US Politics Mega-thread - Page 328

On July 11 2013 09:20 DoubleReed wrote:


Uhh... no. The Gilded Age kind of sucked for us. We weren't a world power at that point, and it was really terrible economically.

We didn't ascend to the world stage until after World War II. We were in the Great Depression right before that...

The most prosperous time in American History was post-WWII (1945-1980), where we had strong unions, we just constructed a huge social safety net, and we were horribly in debt from the amount of government spending during WWII. Wealth Disparity was literally at an all-time low until 1980. The top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 70%-90%. We had Republicans like Eisenhower who was an absolute badass who encouraged government innovation like the Interstate Highway System, and DARPA.

You want to talk about prosperity? We didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of goverment money and rejected libertarian rhetoric in favor of public responsibility.

On July 11 2013 09:47 coverpunch wrote:

There's nothing magic about it. But losing a world war is certainly worse for the national economy than winning. Consider that Japan didn't have a standing structure taller than two stories by the end of the war. Combined with 3 million citizens killed, including an entire generation of young men, that is very very bad for the economy.

I think it was coincidental that the tax marginal tax rate went down and wealth inequality went down. It certainly played a role in exacerbating the problem, but I don't think it was the root cause. Given more time, inequality will always increase. That's the nature of giving more time for advantaged people to utilize their skills/talent/hard work and disadvantaged people to sit around doing nothing.

IMO the problem was and has been increasing global competition. In the period between 1945-1975, Americans could basically take it for granted that they were better educated, better fed, harder working, and more creative than the rest of the world. That is increasingly not true. I don't think the answer is protectionism, but I think there are many things Americans cannot take for granted and it raises questions of how we can improve the lot of people of more mediocre skills.

On July 11 2013 09:29 DoubleReed wrote:


Winning wars does not magically give you money. Wars are government spending. Our allies were in shambles and couldn't properly trade with us. We even spent our money rebuilding Europe to get our trading partners back on track.

I'm not saying correlation isn't causation. What? The Gilded Age was filled with libertarian rhetoric and corporatism, but it totally sucked. Hell, it was when Social Darwinism was actually prominent. It wasn't good for America at all. Talk about class warfare, Jesus. On the contrary, the post-WWII America was filled with responsible, less corrupt government with extremely liberal policies and did amazingly. It wasn't until Reagan when a lot of the "small government" rhetoric came back that we had more wealth disparity and a more fragile economy. I'm saying causation all the way, baby.

What, you think it's a coincidence that our top marginal tax rate went from 70% -> 30% and suddenly wealth inequality started going up?

On July 11 2013 09:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

If you want to go by the 1945 to 1980 period we should tax the rich about the same as we do now, the poor much more and spend less overall but way more on the military.

Before the Great Depression life was good in the US, both economically and socially. Politically we were absolutely a major power before WW2.

WASHINGTON -- On Tuesday, a Walmart executive rebuked the D.C. Council in an op-ed in the Washington Post, declaring that the company would scuttle plans for three stores if the city enacted a living-wage law targeted at big-box retailers. The bill, which passed a council vote on Wednesday, would require a $12.50 minimum wage for workers at companies with more than $1 billion in global sales.

For those who follow Walmart's labor disputes, that $12.50 living wage seemed quite close to another figure commonly associated with the world's largest retailer: its average store worker wage, as reported by the company.

According to Walmart, full-time store workers now earn $12.87 per hour on average, or 37 cents higher than the proposed D.C. mandate. That's an average wage -- quite different from a starting wage. But considering the Walmart footprint leans heavily suburban and rural, a $12.50 starting wage in one of the most expensive cities in the country wouldn't seem too out of whack with Walmart's self-reported wage data.

So what gives?

Walmart's $12.87 figure probably presents a misleading picture of what store workers actually make. As the company itself notes, the $12.87 calculation excludes part-time workers, and it includes department managers who are paid hourly and probably earn a good deal more than cashiers, stockers and sales associates.

It's hard to know how much this skews things, because Walmart doesn't disclose how much of its workforce is part-time or how much those workers actually earn.

The company only says that a "majority" of its workers are full-time, or logging 34 hours or more per week. So, in theory, 49.9 percent of store workers could be part-timers, temps or seasonal workers who would drag down the average wage if they were included in the company's math. (Similarly, Walmart will only say that a "majority" of its workers get company-sponsored health care benefits, declining to offer an exact figure.)

On July 11 2013 10:00 DoubleReed wrote:


No, that's not how it works. That means we have fewer trading partners. It means less people were able to afford purchasing all our crap (and we love selling people our crap). We don't benefit from other people being poor and stupid. And the "harder working" part? Really?

Just like today. The fact that the Euro is having problems isn't a good thing for us. It affects our trade. It's not a good thing. We want them to be doing well, so we can be doing better.

For the last 30 years, corruption in our politics has been getting worse and worse (I can pin at least some blame on Buckley vs Valeo in 1976). It has led to weaker unions, regressive taxes, stagnant wages, skyrocketing wealth inequality, and more partisan politics. It wasn't always like this.

Inequality will not always increase. That's just not true. And Globalization could have been offset with even more liberal policies, even stronger unions, etc. so that workers would be even with employers. But that didn't happen.

On July 11 2013 10:02 cLutZ wrote:


#1. Never EVER use post WWII as an example of anything. It is an irreproducible scenario that you DO NOT want to reproduce because:
A. The domestic economy had been depressed for 15+ years. Remember, just because GDP explodes because of war spending does not mean the domestic economy is doing well. In fact, because of rationing, etc, it had a bad effect on that segment.
B. Europe was totally destroyed. Essentially you are arguing in favor of a land war in Europe, or perhaps between India and China.
C. Japan and China were destroyed. Perhaps you are advocating dropping nukes on Berlin, London, Beijing, and Tokyo?
D. Much of the world's developing economies were shackled by Communism Post WWII.
#2. Wealth inequality is not, by itself, a social ill. Especially when QOL is increasing even for the poorest quintile the entire time.
#3. QOL and real wages have increased for Americans at basically every point in our history. Most so during the Guilded age, and its immediate aftermath.

On July 11 2013 10:08 coverpunch wrote:

Trade is a different joint from inequality. The benefit of trade is that people can have a better standard of living at lower cost, but it comes with the price that US workers have to compete with foreign workers, which puts downward pressure on wages for low-skilled workers. It also means people who make good products have more consumers and can become personally richer. But for this reason, more unionization is actually a bad thing in a more global, more trade world, because unions always result in higher labor costs for their constituents, which increases the incentives to look elsewhere for cheaper labor.

How does your link show that inequality will not always increase? It shows that inequality had a marked increase after 1980. But there's nothing to show that inequality was not already increasing before that.

On July 11 2013 10:03 DoubleReed wrote:


Yea, I suppose I should have set that after WWI, which is when the Gilded Age usually ends. Either way, it's kind of weird to say "up until that massive market crash we were okay."

I don't know what you mean with taxing the poor, but corporate taxes were much higher then too. Are you talking the real tax rate or the nominal tax rate?

On July 11 2013 09:17 Shiori wrote:

Are you arguing that 1900's-era standards of living were as good as they are today? Weirdly, GDP per capita (even adjusted for inflation/deflation) increases as you move from 1900 to the present. Although I'm sure that our data on the entire economic history of the US isn't entirely accurate, wouldn't you think that, if minimum wage is a hindrance to economic superiority and "excellence," the growth of GDP per capita wouldn't have increased as nicely as it did?

But even setting aside per capita measurements (as they're not always the clearest metrics) who cares if the nation "got by" without minimum wage? It got by without lots of other things, too, but I think we can all agree that, for example, desegregated education is a net gain for the nation even if the country wouldn't spontaneously explode without it.

Why does that make you optimistic? In fact, how is that a good reason at all? The nation in 1776 was a hell of a lot different than it is today in every single aspect. Unless you mean to assert that the founding of America was some sort of transcendent event that defied the fallibility of human beings and resulted in a near-utopia, I'm not sure how you can seriously claim that every single one of the (many) qualms people have with a free market system (setting aside the wanton immorality of it) will probably be well-handled by that system for no other reason than that the nation was founded on that system. The nation was founded on slavery and muskets, too, but I don't see anyone clamoring for those to make a return, despite their effectiveness (well, okay, maybe not the muskets).

Proof? Times would be "tough" in radically different ways if there were a free market versus a regulated one. It makes no sense to categorically say that free markets (lmao free people? yes, because people are totally in chains right now) are better at solving societal malaise, because societal malaise differs depending on the characteristics of the society i.e. the societal malaise of a free market society is going to have different features than in a regulated market.

This may be news to you, but there is abundant dishonesty in politics no matter what the policy or subject is. In fact, I'll go a step further and let you know that there is abundant dishonesty in every interpersonal relationship. As for voting themselves more money, what does that even mean? Do you assert that a large number of people are living luxurious lives on account of their laziness? How much money do you think you get from welfare, exactly?


"super progressive" lol. I guess every single country in the Western world is "super-progressive" by that metric.

I'm pretty sure America has survived from the early 20th century to now without any signs of spontaneously splintering. What was so successful about 1776-~1900 compared to ~1900-2013?

On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice. These two ideas are in opposition and, taken together, suck because _______

Mr Hughes, an MP: The gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% in this country has widened substantially. How can she say at the end of her chapter of British politics that she can justify many people in a constituency such as mine being relatively much poorer, much less well-housed, and much less well-provided than it was in 1979? Surely she accepts that is not a record that she, or any prime minister can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. But what the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich. That way you would never create the wealth for better social services, as we have.

On July 11 2013 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:


#1: He used the Gilded Age, which is also irreproducible scenario. Hell, any historical scenario is irreproducible...

A. That's in my favor. Bringing up rationing and the social ills DURING WWII only emphasizes just how impressive it was that we had an incredibly long period of prosperity immediately after that.
B. Our trading partners in bad shape is not good for us. Spending our money to help them rebuild is not good for us.
C. Again, other people being in bad shape is not good for us. I don't understand why people act like this is not the case, when it's not like if India or Britain suddenly tanked, it would be good for us. It wouldn't. It would suck for us, because we trade.
D. Again, this is bad. We want people to buy our shit. If they can't buy our shit, that's bad for us.

#2 Wealth inequality is a social ill. It leads to plutocracy, political instability, and corruption. It kind of makes the whole "land of opportunity" thing a fucking joke when we have terrible social mobility. The whole idea of "Equality of Opportunity" is completely destroyed. Not to mention it undermines our democracy.

#3 Inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated since 1980. Quality of Living is going to rise because of technology. The idea that 95% of Americans shouldn't reap the benefits of rising economic growth is a pretty bad joke, and that's essentially what has happened the last thirty years. We may have reaped the benefits of technology, but economically, families are hurting more than they used to be. And a big reason is the rising cost of healthcare, education, and housing. This would have been such a problem if wages actually rose with the economy, but instead all those economic benefits have gone to the rich.

I do not accept a decrease in wealth disparity as any indicator of a prosperous era. I want a prosperous country with the lowest percent and the richest percent both experiencing rises in their standard of living. I want to increase the opportunities available for those at the bottom to rise in income with hard work.

On July 11 2013 10:35 cLutZ wrote:


1A. No. Its like sitting on a spring. Just imagine if Cuba ousted Castro, etc and how much their economy would explode. It is a lot like China's recent success.
1B. No its not good for us, but when you don't have to compete with anyone, you don't have to be competitive.
1C. ^^
1D. ^^

2. Income inequality and lack of income mobility are independent. And Mobility is higher in this country than most Euro countries with "low" inequality.

3. That stagnation is a red herring because it doesn't account for the massive increase in cost of health care spending many employers dedicate to workers, smaller households, more retirees, and more.
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/september/middle-class
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/09/20/the-myth-of-stagnant-wages

On July 11 2013 10:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Hahaha, quoting the Heritage Foundation and Margaret Thatcher. Oh this is gold.



I have no idea what this means. A decrease in wealth disparity and prosperity is an indicator of a prosperous era. I mean, sure, Louis XIV had some magnificent artwork and gardens but I don't generally consider that a sign that France was doing well economically.

Remember, America has terrible social mobility, and states with welfare states and taxes on the rich are much better in this regard. If you actually want to "increase the opportunities available for those at the bottom to rise" then a welfare state with a strong social safety net is exactly what you want.

On July 11 2013 10:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Hahaha, quoting the Heritage Foundation and Margaret Thatcher. Oh this is gold.



I have no idea what this means. A decrease in wealth disparity and prosperity is an indicator of a prosperous era. I mean, sure, Louis XIV had some magnificent artwork and gardens but I don't generally consider that a sign that France was doing well economically.

Remember, America has terrible social mobility, and states with welfare states and taxes on the rich are much better in this regard. If you actually want to "increase the opportunities available for those at the bottom to rise" then a welfare state with a strong social safety net is exactly what you want.

On July 11 2013 10:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

He means that so long as the poor are experiencing an increase in their standard of living it doesn't matter if the rich are experiencing a greater increase. For example, China is more prosperous than in 1980, even for the poor, yet incomes have become much less equal.

As for economic mobility, there's a lot of factors at play there, but I think it's pretty fair to say that our welfare state both helps and hurts in that regard.

On July 11 2013 10:14 DoubleReed wrote:


Sorry, try this link. Wealth inequality went down during World War II. It stayed down during the 1945-1980 portion of our history. It only started rising again in the late 70s.

Edit: I'm not sure what you're talking about with trade. I wasn't talking about sweatshops. I was talking about trading oil for guns for bananas for sugar. Like trade trade. It's just a matter of Comparative Advantage, and everyone benefiting in a trade transaction.