Hat tip to Jerome a Paris over at Daily Kos for alerting me to these two graphs, from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, respectively. What they depict is a country in which the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class are getting squeezed, just as Jim Webb has said repeatedly. Is this rising income inequality, with a larger and larger share going to the wealthiest Americans (according to the New York Times, "the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans") a good thing? Do you think it's healthy that "the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980?" Personally, I don't think so. How about you?
By the way, notice that the rich started getting richer and the poor started getting poorer almost exactly from the moment that Ronald Reagan and his merry band of "supply side," "trickle down," "Laffer curve" ideologues came to power. Coincidence? I think not. Also, notice that this trend continued through the 1990s, as the Democratic White House and the Gingrich/"Contract with America" Republicans continued to pursue essentially the same "Club for Growth" policies (low marginal tax rates on the highest-earning Americans, free trade agreements like NAFTA, reducing the role of government, reducing the power of workers vis-a-vis employers, providing incentives for companies to outsource good American jobs, etc.) with minor tweaks.
As Jim Webb likes to say - paraphrasing Andrew Jackson - the health of our society should be measured at its base, not at its apex. On that standard, it looks like we're getting less healthy by the day.
Look at the graph between 1925 and 1930 it correlates to the stock market.
At the other end look at 1995-2005 and there is a direct correlation again. The runup in the late 90s the tech bubble and 9/11 and then the recovery.
Investing in the stock market produces annual returns of around 8%. Its one of the best ways to improve your standard of living. The other main factor is living within your means by not spending more than you earn and also saving for a rainy day.
Let's see: $5.15/hr = $10,712 a year.
Now let's deduct the following reasonable costs.
Cheap rent: $6,000 a year (utilities included)
Food: $1,825 a year (no gym membership needed here)
A change of underwear: $500 a year
Some kind of transportation to get you to work and the grocery store: $730 a year
Birthday cards and a Christmas gift for your Mom and sister: $100 a year
Uncle Sam's Share: $800
Were down to $757 in your pocket. But wait, you'd like to go to the doctor to find out what that pain in your leg is but you don't have insurance, you'd like to visit your sick Mom but you can't take off work much less afford a train ticket, you'd like to go to a movie (because you darn sure can't afford a TV).....
Can anyone recommend a good broker?
Some advice: volunteer at a homeless shelter, at a school where the kids are underpriviledged, at a nursing home where most everyone is on Medicaid, etc.
The problems are here and now and folks need help!
What happened to unemployment rate the last time the minimum wage was increased in 1996? Unemployment rates continued to fall.
It's true that establishing a baseline wage can negatively impact employment, but it is not a given--especially when you are talking about a fairly marginal increase. The proposed minimum wage increase is a good idea. If small businesses need assistance, we can give them a tax credit.
Most of the columnists who I've seen arguing against this increase are not economists.
In the long run, people die.
Planners and pundits without empathy don't understand that one must have a variety of solutions, including short-term ones. People are not fungible objects or mere statistics. That's the major flaw in blind use of free market economics. Some markets work. A lot don't. Then it's the role of government to assist.
Their arguments are about as good as this first pitch from Cincinnati: http://youtube.com/w...
Try telling that to a person making at or near minimum wage.
Are you that cold hearted?
Jesus left state functions to Ceasar and advocating individual, not state, responsibility for the poor and hungry. As far as the taxes go, (CBO figures) The top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income. The Alternative Minimum Tax designed to hit the wealthy is now crippling many middle income families and small businesses. Finally, with Senator Clinton saying she was going to "take the profits" from the oil companies, are we really about to see a massive socialist platform of government directed wealth redistribution that provides a disincentive to investment and growth? Everyone's 401K will be the first things to tank as money leaves there and goes elsewhere. Rich people didn't get rich by being stupid. Our system is based on the "opportunity" to get rich and once you take that away, we might as well put Putin in charge.
(How'd I do?)
Unions: I know democrats strongly support unions for higher wages and better working conditions. What I don't understand is if a workplace is bad or you aren't getting paid well enough why don't more people leave and find a better working environment. (Extend this out and you start running up against the illegal immigration problem... then the party lines really start to blur... but thats for another converstation :-p )
Lowell: Have you ever thought about posting some of this on Bacons Rebellion? Jim is looking for some more lefty contributors...
time to go outside for lunch today :-)
You're right, it was a nice day for a very looooonnnngggg lunch...enoy!
What you have in common with the late Lobotomyforestal: --justifying through scripture your prejudices against the poor and minorities, and simpleminded dualistic thinking.
