• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Got The Wage Gains 2000 - 2009

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,196
Reaction score
34,200
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hmmm.... that's odd; it looks like public sector union area's are especially overrepresented in the sectors of the economy that had large wage gains.... and the other major sector (healthcare) is the one in which government payments dominate....


What we see is that health and education (public and private) accounted for an amazing 75% of real wage and salary gains between 2000 and 2009. The rest of the economy–only 25%.


wages2.png


wages3.png
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
48,201
Reaction score
28,006
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Sounds like a good argument for promoting more private sector unions to help combat the destructive growing income inequality in this country.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
One of the most fascinating things about the conservative movement is that they will tell you not to be "envious" about the billions of the wealthy, but to instead be envious of the thousands of fellow middle class workers. One of the most fascinating things about the middle class is that so many of them let conservatives convince them.
 

iamitter

Sleeper Agent
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
505
Location
NY, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
One of the most fascinating things about the conservative movement is that they will tell you not to be "envious" about the billions of the wealthy, but to instead be envious of the thousands of fellow middle class workers. One of the most fascinating things about the middle class is that so many of them let conservatives convince them.

Many billionaires are actually quite liberal and very altruistic and giving with their money.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
48,201
Reaction score
28,006
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
One of the most fascinating things about the conservative movement is that they will tell you not to be "envious" about the billions of the wealthy, but to instead be envious of the thousands of fellow middle class workers. One of the most fascinating things about the middle class is that so many of them let conservatives convince them.

I have noticed that as well. Its like looking at life through a funhouse mirror. However, my thought is to not be jealous, but be loving enough to try and design a system where everyone benefits.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Many billionaires are actually quite liberal and very altruistic and giving with their money.

This is quite true. Our system of economics works best when they are, and many realize this. The ones who do have my admiration. The ones who don't, though, frankly have my contempt.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I have noticed that as well. Its like looking at life through a funhouse mirror. However, my thought is to not be jealous, but be loving enough to try and design a system where everyone benefits.

Yes, quite. I do think it useless to be "jealous". Of anyone. I guess if I had to choose who to be jealous of first, though, it would certainly not be of unionized workers who thereby have done well for themselves.

I want the rich to get richer, but in the context of a mixed economy, where all boats are lifted together.
 

DontDoIt

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
391
Reaction score
72
Location
Illinois, Land of Liberals
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
One of the most fascinating things about the conservative movement is that they will tell you not to be "envious" about the billions of the wealthy, but to instead be envious of the thousands of fellow middle class workers. One of the most fascinating things about the middle class is that so many of them let conservatives convince them.
Don't even act like one party gives two ****s more about the middle class than the other. You must be overwhelmingly convinced from words rather than actions.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Don't even act like one party gives two ****s more about the middle class than the other. You must be overwhelmingly convinced from words rather than actions.

Aside from whether I agree with you or not on the matter of the two parties, did I mention one of them at all?
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, quite. I do think it useless to be "jealous". Of anyone. I guess if I had to choose who to be jealous of first, though, it would certainly not be of unionized workers who thereby have done well for themselves.

I want the rich to get richer, but in the context of a mixed economy, where all boats are lifted together.
Not everyone has a boat....
Jobs, and govt funded basic education applicable to the training for those jobs, is important.
It is best to have an educated work force that is gainfully employed, but too many of those jobs are gone, and sometimes the workers themselves poured the fuel on that fire.....
The nations economy needs more middle class workers. Ask any economist which is better, one billionaire, or a thousand millionaires. The middle class should be able to accumulate income and assets by retirement time to be worth about a million bucks, bearing in mind that it isn't as much as it used to be. My wife and I are close to that point, took both of us working a lot of years to save the money and pay off the mortgage. I worked since 1964 with 12 years of that in the Navy, can't save a lot on that income, my real earnings and savings started in 1977. She worked since 1979, same year the youngest child started school. We saved and lived frugally so we could have a nice retirement. It can be done, if Wall Street doesn't steal too much of it.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,164
Reaction score
81,287
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Sounds like a good argument for promoting more private sector unions to help combat the destructive growing income inequality in this country.

a shortsighted argument. all private sector unions do is make american business less competitive. all public sector unions do is rape the public
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
hmmm.... that's odd; it looks like public sector union area's are especially overrepresented in the sectors of the economy that had large wage gains.... and the other major sector (healthcare) is the one in which government payments dominate....


