoPunk 9y ago
        Poverty rates have failed to decline during almost the entire era of rapidly increasing social spending. There is less than a decade of poverty rate reduction during the War on Poverty era, and it is all at the beginning, when the economy and populace had still not become accustomed to large social welfare programs, and when the size of these programs was much smaller than it is now. If social programs reduced poverty these aren't the stats you'd see.
        CalChris 9y ago
        So you are going from You mean regressive policies that hurt the poor, right? to There is less than a decade of poverty rate reduction during the War on Poverty era, .... Cutting the Poverty Rate from about 22% to about 12% is hurting the poor. Got it.
zo1 9y ago
One big thing that I've started noticing, is that "migration" is incredibly easy for rich people. That may lead to their "global" mindset, and wanting it for everybody else. There are countries out there (including America) where you can get long-term stay papers or citizenship by simply investing into the country. You're essentially "buying" your way in. Most of the necessary amounts are probably "peanuts" for the celebrities and tech-leaders we have today.

CryptoPunk 9y ago

>>After all, some of the most progressive policies for the poor in this country were passed by the wealthiest presidents (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson). You mean regressive policies that hurt the poor, right? The War on Poverty marked the end of the decline in the American poverty rate. The social welfare state gradually sapped American industrial vitality and the labour productivity growth that had been fueling wage gains across all income classes for decades.

Applejinx 9y ago
But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore, hasn't for decades upon decades. Probably worth asking if you assert that American corporate taxes are the highest in the world: sometimes there are just major, major reality-based differences in the discourse and it's useless talking any further. I know I can't believe some of your axioms here, unfortunately.
- ericd 9y ago
  I'm curious what you mean by that, because I've never heard anyone seriously argue against that assertion. Our top marginal corporate tax rate is one of the highest, according to Wikipedia [1], though companies are generally pretty good at not being too profitable and therefore not paying a very high tax rate, if that's what you mean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St... Excerpt: In 2014 the United States had the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent (consisting of the 35% federal rate plus a combined state rate), exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates However, the average corporate tax rate in 2011 dipped to 12.1%, its lowest level since before World War I, largely due to the great recession and a bonus depreciation tax break.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    You do understand the difference between marginal and baseline tax rates? That word 'marginal' did not slip by me, I'm afraid.
    - ericd 9y ago
      Yes, I do, and no, it wasn't meant to "slip by you", which is why I asked if you meant that companies were good at not being profitable, and thus never made it to the top rate.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  It's tracked labour productivity growth very closely: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage_fig1.png?w=639&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C457px https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage...
  - notacoward 9y ago
    That graph shows the exact opposite. From near-parity with the output figures in 1947-1972, wage/compensation struggle to stay about half that in 2005-2014. In other words, the workers are not benefiting in proportion to productivity.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      It's still highly correlated for most of recent history, meaning for most of the last 50 years. 2005 to 2014 is only a nine year period, and even during this period, compensation growth has been well half (0.9 vs 1.5) of output growth.
      - notacoward 9y ago
        Beyond the obvious cherry-picking, that's some pretty serious statistical gamesmanship you're into. Maybe you should consider this little thing we call exponential growth, or "compounding" to a finance type. Let's look at the "Hourly Compensation (Output Price)" figures, which are the most favorable to your argument. * For 1947-1972 it fell behind output by 0.2% per year, which sounds small, but that's 4.6% for the entire period. * In 1972-1994 workers fell behind by another 4.1% * In 1994-2005 (half the time) workers fell behind by another 2.9% * In 2005-2014 (even less time) workers fell behind by another 4% Over the entire span, workers' compensation has only increased 85% as much as productivity. More importantly, the gap is growing, not shrinking. Even using yearly figures to make differences look small, then grouping those numbers into oh-so-convenient unequal intervals, can't turn this into evidence of your original claim that wages have kept pace with productivity growth.
        9y ago
CalChris 9y ago
Ummm, no. The poverty rate continued to decline until the mid-70s. There was in fact a rapid decline with the beginning of the War on Poverty. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un...
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Per capita social spending was vastly greater in the 1980s than the 1970s and it was vastly greater in 1990s than the 1980s: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov4/16fivethirtyeight-gov4-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv... https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov6/16fivethirtyeight-gov6-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
  - CalChris 9y ago
    I'm not sure what that has to do with the poverty rate continuing to decline until the mid-70s and then staying down. You said something about the regressive policies that hurt the poor. You haven't shown any evidence for this claim.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      Poverty rates have failed to decline during almost the entire era of rapidly increasing social spending. There is less than a decade of poverty rate reduction during the War on Poverty era, and it is all at the beginning, when the economy and populace had still not become accustomed to large social welfare programs, and when the size of these programs was much smaller than it is now. If social programs reduced poverty these aren't the stats you'd see.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        So you are going from You mean regressive policies that hurt the poor, right? to There is less than a decade of poverty rate reduction during the War on Poverty era, .... Cutting the Poverty Rate from about 22% to about 12% is hurting the poor. Got it.

zo1 9y ago

One big thing that I've started noticing, is that "migration" is incredibly easy for rich people. That may lead to their "global" mindset, and wanting it for everybody else. There are countries out there (including America) where you can get long-term stay papers or citizenship by simply investing into the country. You're essentially "buying" your way in. Most of the necessary amounts are probably "peanuts" for the celebrities and tech-leaders we have today.