onetime2

Do you believe that is representative of the nation? How about the prices of those row homes? Have they gone up or down in the last 30 years?

People are missing important points about the economy and buying power of the American consumer (and yes that even includes those in N. Philly) .

Economic points can not be made in isolation. There are very real and specific reasons that economic indicators say things and there is no possible way to draw conclusions based on one or two or even three or four economic "truths" without integrating a number of long and short term trends. Assumptions about the meaning of "Real Wages" is just one example of how most economic discussions are flawed. People don't even take the time to investigate the meaning behind the statistic and they take even less time to evaluate the reasons behind the trend.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

wonderwench

The reductio ad absurdum of egalitarianism (equality of situation) is slavery. Those that advocate it intend to be the masters.

wonderwench

The poor in America today live better and healthier lives than kings did in the Dark Ages.

roachboy

i always enjoy it when conservatives argue against equality. it kinda runs against the formal freedoms written into the constitution, doesn't it? and the whole "all men are created equal" business in the declaration? i guess for them, "all men" only refers to "all people who meet certain economic criteria"--and **that** is the mirror of arguments advanced long ago to justify slavery in fact.

the argument about the relative material well-being of the poor in america at this point--relative to the 10th century say--is also absurd---it makes no sense historically, no sense ethically.
the systems of material production in the two epochs are incommensurate. it would be like comparing the qualities of a pint of chocolate ice cream to those of an ocean liner (well the both have mass, so they are the same.....huh?).

what would you prefer, absolute abjection? how can you possibly argue that the effects of this redistribution of wealth--the lifting of american capitalism from the barbarism of unregulated capitalism---is a bad thing? and on what possible basis can you conclude that the result of the effects of a redistribution of wealth is the absolute elimination of poverty when the obvious fact of the matter is that poverty remains relational (you know, relative), that poverty remains structural? how can you possibly believe that the social system that capitalism sits on, that it draws from, that enables business to extract profit AT ALL is not better served if that system as a whole is better off economically? and what do you do with the fact that the poor in america live worse than the poor in any other industrialized country--that the rate of illiteracy in america, for example, remain well behind those of cuba, that the levels of infant mortality remains the highest in the industrialized world and on and on and on?

i know what conservatives do--they blame the poor.
but to what end?

doesn't capitalism promise a better life for all? obviously on its own, capitalism only delivers a better life for a few--so there is a redistribution of wealth. something that came about in response to SOCIAL CONFLICT CAUSED BY THE RADICALLY SKEWED DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

seriously, the focus on whining about the "plight" of the wealthy (o boo hoo! those persecuted wealthy folk--the only social class whose formal and substantive freedom conicide--boy that must be a burden--and that they have to give back to the system--MY GOD WHAT A HORROR!) and specious arguments about the effects of corporations having to plow money back into the system to maintain directly or indirectly (direct through maintenance of wage levels in general, indirectly through the relation of these wage levels to access to consumer dredit, the bubble upon whihc the whose american system operates) seem both politically naieve and ethically repugnant. for fucks sake, the arguments have slid to a level behind that of even henry ford--hardly a great humanitarian, who understood that the 10-dollar day (principle of relatively high wages pegged to patterns of regular increase) enabled the extension of credit and the expansion of the consumer base? that relative affluence for all was a recipe for exanded productivity, expanded demand, etc.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

You misunderstand the concept of equality. It concerns equality under the law - not equality of condition.

For an insightful piece on what equality of condition means, try reading Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron".

http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml

As to the comment that historical comparisons do not make sense, I dispute that contention. The fact that The Rich invested in technological and medical advancements is why even The Poor in the U.S. do not die in epidemics of malaria and are able to store food safely in refrigerators.

cthulu23

real wages
pl n
(Economics) wages evaluated with reference to their purchasing power rather than to the money actually paid

Does that answer your question? Seems like a reasonalbe assessment of economic ranking to me.

cthulu23

I find it hard to understand how a general decline in the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes can be spun as economic success. Why has this decline coincided with periods of economic growth? Where is the promised trickle-down? I hate to repeat the same thing over and over, but no one has so far answered that question. Supply-side is supposedly a way to generate wealth for all citizens...where is it?

onetime2

There's one definition, now how about the rest of what I asked? What's included in it? What's not? What other factors impact it? Does this one indicator really tell a comprehensive story about what's happening in the economy?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

I fail to see the regality in hunger.

onetime2

Real wages does not necessarily equate to purchasing power and is not the sole determinant of wealth.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

wonderwench

I do not agree that there has been a general decline in purchasing power. The average size of houses has increased substantially. The range and quality of consumer goods has been significantly augmented: computers, cellphones, plasma TV, high tech sneakers. The problem is that many people have an entitlement attitude regarding consumption.

