Re: [OT] Worker Income
mike sloan wrote:
"James D. Beard" <jim.beard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oU3Ve.2099$b37.1213@xxxxxxxxxxx
Another factor is that it the data extends only to 1997. The
data from the WSJ includes that through the first term of our
current President. And things have changed significantly in
those years, as the WSJ article noted.
Are you seriously trying to contend that the overall economy is better now
than it was in the late 1990s?
The late 1990s was an overbought market (see, markets run up AND down)
that needed correcting. The "irrational exhuberance" of the Get Rich
Quick crowd was punished, as always, with ordinary market action. During
the deepest part of this correction (or nearly so) we had a catastrophic
event - one that even the most Looney Leftist can't blame on the
President - the 2001 attacks on the WTC. This took an already correcting
market and put it in an even deeper dive.
You do not look at a brief period of several years as a benchmark for
economic growth or failure, you look at long term trends - something
usually taught in Freshman Economics ... unless your sole education in
the matter is "Das Kaptial" at UC Berkeley or at The People's University
Of <Fill In The Blank>. By any rational and reasonable measure, the
economic conditions - for everyone - have been steadily increasing for
the US for a very long time. The fact that there are ups and downs along
the way does not negate this point, the general vector is North.
But let's play your "The Economics Of Ten Minutes Ago" game. Examine the
last couple of years of market action *despite* these horrors. Take a
look at real corporate earnings (Eeeevvvvvill Corporations hire and pay
people money). Look at the aggreate P/E ratio for the S&P 500 for the
last 24 months. Guess what? *Real*, non-inflationary growth in earnings
and salaries. A decline in unemployment. Higher productivity quarter
after quarter. Yeah, it's just a horrible mess.
Besides, the point that I was originally trying to make has to do with long
term trends, i.e. that real wages have been stagnant (and in some periods
actually decreased substantially) over the past four decades. As for fringe
But the overall long term trend has been *positive* with a net compounded
non-inflationary growth of something like 3-5% IIRC.
benefits, these are well and fine, and I am glad that some workers have
them, but many millions of workers do not. Indeed, millions of workers do
not even have health benefits, much less 401k and IRA plans. If you are
arguing that these benefits offset stagnant/declining wages, what is the
excuse for the decline in wages for those who do not possess these benefits?
"Average" means just that. There will be highs and lows that together
factor to make the average what it is.
Finally, my orginal point regarding these stats was made in the context of
discussing consumption. (see the Wal-Mart/evil corporations thread from last
week) 401k plans (while perhaps contributing to overall compensation) do
not help one very much at the checkout counter.
That's absurd. Market behavior factors *everything* in the Big Picture.
The money piling up in retirement accounts is actually *in use* by
someone - loans to buy houses, captial to form/grow new business,
investment in research, and so forth. Even an unemployed crack whore (a
potential Democrat - start recruiting now) without health insurance can
benefit when, say, The Big Eeeevil Drug Company finds pharma to help
relieve their HIV infection. In fact, if they can manage to drag their
degenerate selves to the right corners, they likely can participate in
the trials of such new drugs for nothing, and perhaps, get *paid* for
basic expenses like transportation, delousing, and a bath.
The reason you and your fellow travelers don't get this, I suspect, is
that Left Politik is built on Fantasy Economics - "We'll squeeze our
eyes closed reeeeeal tight, and wish wealth, prosperty, and success into
existence. When that fails, we'll punish the people who actually produce
wealth, give it to people unable/unwilling to do so (by force of arms),
and declare our system 'fair'". The Left is utterly clueless about how
real wealth is produced, so it is reliably silly and confused when
economic cycles occur (good or bad). They lay claim to the good ("The
Clinton Years") that was primarly produced by others, mostly in the
private sector. They blame the bad on their political enemies ("It's
Bush's fault the economy isn't meeting some magic number we invented -
Oh and he's the one responsible for the levees built decades before he
ever showed up, and <sputter>, <sizzle>, <fester>, <drool>, <dribble>
...."). When faced with this claim, Lefties usually resort to, "Well,
economics isn't really that precise, no one understands how money
works", in an attempt to generalize and project their own ignorance on
everyone else.
But, wealth is not magic wished into place by a bunch stoned Marxist
econ professors at Harvard while they play slap-and-tickle with their
coed students. Wealth has real causes, and so does the lack of it.
Wealth and productivity are inexorably intertwined and when you punish
the latter, you lose the former. It is a tribute to just *how*
productive Americans are, given that they've put up consistent long term
real growth in the face of a rate of growth in taxation that far
outpaces the growth in GDP. Wealth is not "produced" by government,
though government can interfere more- or less in its creation. Wealth is
not the sole province of the "wealthy". Wealthy people have to do
*something* with all that money (save it, spend it, invest it) and this
flows throughout the entire economy, generally benefitting most people.
I don't know you personally, and have no idea what your beliefs are, but
reading your posts suggests that your leanings are definitely quite Left
of Reality. On that presumption, let me give the economic magic you
apparently crave so that we can watch workers' salaries rise even further,
increase medical coverage for more people more affordably, and better
provide for people in their old age. Ready? Remember this is *magical*!
You just have to elect people to do this stuff and the world will be a
better place for all of us:
1) Go to a flat sales tax for everything Federal, State, and Local.
No exceptions or exemptions for *anyone* including charities, churches ...
2) Require all levels of government to Pay As You go. You wanna spend more,
raise (sales) taxes in the affected areas.
3) Quit supporting people whose problems are self-induced. This would
include substance abusers, people who don't want to work, people whose
diseases are a consequence of their own intentional actions, professional
politicans, Michael Moore, and Ted Kennedy.
4) Trim back the Federal government to its Constitutionally mandated
size. Put it back *exclusively* in the Keeping Us Free business.
This means running the 3 Branches plus the Department Of Justice and
Department Of Defense. That's it.
5) Privatize education, retirement savings, and medical insurance
for everyone with the intention of backing the government out of
it entirely in 25 years or so. No exceptions.
6) Get rid of "sin laws" like prohibitions on drugs, gambling, prostitution,
and so forth. The enforcement and "punishment" attendant to these laws
costs way more than any possible damage such activities could do to the
society at-large.
7) Only stick the government's beak into the lives of its citizens
when their actions harm or threaten each other. Otherwise, stay out
of their lives.
IOW and in a nutshell: If you want better for more people, quit spending
all your time and the government's gun forcing others to do what you want
with their lives and money. *** out and watch the magic begin...
P.S. This goes for all the Rightwing saviors of mankind as well. Just
shut up and leave the rest of us alone please unless were harming
you. If you're a TV evangelist with a bad hairpiece, more power
to ya, just don't make the rest of us watch.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.
