3 ms·

For the 1%. For most typical workers, and the middle and lower tiers particularly it's seen stagnation and decline. The expansion has been in the developing eco

For the 1%. For most typical workers, and the middle and lower tiers particularly it's seen stagnation and decline. The expansion has been in the developing economies. Which for a worker in USA or Europe, who has seen all the opportunity go to an ever dwindling proportion of society, makes for an empty statistic The French Socialist Party is most definitely not in this day and age socialist, and hasn't been for decades, just as Blair's Labour wan't socialist. They sit firmly in the centre, and are a centre left party nearer the British LibDems than Labour. In a US context, well there's not really a match, as it's too bipartisan. Macron, the former financial regulator and Rothchild banker, is worlds away from and would be unrecognisable to Mitterand. Yet Mitterand was of the same party. So no, France is not socialist.

rayiner 7y ago
For European countries, which had dabbled with socialism but were liberalizing their economies in the last few decades, growth was strong at the median, not just the top 1%: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAaB94YXsAQSCXI.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAaB94YXsAQSCXI.jpg That is why France is longer “socialist.” People keep voting for people like Macron, and have stopped voting for people like Mitterrand, because capitalism works phenomenally well. As to the U.S., stagnating wages are not true either. There are at least two main problems with the simplistic comparisons: 1) They don't measure the same people. The common choice of start date for the "stagnation" narrative is in the 1970s. Since then, the percentage of people that are immigrants has nearly tripled. The percentage of older people skyrocketed, the percentage of married households have fallen, etc. Looking at the same groups of people, for example, just married couples, has a huge effect: https://www.justfacts.com/income_wealth_poverty.asp https://www.justfacts.com/income_wealth_poverty.asp > This means that comparing the income gains of the bottom three quintiles in 1979 and 2007 has little to do with the path of real families. Instead it is a commentary on the overall structure of the economy in that it compares low income people in 1979 to low income people in 2007 even though they aren’t the same people. … For example, the median income of those 20-31 in 1979 and married was $51,800 (2007 dollars), while 28 years later in 2007, the median of those 48 to 59 and married was $87,200. ^^^ This website has a ton of other great data slicing and dicing the various income trends. For example: > Page 1: “The changing composition of households in the U.S. is the effect explaining the reported increase in Gini coefficient for households since 1967. When corrected for actual decrease in the average household size the relevant Gini coefficient returns to that of personal incomes.” > From 1967 to 2011, the Gini index for persons in the U.S. has not varied by more than 2%. 2) They don't account for benefits. Focusing on just wages rather than total compensation ignores the fact that our tax structure has encouraged more of total compensation to go to untaxed benefits: https://fee.org/articles/dispelling-the-myth-that-wages-have-been-stagnant-for-decades/ https://fee.org/articles/dispelling-the-myth-that-wages-have... > Average real wages and benefits have risen by nearly 40 percent since 1973, after adjusting for inflation. Sensational claims that 80-90 percent of Americans have experienced low and stagnant real incomes since 1973 are also shown to be incorrect . . . real consumption per person increased 74 percent from 1980 to 2004—a rate of improvement that far exceeded the trend from 1950 to 1979.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  > Macron, and have stopped voting for people like Mitterrand, because capitalism works phenomenally well. You can never boil it down, as politicians of every hue always try to after they won, to simply "because my way", "because capitalism", "because socialism" etc. Or as justification of the unpopular fringe policy that's a major swing issue to exactly none of the electorate. It's as much "because the other guy is an arse", or simply who got the most enaging media smile and presence, or best slogan. Sometimes they are simply the least-worst of the two terrible, terrible choices presented in the election. Simplistically it's a much shallower process than the actual issues. Quite often it is mostly events that swing it. 9/11, and The Falklands, made far, far more difference to election results than economic policies. > Instead it is a commentary on the overall structure of the economy in that it compares low income people in 1979 to low income people in 2007 even though they aren’t the same people ... those 20-31 in 1979 and married ... while 28 years later in 2007, the median of those 48 to 59 and married was Hoo boy, that's a really disingenuous way of presenting it. In 1979, the office junior or trainee something, freshly out of college, goes on a journey through simply "something", and senior something, to head of team, department or one of many Vice Presidents in 2007. Twenties are most people's lowest earning years, and late forties or fifties their highest. There would be something very broken indeed if most did not increase earning power in some sort of reasonable correlation to increasing seniority across their career. It's why we do indeed normally compare the progression of each quintile, or each job role across the years rather than of each person or individual family as they progress through the tiers.

rayiner 7y ago

For European countries, which had dabbled with socialism but were liberalizing their economies in the last few decades, growth was strong at the median, not just the top 1%: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAaB94YXsAQSCXI.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAaB94YXsAQSCXI.jpg That is why France is longer “socialist.” People keep voting for people like Macron, and have stopped voting for people like Mitterrand, because capitalism works phenomenally well. As to the U.S., stagnating wages are not true either. There are at least two main problems with the simplistic comparisons: 1) They don't measure the same people. The common choice of start date for the "stagnation" narrative is in the 1970s. Since then, the percentage of people that are immigrants has nearly tripled. The percentage of older people skyrocketed, the percentage of married households have fallen, etc. Looking at the same groups of people, for example, just married couples, has a huge effect: https://www.justfacts.com/income_wealth_poverty.asp https://www.justfacts.com/income_wealth_poverty.asp > This means that comparing the income gains of the bottom three quintiles in 1979 and 2007 has little to do with the path of real families. Instead it is a commentary on the overall structure of the economy in that it compares low income people in 1979 to low income people in 2007 even though they aren’t the same people. … For example, the median income of those 20-31 in 1979 and married was $51,800 (2007 dollars), while 28 years later in 2007, the median of those 48 to 59 and married was $87,200. ^^^ This website has a ton of other great data slicing and dicing the various income trends. For example: > Page 1: “The changing composition of households in the U.S. is the effect explaining the reported increase in Gini coefficient for households since 1967. When corrected for actual decrease in the average household size the relevant Gini coefficient returns to that of personal incomes.” > From 1967 to 2011, the Gini index for persons in the U.S. has not varied by more than 2%. 2) They don't account for benefits. Focusing on just wages rather than total compensation ignores the fact that our tax structure has encouraged more of total compensation to go to untaxed benefits: https://fee.org/articles/dispelling-the-myth-that-wages-have-been-stagnant-for-decades/ https://fee.org/articles/dispelling-the-myth-that-wages-have... > Average real wages and benefits have risen by nearly 40 percent since 1973, after adjusting for inflation. Sensational claims that 80-90 percent of Americans have experienced low and stagnant real incomes since 1973 are also shown to be incorrect . . . real consumption per person increased 74 percent from 1980 to 2004—a rate of improvement that far exceeded the trend from 1950 to 1979.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> Macron, and have stopped voting for people like Mitterrand, because capitalism works phenomenally well. You can never boil it down, as politicians of every hue always try to after they won, to simply "because my way", "because capitalism", "because socialism" etc. Or as justification of the unpopular fringe policy that's a major swing issue to exactly none of the electorate. It's as much "because the other guy is an arse", or simply who got the most enaging media smile and presence, or best slogan. Sometimes they are simply the least-worst of the two terrible, terrible choices presented in the election. Simplistically it's a much shallower process than the actual issues. Quite often it is mostly events that swing it. 9/11, and The Falklands, made far, far more difference to election results than economic policies. > Instead it is a commentary on the overall structure of the economy in that it compares low income people in 1979 to low income people in 2007 even though they aren’t the same people ... those 20-31 in 1979 and married ... while 28 years later in 2007, the median of those 48 to 59 and married was Hoo boy, that's a really disingenuous way of presenting it. In 1979, the office junior or trainee something, freshly out of college, goes on a journey through simply "something", and senior something, to head of team, department or one of many Vice Presidents in 2007. Twenties are most people's lowest earning years, and late forties or fifties their highest. There would be something very broken indeed if most did not increase earning power in some sort of reasonable correlation to increasing seniority across their career. It's why we do indeed normally compare the progression of each quintile, or each job role across the years rather than of each person or individual family as they progress through the tiers.