Using the "render unto Caesar" line to justify government screwing the poor . . . we live in something called a "commonwealth"
There were five distinct periods in history, the Reformation being one of them, in which the concepts of the state's obligation to it's people has evolved over two millenia. Once King's realized that feudal systems weren't the optimal way of creating economic prosperity, they began adopting incentives to keep the poor and sick engaged and productive, usually through cooperation and with the assistance of the church.
Are you of the opinion that all religion should be eradicated from the country and crimilaized as the way to help the poor? Precisely where is government "screwing" the poor and, as you answer, please provide the source that compels government to do as you would like them to do. (Examples are easier to deal with than bombastic generalizations)
"..there's a reason this knucklehead [Webb] only spent 10 months as SecNav before Reagan canned his butt."
Don't think you can get away with statements like that on this blog. The regular readers of this website are quite smart and know, e.g., the whole Webb resignation story -- we were faced with the same types of lies from the Republicans in the campaign.
Stop lying.
What is it with your neocons? Gonzales, Cheney, Bush, Rice, all down the line -- you just make things up. The rest of your screed is not worth replying to.
Also, as to the idea you and Lobo might be the same person -- both you and "Lobo" donut writea the Englis very gud. (I looked at just one post for each to obtain these examples below.)
Lobo: "The issues with Nigeria vs the US on the Episcopal church is really quite simple. *** The African church is thriving and the American church is dieing"
Yours:
"My conscious is clear
Once King's realized...
...crimilaized as the way to help the poor?
You both sound like the guy who was head of Teenage Young Republicans two years ago. We all make grammatical and spelling mistakes on occasion, but sheesh . . .
and cut the ad-hominem attacks.
Oh, and did you know your man Akinola, the homophobic Nigerian bishop, is a supporter of Bishop Kunonga of Zimbabwe? Kunonga is living on stolen property -- given to him by Robert "I never met an opposition politician I didn't want to beat up" Mugabe. Kunonga is a "yes" man for Mugabe, and everyone in the world is trying to sue him.
Zimbabwe's Anglican primate, Bishop Nolbert Kunonga, has used his pulpit at St Mary's Cathedral in Harare to support Mugabe and his land reform programme.http://willwhim.blog...He was rewarded by Mugabe with one of the farms, St Marnock's, outside Harare, confiscated from its previous white owner, 25-year-old Marcus Hale. The bishop installed his son in the 2000 acre farmhouse, which overlooks a lake and sweeping fields of wheat and soya. The bishop also evicted 50 black workers and their families to make way for his own staff.
From his pulpit, Kunonga has compared opponents of Mugabe as "dogs against an elephant" and described them as "puppets of the West". During one of his pro-Mugabe sermons, the choir began singing hymns to drown out his words. The choir was subsequently sacked by the bishop along with the cathedral wardens and cathedral council.
Anglican priests critical of Mugabe have been transferred to tough rural parishes and many have resigned. A plethora of legal cases between Kunonga and his disillusioned flock are stuck in Zimbabwe's chaotic court system. In place of priests who have resigned, he has appointed men who have pledged not to criticise the head of state.
Something in common there? Truro and Falls Church trying to steal the American Episcopal church's property?
how 'bout saving it for an ad-nausum PM diary entry ???
some other time.
OK, so I've got fat fingers when I type fast. If your best intellectual response to an idea is to find grammatical errors, then you're bringing nothing of value to the discussion. Sorry, that was redundant. We already established that, didn't we?
You know, you're like Gingrich in his capacity for attempting to create factual fantasy:
Gingrich: When I Said `Language Of Living In The Ghetto,' I Meant Hebrew (Or Maybe Yiddish)Newt Gingrich said this past weekend that the U.S. should abolish bilingual education so that people aren't speaking "the language of living in a ghetto."
But last night on Hannity & Colmes, Gingrich claimed his statement "did not refer to Spanish." Gingrich insisted, "What I meant is very clear[]," but then wouldn't say which language he was referring to.
Gingrich said, "Now, I'll let you pick - frankly, ghetto, historically had referred as a Jewish reference originally. I did not mention Hispanics, and I certainly do not want anybody who speaks Spanish to think I'm in any way less than respectful of Spanish or any other language spoken by people who come to the United States."
Your use of the term "princess" comes right out of the homophobe handbook.
By the way, regardless of how he charaterized it, how could any real American disagree with Gingrich on this issue? I'm fed up with having to press a stinking button when I make phone calls to tell someone I speak English in AMERICA!
Interestingly, ghosts from the past were with us during that discussion -- Walter Keith Armistead and Roger Jarrell.
Okay, write down your recollections. Maybe add them to Wikipedia. If you really think Webb is a moron, tell us why in detail. If the guy who wrote the thesis on the resignation is wrong, tell us. (Though I've read Webb and heard him speak and debate, and while you may have disagreed strategically with him, he's no moron.) But I'm always willing to be persuaded. Some of my once cherished icons are in the dustbin.
