It wont get better on its own
- Thread starter runyouover
- Start date
Give a man a fish....
Education and people's willingness to learn and earn their own way is essential to helping people get into continued successful situations. Would you agree?
Education and people's willingness to learn and earn their own way is essential to helping people get into continued successful situations. Would you agree?
How is this a counter to Piketty's argument for the average person? The average worker is more and more educated yet incomes for the middle class have stagnated for 15 years now, and the share of the economy being paid as wages (instead of being paid as corporate profits) has been rising for even longer than that.
There is a fundamental shift in our economy where returns are increasingly provided to capital, not to labor. This is the root cause of inequality.
You have to have a discussion about how to promote economic growth and growth in the standard of living of the average person, yes.
If there was a stagnant amount to be had you would have a valid concern but the same amount of wealth is available to all.
What is average and who makes that decision? Yes, I agree there are certain groups that I would not want to control everything, but duck, how should government temper things? Our government is in a shambles and the very wealthy on both sides continue to get elected. Neither really care what happens to us, so long as we keep voting for them.
I think many would argue that there is no growth in the US for the middle class right now even as the overall pie is growing. So, why should a middle class person care about this growth when they see none of the benefits of it? It would be entirely rational for them to select slightly lower growth where the benefit of the growth is captured by the middle class and not have to count on noblesse oblige for a pay raise.
EVERYONE has the oportunity to not rely on anyone to give them a pay raise.
Shrink the pie! Great idea????
Red herring, no one is talking about shrinking the pie
Economic mobility is mostly a myth in the US. Politicians need to ensure conditions exist to make it happen but the idea that anyone can bootstrap themselves to whatever is generally a myth told by politicians to convince the poor and middle class to vote against policies that are in their self interest.
The #1 factor determining if you are rich or poor in the US is the income of your parents. Nothing else comes remotely close. Further, the power of this factor in the US is much higher than in most of the developed world with the exception of the UK. Other countries like Japan and Germany prove you can have a first world standard of living while having a better chance of economic mobility. That fact is never acknowledged in the American political debate.
This post was edited on 10/17 3:24 PM by Neutron Monster
Economic mobility is mostly a myth in the US. Politicians need to ensure conditions exist to make it happen but the idea that anyone can bootstrap themselves to whatever is generally a myth told by politicians to convince the poor and middle class to vote against policies that are in their self interest.
The #1 factor determining if you are rich or poor in the US is the income of your parents. Nothing else comes remotely close. Further, the power of this factor in the US is much higher than in most of the developed world with the exception of the UK. Other countries like Japan and Germany prove you can have a first world standard of living while having a better chance of economic mobility. That fact is never acknowledged in the American political debate.
This post was edited on 10/17 3:24 PM by Neutron Monster
From your previous post:
"It would be entirely rational for them to select slightly lower growth where the benefit of the growth is captured by the middle class and not have to count on noblesse oblige for a pay raise"
lower growth is a smaller pie than would be available..
My family has a much higher standard of living than my parents did. My parents had a much higher standard of living than their parents. Why would I care if others have done better yet? I have passed on many opportunities because I want a simpler lifestyle than would be required to persue better things. Sure, it's easier if your parents are loaded but not required at all.
Anyone wanting the government to "level the field" is wanting easy money.
That's not the real comparison; median incomes are markedly higher than when all of us grew up.
Middle class stagnation is more of a recent (last 15 years) trend.
Further, if you look at the post-recession data, we ARE looking at the first generation in recent history (those 20-27 or so) that appears poorer than its parents were at a comparable age when you consider incomes, student loans, etc.
Middle class stagnation is more of a recent (last 15 years) trend.
Further, if you look at the post-recession data, we ARE looking at the first generation in recent history (those 20-27 or so) that appears poorer than its parents were at a comparable age when you consider incomes, student loans, etc.
That's great to hear, but we shouldn't be basing public policy on B&G's child, we should be basing it on the broader set of outcomes that are occurring. The outcomes are concerning overall.
Maybe we should base it on effort and not try to make everyone the same. There are very few suitable excuses.
If effort were the real difference maker between this generation and the last, I would agree with you. But, it's not, and that deserves attention.
No one is talking about making everyone the same; that's a red herring of an argument.
No one is talking about making everyone the same; that's a red herring of an argument.
I was making more at 20 than my dad was as a supervisor at a LARGE company. The median income had nothing to do with that. That was also 30 plus years ago. My dad was making more in a year at age 20 than his dad made in 5 at the same time. That was 55 years ago and my dad was framing houses on piecework (effort was his only skill). The median income had nothing to do with that.
Middle class stagnation is due to several factors
Complacency.....everyone has everything imagineable so why work harder? We can't get people to work overtime at work even though it creates a substantial payraise.
Too many degrees.....What used to be valuable is now the norm. Workers with actual skills are worth as much as the worker with a business degree and harder to find. The worker with the skill is likely to not have the loans either. That path also requires more work (see point 1).
Debt......people borrow for everything instead of saving for things. The cost of interest greatly erodes purchacing power and lowers the long term standard of living (does boost the immediate standard of living). Debt also reduces your ability to take risk reducing potential for growth. If you can't take a little less pay for greater opportunity because of you commitments you are stuck.