What we see is that health and education (public and private) accounted for an amazing 75% of real wage and salary gains between 2000 and 2009. The rest of the economy–only 25%.


wages2.png


wages3.png


Well - sometimes I do extensive research because numbers don't add up when presented like that in a blog or something but that one seems accurate and straight forward because he didn't gloss it up (much appreciated).

But the explanation is that those areas of loss have 2 main issues to contend with:
The extreme desire for profit-growth.
The extreme need for public-consumption.

People stopped buying as much - naturally sales went down. To try to preserve profit they hacked jobs and compressed and compiled (businesses who were suffering reorganized and reshaped their heirarchies -a lot of top, middle and bottom people were given pink slips) and they reduced pay for new employess . . over 10 years in a high-turn over arena that eventually trickles through to everyone in the business.

And it's not just indicative of this last decades - since 1968 the average wage for various jobs that *paid* reasonably well or ok now pay ****.

The growth is for several different reasons: For one - skilled labor has seen wage-growth for quite some time (just like unskilled labor has seen a steady decline). Skilled jobs outnumber non-skilled jobs 4 to 1 and that is increasing steadily. Businesses, minding their bottom line(s), have restructured - creating job losses in mass but permitting a net boost for those who are seen as being beneficial and who are hanging on. Thigns didn't just take a dive in 2008 - they completely shifted into a new structured system in which individuals take on more individual responsibility and thus are paid more for their extra time and effort.

There is also the lobbying pressure for increased support for educators, etc - a frequent, steady, constant push that "it's horrible that an entertainer is paid millions but a teacher is paid crap" has turned some positive corners in legislation and in the basics of business-decisions when ti comes down to cutting the salary swath and education isn't the only area privy to this change, either.
 
Last edited:

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
34,704
Reaction score
23,528
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
a shortsighted argument. all private sector unions do is make american business less competitive. all public sector unions do is rape the public

So let's look at the long-term argument. Leave the private sector to rape the employees.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,699
Reaction score
9,563
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re unions public and health care ones

Given that many unions and their employers sign multi year contracts, if a contract is signed during say 2007 to provide 2007 style wage increases for the next couple of years, the employer is contractually obligated to provide those wage increases. On the flip side if the contract is signed during bad years and has low wage increases in the contract the workers will for period of time see poor wage increases

Now given the smalll number of people working in private sector unions in the US, they will see wage increases that reflect the economic conditions at that time which would indicate that during 2008-9 most private sector workers would have seen smalll wage increases if any
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,225
Reaction score
12,780
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have noticed that as well. Its like looking at life through a funhouse mirror. However, my thought is to not be jealous, but be loving enough to try and design a system where everyone benefits.

Do you believe Machiavelli was wrong when he claimed that its better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both, as a ruler?
Do you know why the answer is fear?
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
48,201
Reaction score
28,006
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Do you believe Machiavelli was wrong when he claimed that its better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both, as a ruler?
Do you know why the answer is fear?

I disagreed with Machiavelli when I read his book in one of my business classes (got an A on the paper too) since the situation is far different today than it was during the age of Monarchy. I think his conclusions were mostly correct for his day and age though.

However, my concern is not how best to rule over a population, but rather how best to have an orderly and civilized society where everyone has a reasonable shot at living. Those things are different subjects.

This (very excellent) book is more akin to my model for success in society and business http://www.amazon.com/Servant-Leade...4737/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1296670584&sr=8-2
 
Last edited:

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,225
Reaction score
12,780
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I disagreed with Machiavelli when I read his book in one of my business classes (got an A on the paper too) since the situation is far different today than it was during the age of Monarchy. I think his conclusions were mostly correct for his day and age though.
His work is considered one of the keystones of MODERN politics.
He is considered by some to have been the central figure in helping to usher in the era of capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, and the modern nation-state.

And your brush with him in a business class lead you to the conclusion that his work wasn't applicable to the modern era? Consider the probability that they didn't cover enough of it for you to get a more accurate understanding. Suggesting Machiavelli is irrelevant to the modern state/politics is like claiming the work of Pythagoras wasn't relevant to modern mathematics. Blunt, but you know what I mean.