Cease fire on the crap toss. I may need you as an ally on another argument.
Don't lie about his "pro-education" record.
For discussion purposes I work for a small business computer original equipment manufacturer (OEM) based in NOVA. Think of a a small Dell Computer company. On a daily basis multiple conversations take place between my plant and parts & design sources in Taiwan. Significant manufacturering occurs outside of Shanghi - mainland China. I've seen the factories there first hand - they are massive and cover everything from iPods to Izods. In fact General Motors is doing very well in Shanghi along with Volkswagon. It is from this location that GM plans to offer a "quality" $10,000 dollar car.
The average worker in China is bright young and polite (18 to 25 years old) and works on factory lines all day and lives in company dorms. They make a grand total of $5 dollars a day of which most of that is sent home (inland) or paid back to the company for room & board.
In Manassas our lowest waged factory worker (pay & benefits) makes roughly $60 dollars a day - a staggering 12 to 1 differential.
How does this happen? Well it's all enabled by the internet and cheap tele-communications. A similiar situation plays out in India of course ... as well as multiple countries around the world.
What is unusual (at least in my life-time) is the TOTAL DISREGARD by publically traded companies, which have enjoyed the security to do business here in the United States, and grow into large multi-nationals, for common American workers. The common working man or woman in these United States are wholly disposable. The effect of out-sourcing is a very real plague on local communities. There is significantly less job opportunity for the young starting out and often less of a tax base for communities to leverage for services.
Uber-Patriots and Supply Siders of the Regan Era never imagined the outsourcing effect of the internet. Nor did the Clintonestas see the abandonment of the American worker by U.S Corporations who are only governed by the bottom line ..... Wallstreet's evaluation of their stock. It has accelerated in the past 5 years as global communications has become ever more reliable.
If in the history of this county there was ever a time to measure the health of the country at it's BASE .... NOW is the time!! Webb was not only correct in his assessment of the situation - he provided the political under-pinnings to start addressing this very serious situation - which is not just a jobs & opportunity issue .... FUNDAMENTALLY it is a National Security Issue.
Would we be even talking about this had Jim Webb not been elected??? I think not.
So thank you RK and all those wonderful Draft James Webb types. At least we have hope .... and the dialogue does seem to be changing on multiple fronts!
Have a Great Work Day.
And it is not that people are voting with their feet to not join unions. I've heard estimates that 60 million people actually would like to be represented by a union.
The decline of unions is tied to outsourcing. The jobs lost in the U.S. have come from the manufacturing sector, which was the most heavily unionized sector. And those jobs were often well-paying jobs that gave poor, less skilled people their first step up into the middle class. It made it possible for the kids of the working class to afford college and go on to professional careers.
A lot the service sector jobs are held by new immigrants who are afraid of losing their jobs if they try to organize. Labor laws, since the Reagan administration, have also made it harder to organize and easier for companies to engage in union busting tactics.
But even today you can see that in parts of the country where unions still have some strength, employees earn more money than in areas where unions are weak or nonexistent.
The biggest step forward for unions in decades is the Employee Free Choice Act that passed the House recently. When the Senate comes back from recess, they'll take it up. I'm assuming Jim Webb will be voting for it, and helping persuade other senaors. But we need to apply some pressure to the senior senator from Virginia.
Please provide some actual facts instead of empty rhetoric. Talk to Lowell or Josh if you need some help. I have no intellectual respect for you at the moment.
1. Anyone who stays at minimum wage for any extended period of time has no one to blame but themselves.
2. I would invite you to read The Wealthy Barber. Basically if you save 10% of your income regardless of how small it is you can have a decent life and a comfortable retirement. The other key is buying a home no matter how small or modest.
End rant
After you read it maybe you can consult with Josh or Lowell or Milton Friedman and come up with your own retorts to your profound statements. End of Response to Rant.
1. Where does business have an obligation to employ anyone?
2. This is the most mobile society on the planet and no one is forcing anyone to live anywhere. If 12-15 million illegal Mexicans can get work, I'm suppose to feel sorry for someone who refuses to go look for it?
My point was that the state only has an obligation to create the opportunity to "move up" as opposed to the "ability" argument posed by connie. We all have inherent abilities and expand them through education, training and experience. The "opportunity" to take advantage of those abilities is a legitimate government role provided it takes a supporting role only creating the incentives for business to expand job opportunities. I totally reject the premise the government should provide everyone (at taxpayers expense0 a $50,000+ job after high school graduation which is what the implication was. If you actually believe that, then perhaps you grew up reading a little too much Marx/Engels?
Nobody is forcing anyone to stay at a deadend job
If you think that everyone who lives in this country has the ability to earn more than minimum wage by "working their way up"
Of course I think that. You don't?????
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue
Happy trails
Every once in a while you'll throw out some facts and figures - fair enough - but quite often you simply scoff or use words like "moron" or, as in the case of Marshall Adame's shocking accounts of his experiences in Iraq, call it a yawnfest or say it's all old news or imply that it can't be right because you've dealt with contractors and you simply know better than he does. You rarely seem even to entertain the possibility that others have had different or more direct experience than you have, or that their experience might be more informative or telling than yours. Plenty of people disagree with each other in this forum without implying that everyone with a different opinion is just stupid. It may not be your intention to imply people who differ with you are stupid or ignorant, but you sure come off that way.
2. Marshall: I'd be delighted to revisit that but his accusations and observations were old news and unsubstantiated by anyone else. he's entitled to his point of view but I simply challeneged him (and everyone else) to print off his diatribe and send it to every politician and news organization on the planet. Did you do that? I suspect not...
3."Plenty of people disagree with each other in this forum without implying that everyone with a different opinion is just stupid."
You're right, I don't intentionally mean imply anyone is stupid. I don't think I ever said that either...just not my style. My approach is rather more..."Gumpian" (Stupid is as stupid does) so when the Grassy Knoll deep-enders pop up with their whacko theories, they'll get...well, an opposite viewpoint which may deflate their little balloons and if, in the process, they feel "stupid" for making such claims then so be it.
All ideas have a right to be challenged. I fully understand the purpose and intent of this blog and accept the consequences of being...different. Without a "diversity" of thought, we don't grow as a nation. Right?
You did the same with your attack on Webb as a "moron" at the Pentagon. A careful reading of your statements shows you were "at the Pentagon" when he was there, and the reader is invited to believe that you have some special knowledge denied others. However, you do not claim to know him, nor do you claim to have been in the same office as Webb nor even directly connected with his position. What you're really saying is "I worked at the Pentagon and I heard a lot of stuff that made me decide Webb was a moron". Well, thousands of other people worked at the Pentagon the same time you did, and I don't see anything in what you posted which makes your knowledge more special than anyone else's.
You keep claiming to be the sensible middle-of-the-roader here but you have made a practice throughout these diaries of attacking practically everything anyone posts, including the ridiculous canards against the French for not agreeing to march lemming-like (to borrow a phrase from Chuck Hagel) into this ill-considered foreign adventure. They assisted us in Afghanistan and they assisted us in the first Gulf War, but that you are willing to repeat this slur means you're just trolling around here pretending to be the voice of reason.
The 1.9 million Frenchmen who lost their lives in WWI would be surprised to know they're from a cowardly race. 4.3 million were wounded. That was out of a population of less than 40 million. There's a reason they had no stomach for WWII. And there's a reason one cannot get the Europeans interested in a war nowadays.
And this guy'll never write anything on Jim Webb, as I suggested he do. I have a retired Navy friend who told me HE was there, too, and agreed with Lowell's original assessment.)
And he'll never answer my (I thought pointed) economic criticism when I diaried information asymmetries today. He was going on and on about economic issues yesterday, and was just fanning the air as far as I could see.
He really isn't contributing anything (except personally, helping me mini-Google-bomb certain topics).
We need to discuss local transportation over a grog sometime. And perhaps discuss the relative contributions of the French and other countries to culture and science.
"And there's a reason one cannot get the Europeans interested in a war nowadays."
Perhaps, because the US has been there doing their self-defense job for them? Their post-colonial foreign policy is also based on appeasement and officially sanctioned corruption because of their guilt. Their top officials see nothing wrong with bribes and kickbacks as an official part of their job if the Oil-for-Food program demosntrate that vivdly enough?
If you or anyone had been on the staff at DOD during Webb's tenure, you would have heard the same version of the story from JCS to the Army staff to the Secretariat. I already explained why I didn't vote for him and that was his inability to compromise with Carlucci for the good of the sailors he supposedly represented. Many around him saw this coming but there were some "bull admirals' on the staff at the time who did not serve him well with their advice. His instincts were simply wrong and it led to his premature departure. Nothing complicated here but I have a real hard time with anyone who doesn't want to find solutions via compromise and discussion. Nothing more to it than that.
If you expect anyone in the military or associated with the military to respect the French (other than their special forces which are actually quite good) you're dreaming. The French have, in their gasping attempts to become relevant again, have been a US obstructionist for the last....wow, a long time! When did DeGaulle throw us out of France and tell NATO to shove it?
Funny thing, so do I. As a matter of fact I keep wondering why you aren't having a harder time with Dubya and company for so strongly resisting negotiations with the regional powers.
It's amazing how much subtext there is when people write fast and don't have politically sensitive editors around. It often reveals deeper feelings.