Entitlement..... let's face it, we think we are entitled to the good life. Kids today have their parents provide what they haven't earned and thus expect it to continue perpetually.
Liberal policies lead to less opportunities......more guarantees but less opportunities.
Out here in the real world it is. You libs always want to credit things that don't exist. At work, we have good designers and bad designers, good salesmen and bad salesmen, good purchacing agents and bad purchacing agents, and good fabricators and bad fabricators. The good ones work harder period and are compensated MUCH better. The bad ones blame favoritism, life problems, and everything but their lack of effort and commitment. Libs just say it's not fair!
That's a meaningless anecdote. It doesn't matter what one person does or doesn't make. I can find a kid whose dad made $50,000 who is making $8 an hour. That's not a call for anything on its own; it's an anecdote.
Your analysis of why the middle class is stagnating is detached from reality. Notably, the average working American works as many hours a year as they did 35 years ago. This is the exact opposite of what you make out in your argument. People are working just as hard as their parents did. That's the story of America. Not some made up BS about people wanting more for free.
It's hard to take these arguments seriously when they are incredibly detached from the data.
The core point is that the average middle class American hasn't seen a raise in inflation adjusted terms for a long time even though their productivity has improved. All of the economic growth of the past 15 years has been captured by capital, not by labor. It's not that the money is going to other workers (even CEOs or something like that which I really don't care about all that much) - it's that the money isn't being paid out at all as wages. It's being kept as corporate profit.
It doesn't matter how hard you work or what you do if all you're doing is competing for a smaller piece of the pie. You want to ramble on about that fact as if government action would shrink GDP or something like that. Wake up - the share of the economy being paid as wages RIGHT NOW is shrinking and has been for two generations. This is the fundamental problem.
Yes, on an individual basis, one can opt for different training/education/jobs whatever, but that is a micro-level fix for one person that doesn't fix the macro problem of stagnant wages. The pie isn't growing for workers, and you getting trained in welding or moving to an oil field in North Dakota doesn't fix that.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W270RE1A156NBEA
Your analysis of why the middle class is stagnating is detached from reality. Notably, the average working American works as many hours a year as they did 35 years ago. This is the exact opposite of what you make out in your argument. People are working just as hard as their parents did. That's the story of America. Not some made up BS about people wanting more for free.
It's hard to take these arguments seriously when they are incredibly detached from the data.
The core point is that the average middle class American hasn't seen a raise in inflation adjusted terms for a long time even though their productivity has improved. All of the economic growth of the past 15 years has been captured by capital, not by labor. It's not that the money is going to other workers (even CEOs or something like that which I really don't care about all that much) - it's that the money isn't being paid out at all as wages. It's being kept as corporate profit.
It doesn't matter how hard you work or what you do if all you're doing is competing for a smaller piece of the pie. You want to ramble on about that fact as if government action would shrink GDP or something like that. Wake up - the share of the economy being paid as wages RIGHT NOW is shrinking and has been for two generations. This is the fundamental problem.
Yes, on an individual basis, one can opt for different training/education/jobs whatever, but that is a micro-level fix for one person that doesn't fix the macro problem of stagnant wages. The pie isn't growing for workers, and you getting trained in welding or moving to an oil field in North Dakota doesn't fix that.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W270RE1A156NBEA
My point exactly! It's not genetics and it's not advantages. It's about who is productive. Those who produce are coveted.
Working HOURS does not mean productivity. I'm working more hours to compensate for those who don't produce. People AREN'T working as hard as their parents. Working hours doesn't equate to working hard.
Data can be spun many ways.
Productivity has improved because of innovation and technology. Those cost employers and make the employees job easier. The worker has less invested and the employer more. Benefits cost much more too. Investments made by the employer aren't supposed to be paid back to the employee.
It is a problem but the value of the average employee is less that previously. When more jobs become available instead of just shrinking the workforce, the demand for capable people will rise as pay will too.
You could try googling productivity. You're wrong by a country mile. The average worker is steadily more productive.
This gets back to the point I am making - in the past, workers generally captured the value of productivity gains (as measured by GDP) as wage increases. This is how wages grew faster than inflation and how workers improved their standard of living. Now, the value of their productivity gains is being converted into corporate profit instead of being paid as wages.
Benefit cost as a percentage of pay - you could try googling your hypothesis before posting it. It doesn't explain the change in wages. Wages are being replaced with profits, not benefits.
This post was edited on 10/21 9:06 PM by Neutron Monster
This gets back to the point I am making - in the past, workers generally captured the value of productivity gains (as measured by GDP) as wage increases. This is how wages grew faster than inflation and how workers improved their standard of living. Now, the value of their productivity gains is being converted into corporate profit instead of being paid as wages.
Benefit cost as a percentage of pay - you could try googling your hypothesis before posting it. It doesn't explain the change in wages. Wages are being replaced with profits, not benefits.
This post was edited on 10/21 9:06 PM by Neutron Monster
Productivity hasn't increased because of technology?????
Workers generally were the reason for higher profits.
With the continuing decline in the workforce, there may be a demand spike. I suspect the workforce numbers would grow then though.
I never said profits weren't higher but benefit values are too.
Similar threads