However, my concern is not how best to rule over a population, but rather how best to have an orderly and civilized society where everyone has a reasonable shot at living. Those things are different subjects.
Every civilized society of note had and has, rules as a foundation. To suggest it's a different subject, when it's the practical foundation, is not reasonable.

That's why I brought up Machiavelli. He was known from this perspective to have:
1. ushered in an era of realism in politics, displacing the common idealism of the day. In other words, he brought science to politics. Just as Galilo helped displace idealism on the earth with science. And Gregor Mendel brought science to genetics, displacing idealism. When are you going to replace your idealism with reason? It's yours to have any time you want it.

2. I would have hoped even more to your liking, he brought this realism of how rulers ruled in practice, to the common people. He pulled the curtain back for them to see not only how they were being manipulated, but how they can rule themselves. He literally gave power, to the people.

Fear is chosen over love as a matter of practicality. The answer matrix looks something like this:

Good people accept rule by love (they are good people, they are gonna do the right thing anyway)
Good people accept rule by fear (they are good people, they are gonna do the right thing anyway)
Bad people have no rational reason to accept rule by love (they are bad people, they will do whatever it takes to get what they want)
Bad people have a rational reason to accept rule by fear (they are bad people, but getting locked away in prison for 30 years is *really* bad)

So if you choose love, it's only viable to rule the good people.
If you choose fear, it's viable in ruling both. Good people are not the problem. Good people don't steal, you don't need laws prohibiting it or punishment if you do. But having no laws against theft in a random society? Idealistic folly. Applicable today as it was 400 years ago, or 4000.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
48,201
Reaction score
28,006
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I must say I find your rebuttal interesting. You yourself, have admitted that you have libertarian leanings, however, the very idea of rule by fear stinks of authoritarianism which is directly opposed to the entire concept of self rule, which is the basis of what we have today.

Sure, there is some interplay between those in government and the people, however, the one thing democracy does is flip those ideas on its head. This is why it is not applicable.

Fear of the law is one thing and I agree, it is necessary to have an orderly and prosperous society. However, what Machievelli mostly talks about is the place of rulers, not laws.
 
Last edited:

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,225
Reaction score
12,780
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I must say I find your rebuttal interesting. You yourself, have admitted that you have libertarian leanings, however, the very idea of rule by fear stinks of authoritarianism which is directly opposed to the entire concept of self rule, which is the basis of what we have today.

Fear, or more broadly, negative consequences, are a component of any practical legal system you or I know of. Be it libertarian, or communist, corportate governance, or a competitive sport.

Sure, there is some interplay between those in government and the people, however, the one thing democracy does is flip those ideas on its head. This is why it is not applicable. Fear of the law is one thing and I agree, it is necessary to have an orderly and prosperous society. However, what Machievelli mostly talks about is the place of rulers, not laws.

He was involved in that too. Discourses on Livy was about the structure itself.
...includes early versions of the concept of checks and balances..it became one of the central texts of republicanism.
Enlightenment era Republicanism wiki...One important notion was that of a mixed government. Also central the notion of virtue and the pursuit of the common good being central to good government.

Anyway, I was just curious about whether or not you accepted the fact that to be driven by love, you may also be required to use fear..out of love.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
48,201
Reaction score
28,006
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fear, or more broadly, negative consequences, are a component of any practical legal system you or I know of. Be it libertarian, or communist, corportate governance, or a competitive sport.



He was involved in that too. Discourses on Livy was about the structure itself.
...includes early versions of the concept of checks and balances..it became one of the central texts of republicanism.
Enlightenment era Republicanism wiki...One important notion was that of a mixed government. Also central the notion of virtue and the pursuit of the common good being central to good government.

Anyway, I was just curious about whether or not you accepted the fact that to be driven by love, you may also be required to use fear..out of love.

:shrug: Of course, any parent worth their salt will occasionally scare the hell out of their child to keep them from doing something not in their best interest and no other method of influence works. Of course, I am curious why we are even on this tangent.

I am guessing you misinterpreted my loving comment which had to do with motivation but not necessarily with style. But I believe we are talking about two different things here. My primary concern is how one regards society and a fundamental question, are they in it for themselves (thus being selfish and possibly evil) or are they in it for everyone and themselves (thus being normal). Conservatives routinely accuse liberals of supporting social spending for control reasons when, from my view (which is from the grass roots), it has more to do with a functional society than any sort of desire for control.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom