5 ms·

The US has the most productive workers in the world. You cannot feasibly make them more productive without harming our ability to be disruptive. The fact that t

The US has the most productive workers in the world. You cannot feasibly make them more productive without harming our ability to be disruptive. The fact that they've been as productive as they've been for years, through massive economic changes and yet the gap between the top .01 percent of Americans and the entire rest of the country has still grown. Supply side economics are a laughable farce. Just because wealthy people have more money doesn't mean that they invest or spend it in any way that helps the economy, what is provable though is that it harms democracy by limiting the voices of the middle class, and has created a poor class that has become nearly impossible to get out of as economic ladder climbing is effectively nil. The only way to save our democracy is by putting in policies that will harm the wealthy aristocracy of the US. The other alternative is war and death that impacts the wealthy, as history has shown time and again. Blood or money, it's their choice.

malvosenior 8y ago
Yeah our democracy is just fine. Evidenced by the fact that the lower classes were able to elect a president that the upper middle and upper classes most definitely did not want elected. It may not be a popular choice among the elite but it is evidence of a healthy democratic society where decisions aren't being made exclusively by the wealthy.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  > Evidenced by the fact that the lower classes were able to elect a president that the upper middle and upper classes most definitely did not want elected. Those who earned more than $50k a year were more likely to vote for Trump[1]. There's also this[2]: > During the primaries, Trump supporters were mostly affluent people. > Trump voters weren’t majority working class in the general election, either. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8bab332bf87c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/0...
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    There is more to class than just income. A plumber can out earn a journalist for instance. If you look at the education numbers you can see that the highly educated greatly favored Clinton. You can also look at media influence, technology influence... This is a more in depth look at the numbers: http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the...
    - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
      I'd argue that any characteristics beyond income and accumulated wealth are secondary when we are talking about economic class.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        I'd argue that income and wealth are two very different things. Your numbers didn't say anything about wealth, just income. Again, the plumber earns a lot but the journalist inherits wealth far beyond the earnings of the plumber. There are a lot of other things to take into account such as access to network, parental influence, ability to mingle with upper class people... Blue collar roles can out earn white collar but blue collar people can't be upper or even upper middle class as the upper classes have many effective gating mechanisms to keep them out.
        fucking_tragedy 8y ago
        Pedigree and social class aren't economic class. Just because you won't be let into someone's club despite having considerable wealth does not mean the two of you are in different economic classes.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        If I earn 300k a year maybe I can pay for club membership (if they let me in) but I would in no way have comparable wealth to members that were going to inherit 100M from their families. You're very focused on income, but people in the upper classes are not. In fact, high earning professions are often looked down upon because when you have family money, it's seen as gauche to work hard for what would be scraps compared to the real family fortune.
abetterday 8y ago
It seems to me that worker productivity gains come primarily from better technology and processes - from business investments - rather than from workers themselves. The rewards flow accordingly. Workers who enhance their own productivity actually do provide more value and hence gain a competitive advantage. Plenty of individuals could improve their productivity and value. I've never understood the claim that higher productivity somehow entitles workers to the surplus. The key component of actually being substantially responsible for productivity gains is missing.

malvosenior 8y ago

Yeah our democracy is just fine. Evidenced by the fact that the lower classes were able to elect a president that the upper middle and upper classes most definitely did not want elected. It may not be a popular choice among the elite but it is evidence of a healthy democratic society where decisions aren't being made exclusively by the wealthy.

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
> Evidenced by the fact that the lower classes were able to elect a president that the upper middle and upper classes most definitely did not want elected. Those who earned more than $50k a year were more likely to vote for Trump[1]. There's also this[2]: > During the primaries, Trump supporters were mostly affluent people. > Trump voters weren’t majority working class in the general election, either. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8bab332bf87c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/0...
- malvosenior 8y ago
  There is more to class than just income. A plumber can out earn a journalist for instance. If you look at the education numbers you can see that the highly educated greatly favored Clinton. You can also look at media influence, technology influence... This is a more in depth look at the numbers: http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the...
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    I'd argue that any characteristics beyond income and accumulated wealth are secondary when we are talking about economic class.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      I'd argue that income and wealth are two very different things. Your numbers didn't say anything about wealth, just income. Again, the plumber earns a lot but the journalist inherits wealth far beyond the earnings of the plumber. There are a lot of other things to take into account such as access to network, parental influence, ability to mingle with upper class people... Blue collar roles can out earn white collar but blue collar people can't be upper or even upper middle class as the upper classes have many effective gating mechanisms to keep them out.
      - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
        Pedigree and social class aren't economic class. Just because you won't be let into someone's club despite having considerable wealth does not mean the two of you are in different economic classes.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        If I earn 300k a year maybe I can pay for club membership (if they let me in) but I would in no way have comparable wealth to members that were going to inherit 100M from their families. You're very focused on income, but people in the upper classes are not. In fact, high earning professions are often looked down upon because when you have family money, it's seen as gauche to work hard for what would be scraps compared to the real family fortune.

abetterday 8y ago

It seems to me that worker productivity gains come primarily from better technology and processes - from business investments - rather than from workers themselves. The rewards flow accordingly. Workers who enhance their own productivity actually do provide more value and hence gain a competitive advantage. Plenty of individuals could improve their productivity and value. I've never understood the claim that higher productivity somehow entitles workers to the surplus. The key component of actually being substantially responsible for productivity gains is missing.