- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 27,204
- Reaction score
- 13,299
- Location
- CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Most folks refer to the 50s, 60s, and to some extent the 70s, when they talk about the golden years of American production and exportation. It was this time period that the middle class emerged as the dominant force driving our economy. And a great many, even MOST, of the jobs that enabled this growth...were union jobs.
I believe the reason unions thrived was because the US more or less enjoyed a monopoly on most types of production for most of this time period. Europe was rubble. The Japanese were slightly better off, but they were still playing catch up, technologically speaking, in a few areas. And Russia...well, Russia was communist, and I heard that didn't work out to well for them. So, mass produced goods were largely US made. This meant that sales were such that, even with low prices, both profits, and union wages could be high, without hurting the bottom line. True?
Would that, then, be a bubble? Was/is our middle class, hailed by many as the driving power of the American economy, nothing more than the byproduct of monopolization on a global scale?
And if so, then is it fair to say that said middle class will never return in force?
We had much less income disparity back then, and I suspect the fact that our middle class developed and flourished during the mid 20th century was the result of increases in wealth and productivity being spread pretty much proportional between all income classes. Sometime during the 1970's, income and wealth growth started skewing to the richest of us, and the middle class stagnated.
I think that is is perfectly possible for the middle class to do well again, but I think that it would take some changes in public policy.
As it happens, I don't agree with you but I sure would like to hear your thoughts on why the "skewing" began. I think we're close in age so it's odd that we have different memories of reality.
Rich people have always gotten richer. Having money makes it easier to make more money. Poor people generally have poor ways and keep themselves poor through bad decisions. The "middle class" is very substantial and it still is.
...and what are these "public policy" changes you think would make "the middle class do well again"? Aren't you one of the middle class?
Most folks refer to the 50s, 60s, and to some extent the 70s, when they talk about the golden years of American production and exportation. It was this time period that the middle class emerged as the dominant force driving our economy. And a great many, even MOST, of the jobs that enabled this growth...were union jobs.
I believe the reason unions thrived was because the US more or less enjoyed a monopoly on most types of production for most of this time period. Europe was rubble. The Japanese were slightly better off, but they were still playing catch up, technologically speaking, in a few areas. And Russia...well, Russia was communist, and I heard that didn't work out to well for them. So, mass produced goods were largely US made. This meant that sales were such that, even with low prices, both profits, and union wages could be high, without hurting the bottom line. True?
Would that, then, be a bubble? Was/is our middle class, hailed by many as the driving power of the American economy, nothing more than the byproduct of monopolization on a global scale?
And if so, then is it fair to say that said middle class will never return in force?
Most folks refer to the 50s, 60s, and to some extent the 70s, when they talk about the golden years of American production and exportation. It was this time period that the middle class emerged as the dominant force driving our economy. And a great many, even MOST, of the jobs that enabled this growth...were union jobs.
I believe the reason unions thrived was because the US more or less enjoyed a monopoly on most types of production for most of this time period. Europe was rubble. The Japanese were slightly better off, but they were still playing catch up, technologically speaking, in a few areas. And Russia...well, Russia was communist, and I heard that didn't work out to well for them. So, mass produced goods were largely US made. This meant that sales were such that, even with low prices, both profits, and union wages could be high, without hurting the bottom line. True?
Would that, then, be a bubble? Was/is our middle class, hailed by many as the driving power of the American economy, nothing more than the byproduct of monopolization on a global scale?
And if so, then is it fair to say that said middle class will never return in force?
Is frugality sound policy on the account of the primary spenders in a consumer economy?No, it would not be fair, nor is your seeming conclusion that unions lead to all that wealth. Not that many people go to college with the aspirations of working in a factory. The middle class is fine. They just watch too much Bravo TV and think they need to live like the House Bitties of Wherever and they then make bad financial choices. The problem isn't that they aren't making money--it is that they are blowing it on things that do not create wealth for them like Escalades and BMW's in their driveways, plasma TV's, iCrap, and on and on and on.
What changes? More unions? I'm fairly anti union, as I see them now. If I owned a business, I would literally burn it to the ground if it looked like a union was about to slime it's way in.
Increases to minimum wage? That royalty screws the folks making just above minimum wage. Ruins morale. Etc. and, increases prices of goods and services. You can say market competition will keep those prices down, but if we made a graph of the cost of living over the years, vs the increase to minimum wage, the two lines would more or less mirror each other, with a few variances in some states, like CT. And besides, when 1% of the population owns 80% of everything, not a lot of market competition happening there.
Harsher death/estate taxes? A, that'll never happen, because our politicians are the products of inherited wealth, and B, it's pretty "un-American".
Increased progressive tax rates? That's the only way I see it happening. That, and the decreased work week. But countries that have those things are not fairing well. France. Greece. Those folks hardly work at all, and it's showing. Italy too.
I want consumers to spend more. That means increases to the spending power of those most likely to spend.
No, it would not be fair, nor is your seeming conclusion that unions lead to all that wealth. Not that many people go to college with the aspirations of working in a factory. The middle class is fine. They just watch too much Bravo TV and think they need to live like the House Bitties of Wherever and they then make bad financial choices. The problem isn't that they aren't making money--it is that they are blowing it on things that do not create wealth for them like Escalades and BMW's in their driveways, plasma TV's, iCrap, and on and on and on.
Is frugality sound policy on the account of the primary spenders in a consumer economy?
What you are suggesting is great for the individual, more savings and investment, and less spending. However, if everyone reduced their spending, unemployment would increase, thus spending would decrease even more, and business profits would decline as they are based upon sales, and overall incomes would decrease. So what money would people use to save and invest with, and what would they invest in - companies loosing money?
You are basically suggesting that we would be better off if we had another depression. Rediculous.
Frugality =\= living within ones means.Individual policy and government policy are too different things. I have seen enough people here lament the growing wealth gap to use it as a basis of policies to take from the wealthy when it is related to numerous things, including that the middle class in not amassing wealth because they are wasting it.
Yes, your response is Ridiculous. At least we agree about that.
"Max out your credit and waste all your money paying us interest if you want to be a true American!!!" That should be the Capital 1 Motto.
Frugality =\= living within ones means.
Living within one's means does not create wealth for the individual. It is what they do within their means that decides that. If you make $30K a year and are buying a Benz, then you are making poor investments within your means.
They should have bought a Toyota, instead?
Or a used car and saved the difference to make a downpayment on a house.
Reality seems to elude you. First, used cars cost MORE than new cars, unless you have the cash to buy them outright, no financing. Unless you buy a beater for 500 bucks. Which typically means that, unless you are pretty handy with cars (most aren't, auto shop is no longer taught in HS), you'll be buying another within months. For people making 9 bucks an hour, saving 5 grand is gonna take a couple years, even at the most staunchly frugal. So, in the meantime, what do they drive? So, yeah, the new civic financed at 5% costs less than the used one financed at 20+%.
House? Do you even know what it takes to get approved for even an FHA loan these days?
And none of this addresses the very real damage this mindset applied broadly would do to our economy.
Most folks refer to the 50s, 60s, and to some extent the 70s, when they talk about the golden years of American production and exportation. It was this time period that the middle class emerged as the dominant force driving our economy. And a great many, even MOST, of the jobs that enabled this growth...were union jobs.
I believe the reason unions thrived was because the US more or less enjoyed a monopoly on most types of production for most of this time period. Europe was rubble. The Japanese were slightly better off, but they were still playing catch up, technologically speaking, in a few areas. And Russia...well, Russia was communist, and I heard that didn't work out to well for them. So, mass produced goods were largely US made. This meant that sales were such that, even with low prices, both profits, and union wages could be high, without hurting the bottom line. True?
Would that, then, be a bubble? Was/is our middle class, hailed by many as the driving power of the American economy, nothing more than the byproduct of monopolization on a global scale?
And if so, then is it fair to say that said middle class will never return in force?
Of course the 20% interest isn't because of the wages earned by a particular person. They are high because the risk is high. Duh. And FHA loans require a minimum down payment of 5k. Learn your facts. The interest rate on FHA loans are fixed, either 30 year, or 40, though 40 year loans are rair. A 25-30% down payment on a 200k house is pretty tough to swing even for moderately wealthy people, without say, selling a house. Hondas are made in the US, just not by union labor. But you, being a good, party line towing, mainstream republicrat, don't mind that, right?No you are eluded by the reality is that if you make $9/hour and pay 20% interest on anything it is because you make poor financial decisions, not because you make $9.00 per hour. FHA loans are 0% down loans which is why it is harder to get one, especially if you cannot afford to put anything down. Those are also the loans where the PMI doesn't drop off at 78% so you are going to be paying an extra 1 1/2% until your refi with 20% equity because you didn't save up a down payment because you couldn't afford to because you chose to buy a brand new car, most of the profit from which went overseas which you apparently think is good for the american economy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?