Advertisement
Especially read the 6th paragraph.
www.boston.com/news/globe...p_mentality
Income gap mentality
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe Columnist | April 19, 2006
AS TREASURY SECRETARY John Snow meandered through his thoughts about the pay gap between CEOs and workers, it brought back memories of 1992 when the first President Bush toured a mock-up of a grocery checkout counter, watched a carton of milk, a lightbulb, and some candy ring up via a scanner and said about the technology, ''This is for checking out?"
The scanner came to mind because, as the average American worker watches corporate America slash pensions and healthcare, as the average American has seen real wages decline in the last quarter century, and as the average American family has to work harder to maintain the standard of living it inherited, Snow talked about this as if it were not much of a problem.
He told Globe reporters and editors yesterday that the pay gap was symbolic of the nation's ''aspirational" compensation system, a star system in which, for example, top baseball players are paid $30 million. But he thinks that the US economy shows there is still plenty of trickle-down money to go around, making our country one that still ''shares the spoils of the game."
Snow was asked by Globe editorial board member Alan Berger about professional football. The National Football League has supplanted baseball as the nation's most popular spectator sport precisely because the NFL's socialist system of giving teams an equal share of television revenues offers more teams a chance to aspire for the championship. Berger mentioned to Snow that the Patriots won three of the last five NFL titles without a star system.
Snow did not address the Patriots. All he said was the ''aspirational compensation system works pretty well. People will get paid on how valuable they are to the enterprise."
All we are left with is our aspirations in a game where the average share of the American dream is being spoiled. The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, the two liberal think tanks that annually chart the gap between CEOs and workers, currently list the gap at 431-to-1, or $11.8 million to $27,460. That compares with a gap of 107-to-1 in 1990. If salaries of the average worker had kept up with that of a CEO, he or she would be making $110,136. Had the minimum wage risen at the same pace as CEO compensation, it would stand today at $23.01. The federal minimum wage of $5.15 has not risen since 1997.
In 1980, the gap was only 42-to-1. Where the spoils go are quite clear. According to 2005 federal data from the Congressional Budget Office, the share of America's income that went to the highest 20 percent of households increased from 45.5 percent in 1979 to 52.2 percent in 2003. The remaining 80 percent of American households all saw their share of the nation's income drop.
The higher you go in that top 20 percent, the more the rise in their share of the income. The top 1 percent of Americans saw their share of America's income zoom from 9.3 percent in the last quarter century to 14.3 percent. The top 10 percent saw their share go from 30.5 percent to 37.2 percent.
How Snow thinks that 10 percent of Americans holding 37 percent of the income represents a sharing of the spoils is checkout-counter economics. His claim falls especially short considering that 46 of the nation's 275 largest companies, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, the United for a Fair Economy, and another liberal think-tank, Citizens for Tax Justice, paid no federal income tax in 2003. Eighty-two of the largest 275 companies paid no federal income tax at some point during 2001-2003 as the current President Bush cut taxes for the wealthy.
Despite this, Snow went on and on about how corporate governance has actually gotten better. He said ''the marketplace" is the best place to leave the issues of pension and healthcare cuts to workers. ''The best place to leave compensation is set in a market system," Snow said. But as to that pesky pay gap, he said, ''A full explanation is still awaiting a full exposition."
Like the first President Bush, who did not know that checkout-counter scanners had been common in American supermarkets a decade before his discovery, Snow, in the guise of defending the fiscal policies of the second President Bush, talked about waiting for a full explanation of an American condition that for the average American is fully exposed as a betrayal of average aspirations.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
www.boston.com/news/globe...p_mentality
Income gap mentality
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe Columnist | April 19, 2006
AS TREASURY SECRETARY John Snow meandered through his thoughts about the pay gap between CEOs and workers, it brought back memories of 1992 when the first President Bush toured a mock-up of a grocery checkout counter, watched a carton of milk, a lightbulb, and some candy ring up via a scanner and said about the technology, ''This is for checking out?"
The scanner came to mind because, as the average American worker watches corporate America slash pensions and healthcare, as the average American has seen real wages decline in the last quarter century, and as the average American family has to work harder to maintain the standard of living it inherited, Snow talked about this as if it were not much of a problem.
He told Globe reporters and editors yesterday that the pay gap was symbolic of the nation's ''aspirational" compensation system, a star system in which, for example, top baseball players are paid $30 million. But he thinks that the US economy shows there is still plenty of trickle-down money to go around, making our country one that still ''shares the spoils of the game."
Snow was asked by Globe editorial board member Alan Berger about professional football. The National Football League has supplanted baseball as the nation's most popular spectator sport precisely because the NFL's socialist system of giving teams an equal share of television revenues offers more teams a chance to aspire for the championship. Berger mentioned to Snow that the Patriots won three of the last five NFL titles without a star system.
Snow did not address the Patriots. All he said was the ''aspirational compensation system works pretty well. People will get paid on how valuable they are to the enterprise."
All we are left with is our aspirations in a game where the average share of the American dream is being spoiled. The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, the two liberal think tanks that annually chart the gap between CEOs and workers, currently list the gap at 431-to-1, or $11.8 million to $27,460. That compares with a gap of 107-to-1 in 1990. If salaries of the average worker had kept up with that of a CEO, he or she would be making $110,136. Had the minimum wage risen at the same pace as CEO compensation, it would stand today at $23.01. The federal minimum wage of $5.15 has not risen since 1997.
In 1980, the gap was only 42-to-1. Where the spoils go are quite clear. According to 2005 federal data from the Congressional Budget Office, the share of America's income that went to the highest 20 percent of households increased from 45.5 percent in 1979 to 52.2 percent in 2003. The remaining 80 percent of American households all saw their share of the nation's income drop.
The higher you go in that top 20 percent, the more the rise in their share of the income. The top 1 percent of Americans saw their share of America's income zoom from 9.3 percent in the last quarter century to 14.3 percent. The top 10 percent saw their share go from 30.5 percent to 37.2 percent.
How Snow thinks that 10 percent of Americans holding 37 percent of the income represents a sharing of the spoils is checkout-counter economics. His claim falls especially short considering that 46 of the nation's 275 largest companies, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, the United for a Fair Economy, and another liberal think-tank, Citizens for Tax Justice, paid no federal income tax in 2003. Eighty-two of the largest 275 companies paid no federal income tax at some point during 2001-2003 as the current President Bush cut taxes for the wealthy.
Despite this, Snow went on and on about how corporate governance has actually gotten better. He said ''the marketplace" is the best place to leave the issues of pension and healthcare cuts to workers. ''The best place to leave compensation is set in a market system," Snow said. But as to that pesky pay gap, he said, ''A full explanation is still awaiting a full exposition."
Like the first President Bush, who did not know that checkout-counter scanners had been common in American supermarkets a decade before his discovery, Snow, in the guise of defending the fiscal policies of the second President Bush, talked about waiting for a full explanation of an American condition that for the average American is fully exposed as a betrayal of average aspirations.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Thu, April 20, 2006 - 12:04 PM
Does anyone have any good lnks that back up this assertion that real wages have been falling for 25 years? This article states that things are getting worse for people on the bottom but the only evidence it provides is that things are getting better for people on the top. -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Thu, April 20, 2006 - 2:06 PMHi Orion,
Good question and I hope others come up with some links. Here's my contribution www.laborresearch.org/charts.php
I presume there are better and worse ways to demonstrate the changes in real wages and this "Average weekly earnings (in constant 1982 dollars)" is just one snapshot. But it's clear from these figures that real wages have fallen in the past 25 years.
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Fri, April 21, 2006 - 11:33 AMHey Orion, how about--for a change--you provide us with some
data that supports your opinions?
You have asserted innumerable times on this tribe that, under
Capitalism, "all boats rise" (or something to that effect.)
However, you never do anything to positively support your position.
You simply reiterate your beliefs, go off on tangets about the evils of
"Socialism", and express unsubstantiated skepticism for any actual
data that is posted.
For example, the article above states that minimum wage has been
flat for a decade. With all of your voluminous knowledge about
inflation, you must also already be aware that inflation has occurred
through that period. Can't you do the math yourself and figure out
that if wages are stagnant under conditions of inflation then real wages
are dropping?
Why don't you do us a favor and research the topic yourself, and
provide us with the results?
Good luck.
-
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Sun, April 23, 2006 - 12:24 AM[quote]You have asserted innumerable times on this tribe that, under
Capitalism, "all boats rise" (or something to that effect.) [/quote]
I've missed your posts Elaine, havent had a good laugh in weeks. If you dont think you live better than your ancestors did just think of what you can do now for little or no money that wasnt available at any price to even the Emperor's of Rome. You'll of course say that it is just technology but capitalism is the engine of techonolgical innovation otherwise the Soviets would have won the Cold War. I wasn't concerned about China until they started to embrace more capitalistic features, now that they have they are actually an economic threat. Ahh for the good ol'days of Mao when you could count on them starving themselves to death. -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Mon, April 24, 2006 - 3:43 PM
<<You'll of course say that it is just technology but capitalism is the engine of techonolgical innovation otherwise the Soviets would have won the Cold War.>>
Well, I'll go a step further than that and point out that even though the technology exists today (ignoring the fact that it was born of capitalism), people in countries with little economic freedom have no access to it (north korea, myanmar, cuba, nigeria) and people from capitalist countries (usa, UK, hong kong, chile) do.
Poor people in capitalist countries have cars and color TV's. Poor people in economically controlled countries have dirt, sticks, rags and malaria.
No I'm open to the possibility that in recent history the conditions of capitalism in the USA could have changed to push down the living conditions of the poor here, this would have to be a recent and specific thing because there is no doubt that the poor live better today than they did 100 or 200 years ago in the USA. The poor in India and Cambodia live the same way they did 800 years ago.
-
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Mon, April 24, 2006 - 6:47 PM(quote)I'm open to the possibility that in recent history the conditions of capitalism in the USA could have changed to push down the living conditions of the poor here, this would have to be a recent and specific thing because there is no doubt that the poor live better today than they did 100 or 200 years ago in the USA. The poor in India and Cambodia live the same way they did 800 years ago.(quote)
They may live on dirt but they make less of an impact on the ecosystem. If they are all poor then some of them are not rich, which would be unfair. Better that they all be equally poor and thus no one cheated and got a better life. After all capitalism is just the chance for one person to do better than the other creating inequality and thus all evil that exists in the world.
Oh and now that I'm back from fantasy island, there is one real fly in your ointment. China, since they got hong kong back and realized what a little capitalism could do for them they've become very dangerous.
-
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Wed, April 26, 2006 - 12:01 AMFirst of all, I would like to point out that you are
ignoring your own post, and the direct replies to it.
Where is your data about the rising real wage in the last
30 years?
I'll take this as evidence that you have to concede that, in
fact, rising standard of living is not a given under
Capitalism.
So much for that.
Secondly, regarding your attacks on Socialism,
you seem to ignore something that I have repeated
many times on this tribe: we have not seen Socialism
on this planet yet.
USSR and China (two examples you mention) were
not Socialist or Communist, according to any rational,
factual interpretation of Socialism defined as "the
self-emancipation of the working class".
So, you can blabber all you want about how bad USSR
and China were, but realize that all you are doing is
pointing out how miserable State-run Capitalism was.
In any case--not to dodge your dodge--yes, it is clear
that over broad historical periods, human standards of
living have improved. In particular, they improved
tremendously under Capitalism as compared to
Feudalism.
However, like all stages of human development, what is
progressive at one time becomes a brake on
development at a later time. Capitalism is no exception. I
think it is great that Capitalism came about, but I would like
to hasten its replacement by something better.
In particular, it is clear that Capitalism is full of
contradictions, which means that its bad aspects prevent
the expression of what once were or potentially are good
aspects. Capitalism doesn't work for most people globally,
and is rapidly depleting our planet's resources. Hence my
interest in "alternative money and economics". (I am
always baffled by people on this tribe who defend the status
quo system, and/or argue for more primitive economic
instruments, like gold-based money. What is alternative
about that?)
What I am saying is that we are ready for a different system;
in particular, one that is run by the vast majority in the
interests of the vast majority. There is a long tradition, of
people who have tried to bring about such a system, who
have referred to this system as Socialism, which is
why I still use that name, despite the confusion caused by
non-Socialist societies who have misapplied the term
"Socialism."
Reasonable people may disagree on whether something of
that sort is possible. As far as historically arguments go,
all systems the world has seen have eventually been
replaced. Why would Capitalism be an exception?
But I will ask you, before you go off on another anti-
Socialist rant, to at least acknowledge that the things you are
criticizing bear no relation to what I am advocating.
This tendency of yours to ignore the content of my arguments
is one of the reasons why I stopped bothering to reply to
your posts. -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Wed, April 26, 2006 - 8:09 PM<< Where is your data about the rising real wage in the last
30 years? >>
I am sorry. I felt this point was so obvious that it does not need mention. And note: my argument is that economic freedom leads to rising standards of living. Capitalism is only one expression of economic freedom.
Make a list of all the places in the world that have economic freedom and all the places that don't. You will see that the standard of living is VERY STRONGLY correlated with economic freedom. This is the best research into economic freedom I have found. If you have one you trust more, please bring it forward.
www.heritage.org/research/...ntries.cfm
Now this is a very strong correlation and can't be ignored. The USA and Hong Kong and the UK have high levels of economic freedom and they also have high standards of living. North Korea and Iran do not. The only logical conclusion is that one causes the other OR there is a third thing that causes both of these.
Now if you have a way to explain this correlation other than economic freedom, I'd like to hear it. As for the arguments for it they are many and well argued in "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom" by the preeminent Milton Friedman.
But rather than making a departure into those books, lets look at some alternatives. These are the only two rational ones I can come up with.
#1) Economic Freedom is actually a by product of a high standard of living not the other way around.
#2) Democracy creates Economic Freedom and a high standard of living and are not themselves dependant on each other.
As for (#1) this has no empirical evidence to support it. For example
The USA had economic freedom LONG before it had a high standard of living.
Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan all experienced extreme growth after implementing an economic system based on the USA and the UK.
The few places that have a high standard of living due to wealth of natural resources do not have economic freedom such as Saudi Arabia.
Sweden experienced the highest increase of economic growth and standard of living UNTIL they adopted their socialist policies and have since had a totally stagnant economy and have only been able to keep their standard of living by going into debt twice as fast as the shameful US Federal government.
The opposites can be see as well by looking at the decline of the standard of living in places that have rejected economic freedom. Consider China, the USSR, North Korea, much of Africa.
As for (#2) this also has no empirical evidence as well. All real world cases seem point to the opposite that democracy is a byproduct of economic freedom.
Chile is one of the few countries that had economic freedom but no political freedom. Just as Milton Friedman predicted when they implemented their policies of economic freedom, Chile experienced the highest level of economic growth in south America and eventually overturned their dictator and replaced it with a democracy. This would imply that economic freedom leads to democracy, not the other way around.
Also China has experienced huge economic growth since opening up its markets and, as is predictable, the standard of living is going up and up, and clamoring internally for a more open government is beginning and is being at least spoken of in the government. This logic would follow that continued liberalization of economic policy in china will continue to lead to higher standards of living and eventually a Democratic government.
On the converse, consider the rate at which countries without economic freedom have been able to maintain democracies. You have to go a really long way up the list of economically free countries before you find out thats not a dictator or a monarch.
<<we have not seen Socialism
on this planet yet. >>
You argue that we have not seen Socialism. I argue that we have. My proof is this: Socialism ( and there in the lack of economic freedom ) and political freedom ( democracy ) are incompatible. Socialism will always lead to tyranny as has been seen in every single time its been attempted. You cannot argue that we have never truly seen a horse's head because every one we HAVE seen has just happened to be connected to a horse's ass, but in reality they are not related. You need to understand, they are one and the same.
<<In any case--not to dodge your dodge--yes, it is clear
that over broad historical periods, human standards of
living have improved. In particular, they improved
tremendously under Capitalism as compared to
Feudalism. >>
Economic freedom leads to political freedom and a higher standard of living.
You need to show some example of this progress happening some other way. I can point to just about any country in the world. What can you point to?
<<Capitalism doesn't work for most people globally,
and is rapidly depleting our planet's resources. >>
Not really. With the exception of energy wealthy people and wealthy nations, have fewer babies, use more green technologies and services, recycle more, eat more organic food. Poor people have more babies, use more dirty technologies, recycle less, use less environmentally friendly ways of producing food. The fruits of capitalism are prosperity and prosperity will allow people to lead good lives and afford to be good to the planet at the same time. The only real dig you have here is the amount of fossil fuels used by first world nations... and as we watch before our eyes the price of oil is quickly approaching the price of green fuels as more and more of the world is growing wealthy enough to afford energy. Once this happens the engine of capitalism will retool the whole world to use green fuels since it's cheaper and people are greedy.
<<I am always baffled by people on this tribe who defend the status quo system,>>
I do not desire the status quo. On the contrary I want to see a world with more economic freedom and more opportunity that anything we have seen to date. I think that the US's version of capitalism in the stone ages and we can much much better and evolve into something amazing.
<<This tendency of yours to ignore the content of my arguments
is one of the reasons why I stopped bothering to reply to
your posts. >>
I do not ignore the content of your arguments. I give you very strong evidence that you are not only wrong but you are carrying a torch for a set of ideas that have created more death, poverty and despair in the name of the common good than any other thing in human history. I understand that you want what's best for humanity. I understand that you want fairness and prosperity. But do not let this desire blind you to the overwhelming body of evidence that shows that this way of thinking is seductive but wrong. -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Thu, April 27, 2006 - 12:54 AMIt is of particular interest to me that make the following claim:
> I do not ignore the content of your arguments.
This is interesting because that is precisely what you proceed
to do. I clearly said:
"we have not seen Socialism on this planet yet."
"USSR and China (two examples you mention) were
not Socialist or Communist, according to any rational,
factual interpretation of Socialism defined as "the
self-emancipation of the working class"."
And what is your reply?
You ignore our actual disagreement (whether there has
been a workers' state) and, in fact, get even more vague
by citing every possible incarnation of "Socialism":
> Socialism will always lead to tyranny as has been seen in every single time its been attempted.
If this isn't ignoring the content of my arguments, then I
don't know what is. You do nothing to clear up our
disagreement by simply reasserting your opinion.
If I am wrong, then you would have to show, for example,
that workers actually controlled the USSR, China, Cuba,
etc.
Until you convince me that these (or any) state has actually
been run by the working class, it is perfectly valid for me to
continue to claim that a state run by the working class
would be qualitatively different than any we've yet seen.
You also ignore the content of my arguments when you
dodge my arguments about the historical phases of human
society, of which Capitalism is the current one, and why is is
only natural to suppose that it, too will yeild to something new.
No, instead of taking on this historical perspective, you
present a false dichotomy, between the relationships of so-
called "economic freedom" and standard of living.
That way of thinking about things may be interesting to you,
but it is not at all related to the argument I am laying out.
While I have no expectation that you are concerned with
actually examining the argument I am putting forth (you've
cured me of that, once again), let me address some of
the problems inherent in your approach:
> economic freedom leads to rising standards of living.
Fair enough.
> Capitalism is only one expression of economic freedom.
Capitalism is clearly better than an autocracy. But the degree
of its freedom is likewise limited. In point of fact, historically,
"democracy" has been the political demand of the rising
capitalist class--industrialists, landowners, merchants, etc.
but their demand is limited to their economic class. That is,
they have never demanded full democracy, but rather, a voice
for propery owners, and no voice for peasants, slaves, and
wage laborers.
The "freedom of some" (bourgeois democracy) comes at the
expense of the freedom of the many (workers democracy).
The "freedom of some" was more progressive than what preceded
it (which was more or less "freedom of the monarch and no one
else"), but it is ridiculous to assert that "freedom of some" is
somehow "freedom for all", or leads to "freedom for all", whether
that be economic or political freedom.
That is to say, you do not recognize the class divide in Capitalist
society. That the different classes have different, and competing,
interests. It is silly that you gloss over these dynamics, and instead
look at an entire country as if it were a homogenous entity that
either has "ecnonomic freedom" or not and has some objective
"standard of living". Both economic freedom, political freedom and
standard of living vary tremendously in every country.
From what I've seen, the rich of all countries have more in common
with each other than they do with the laborers in their own countries,
and vice versa.
I have seen the data and am quite convinced of this. The historical
record is quite clear on the existence of this division. The dynamics
are plain to see in daily life. Your arguments that ignore this division
are, therefore, simplistic, irrational and meaningless (besides being
framed in a false dichotomy.) -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Sat, April 29, 2006 - 7:48 PM<<If this isn't ignoring the content of my arguments, then I
don't know what is. You do nothing to clear up our
disagreement by simply reasserting your opinion. >>
You want me to offer solid proof that something that has never existed could not exist? Let's consider that you were asserting that if chimps had opposible thumbs they would make the best watch makers in the world since they could use their hands and feet at the same time. Obviously I cannot show you an example of a monkey with opposible thumbs who made a poor watch maker because no such thing has ever existed. But I could argue about the qualities that make a good watch maker, and how a chimp, thumbs or not, do not meet these requirements. Just as now I cannot point to a failing worker controlled socialist country as none exists but I can talk about the qualities that make for a good economy for people to live in, and it's economic freedom, and socialist countries have none.
So
Socialism is by definition the opposite of economic freedom. Every single system in the world that lacks economic freedom drifts toward tyranny and poverty. Every single system in the world with economic freedom drifts toward democracy and a higher standard of living. I dare you to find a single example of the opposite and I bet it will be a short term aberration during a transitional period.
So... you either need to
1) show me that this version of socialism you are talking about does not involving taking away economic freedom
2) disprove my correlation between economic freedom and wealth and poverty
or
3) admit that while a lack of economic freedom creates a storm of poverty, that your version of socialism is like the eye of a tornado, creating a perfect set of conditions that create prosperity, while one step in any direction leads to poverty and suffering, explaining why every attempt to build your socialist government has missed the mark and thats why we've never seen it.
Socialism is not "the self-emancipation of the working class." Socialism is where the state owns the means of production and distribution.
Here's the basic problem with a single homed system like communism and socialism. It tries to take all the power away from untrustworthy people (corporate fat cats) and put it in the hands of a trusted system (socialist government). The thing this system ignores is that people are power greedy and those with power do not relinquish it. In a socialist system the lawn mower of government cuts down all the tall blades of grass to make everyone equal. There are no bill gates' or warren buffets in a socialist society. When someone has an opportunity to seize the power they take it and no one can stand against them because everyone's been cut down. Seriously, if I wanted to take over the world I would frame it like this. "You poor people. Rich powerful people are dragging you down. Why don't we form a collective and take away everyone's individual ability to fight power, put all that power into one place so no one can hurt you with it, and let me steward it in your service for the time being." Right. In the USA we have government and business and labor and super-empowered individuals all struggling for power. Business is made of thousands of powerful corporations. The government is made of parties and branches. All in competition with each other. It's hard for any single person to take over because they are in competition with everyone else. And as long as the power seekers and fighting with each other over the ability to control yours and my life. We are free to go on living, working, inventing and starting businesses, creating wealth and increasing the standard of living for everyone.
<<but it is ridiculous to assert that "freedom of some" is
somehow "freedom for all", or leads to "freedom for all", whether
that be economic or political freedom. >>
Well I dare you to look at our own country. Under British colonial rule the colonies had a huge amount of economic freedom since the crown didn't care what whent on in the colonies as long as taxes were paid(very much like Hong Kong). This lead to wealth and a large merchant / agrarian class that, once sufficiently wealthy, demanded freedom and revolted. (economic freedom lead to political freedom). These individuals formed a way to work together as an economic unit but were afraid of government and losing their economic and political freedom and formed the weak federal US government. As time passed and wealth increased and one by one each of the groups of people that did not have political power became incompatible with the economic and political freedom people were experiencing. Slaves were freed. Blacks could vote. Women could vote. It may seem crazy to you to be arguing that economic freedom lead to women being able to vote and slaves being freed but that's what I'm saying. The reason I can say this is the same pattern can be seen almost anywhere else in the world. Europe. Japan. And keep an eye on India and China and see what happens to the rights of women there as their economies are booming because of economic freedom.
<<That is to say, you do not recognize the class divide in Capitalist
society. That the different classes have different, and competing,
interests.>>
Well, please educate me. I am curious to understand what I'm missing here and why its relevant. -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Sun, April 30, 2006 - 2:30 AM[quote]
Socialism is not "the self-emancipation of the working class." Socialism is where the state owns the means of production and distribution.
[/quote]
SELF EMPLOYMENT is the "self emancipation of the working class". The reason it is not viewed as such is because it comes with great risk. For with freedom comes responsibility. That is what socialism seeks to deny. That responsiblity for one's actions is the root of all happiness and sucess, and is the price to be paid all free people. Slavery is security as those benefiting from your labours (be it governments or corporations) will be certain you are taken care of at least well enough to keep you working and poor enough to keep you motivated to continue working. That is the problem with our consumer, debt driven culture. We keep working (usually for some one else) to have things to prove our sucess. This is not needed but since it is desired people enslave themselves willingly for a pay check. There is a break away point where basic needs can be met with very little outside commerce but since the media doesnt present that as sucess it is often viewed as failure. Capitalism lets you decide what you want and then gives you the power to go get it. Socialism defines what you want (ie. what is good for you) and then tries to force you to work for that state/community imposed goal.
Good luck with trying to make that work, I just dont want to live there.
-
-
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Thu, April 27, 2006 - 1:01 AM> This is the best research into economic freedom I have found. If you have one you trust more, please bring it forward.
I will recommend the following book, which goes through the
dynamics of international finance, including the institutions that
run it (WTO, IMF & World Bank), who controls them, and how these
dominant Imperialist countries control the "economic freedom" of
the third world countries through financial means (debt, trade
"agreements", "aid", foreign investment, "Intellectual Property",
etc.):
Your Money or Your Life by Eric Toussaint
www.haymarketbooks.org/Mercha...hant.mv
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Fri, April 21, 2006 - 11:53 AMAhh, I couldn't help myself. Here are some other articles that
describe falling real wages. Enjoy.
US real wages fall at fastest rate in 14 years
registration.ft.com/registration/barrier
Weak Recovery Claims New Victim: Workers' Wages
www.epinet.org/content.cf...riefs_ib196
Facts About Wages that Every American Should Know
www.osjspm.org/101_wages.htm -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Wed, April 26, 2006 - 4:37 PMwhat no links to the American communist party? -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Wed, April 26, 2006 - 8:29 PM"what no links to the American communist party?"
It must be said, Vlad, that this looks suspiciously like a retreat into sarcasm when confronted with actual numbers. :-) -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Thu, April 27, 2006 - 1:08 PM(Quote) "what no links to the American communist party?"
It must be said, Vlad, that this looks suspiciously like a retreat into sarcasm when confronted with actual numbers. :-)(Quote)
nah, just being lazy. I knew Orion wouldnt let it pass so I let him provide the reply and I just had a little fun at Elaine's expense. -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Thu, April 27, 2006 - 8:32 PM
<< I knew Orion wouldnt let it pass so...>>
Dag nabbit ... I swear I had a life once. Now all I do is go an rants on Tribe. *sigh* -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Fri, April 28, 2006 - 6:11 AM[quote]<< I knew Orion wouldnt let it pass so...>>
Dag nabbit ... I swear I had a life once. Now all I do is go an rants on Tribe. *sigh*[/quote]
Thats kewl man as it saves me a lot of typing LOL -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Fri, April 28, 2006 - 8:22 AMThis is all very fine and good, but if I can remind you all of the current state of the conversation :
Lynne (quoting Derrick Jackson) : real wages are falling
Orion (in rhetorical flourish) : yeah, but does anyone actually have any links to data that real wages are falling?
Elaine : yeah, here are some links.
At which Orion and Vlad have a little self-congratulatory love-fest about how they can both trust each other to smack-down the stupid commie and (presumably) refute his data. But neither actually seems to want (or be able?) to do it.
Now that's fine, no one's pushing you (except me) ... but don't imagine we haven't *noticed* ;-)
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Sat, April 29, 2006 - 9:48 AM
<<But neither actually seems to want (or be able?) to do it. >>
Hang in there... I do have a job, you know. ;-) -
-
Re: Income Gap Between the Uber-Rich and Us Folks
Tue, May 9, 2006 - 1:37 AMnot for long
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