Case in point: Here in Oaktown, I see "Poor Minority Kids" wearing the inevitable $150 pairs of Nikes. Living beyond one's means is nonsensical at any income level.

I will agree with you that the average family does have to work harder to maintain its lifestyle - but the reason is due to the doubling of the total tax burden over the past half century. Instead of huffing and puffing about The Evil Rich, I'd rather reign in unfettered government growth.

cthulu23

It is the inflation adjusted value of a person's wages, nothing more or less, and is a standard economic measurement. Why do you consider it an inaccurate mesure? What is it failing to state?

cthulu23

I never used the term "Evil Rich," so could we please dispense with the stereotypes?

You may not believe that purchasing power has declined, but US government statistics seem to confirm it. In traditional argumentation, it would be up to you to gather some supporting evidence for your statement....anecdotal evidence is not acceptable.

Although the shift in the tax burden to the poor and middle class has undoubtedly hurt their purchasing power, don't you think that the decline in wages might also have an effect?

As I've said before, I'm all for scaling back aspects of the government, but I suspect that we would differ on where to cut the budget.

wonderwench

Take a look at the two pie charts reflecting expenditures for the Median American Family for 1958 and 1998. With technological and process advancements, the ratios of income spent on food declined from 21.4% in 1958 to 8.9% in 1998.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prmedianfamily.html

The total tax burden increased from 17.9% in 1958 to 39% in 1998. The only other categories which show an increase are recreation and medical expenses (and other).

I would hazard a guess that the increase in recreation expenses is due to the numerous options currently available and that those of medical care and taxes reflect the inefficiencies and interference of government regulation and scope.

cthulu23

By definition, "real wages" equate to the purchasing power of a person's salary. This is not the sole determiner of wealth, as investments, inheritance and other factors do play a part, but such factors are not very relevant to the poor or middle class.

onetime2

While it is a standard measure, every measure has it's pros and cons. In this case the measure fails on a couple of levels. First, it does not count overtime wages. With increasing costs of benefits businesses have gone to overtime more and more. Additionally, wages are basically the mean taken of all workers surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The more workers there are the lower that mean will be (unless of course the economy's need for workers outstrips the supply and "new" workers are being paid substantially despite a relative lack of skills and this has not been the case for the majority of the time period we're looking at). Both the number of workers and the amount of overtime have been increasing over the last several decades pushing the "real wages" down.

Now, as far as buying power. Buying power is more a factor of wealth and wealth is built on a number of things besides income. Certainly, at times, income is more closely tied to wealth but at other times it isn't. For instance, home value contributes heavily to wealth but home ownership is not confined only to the wealthy as about 70% of Americans own their own home.

Now, let's throw the stock market into this. It used to be a wealthy man's game but today you see people from Wall Street tycoons to janitors riding the bus with investments in the market. Access to the market in the form of direct stock purchases, 401ks and other investment accounts make it possible for millions to benefit over the long term without anything more being put into their paychecks.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

So we are in agreement that the tax burden has been shifted onto the backs of the middle class. I've been saying that since this thread started.

These stats are representative of the "median" household, and do not apply to impoverished households. You aren't suggesting that there are 4 million Americans who go hungry because they spend too much money on recreation are you?

Hwed

Hey, what a coincidence. I lived in North Philly (Elkins Park, actually) until just last year, when I was driven out of the state by suffocating taxes (yes, high taxes drive away the people they're aimed at, thereby reducing government revenue, but that's an example of short-sighted liberalism for another day).

Know what I noticed about those decrepit row homes? DSS dishes on almost every one. And for every junked-out rustbucket, there was a Cadillac Escalade with all those weird ghetto customization things on it.

But that's just one tiny part of the world. The average home size in the United States is now 2,200 square feet, up from 1,400 square feet in 1970, according to the National Association of Home Builders. That's a pretty phenomenal increase.

Also consider that more Americans now own their own home than ever before.

Where in Philly are ya?

wonderwench

No, the tax burden has grown for everyone. At the same time that The Rich have paid a larger share of federal taxes, state, county and local taxes have exploded.

Instead of focusing on shifting the burden to The Rich, it is better to ask why government has grown so much faster than would be justified by inflation and population growth. This is especially important to ask in light of the opposite trend of improved efficiency in the private sector.

Hwed

Ooh, speaking of tax burden, I keep hearing about the huge tax burden on the lower class on this board....

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Bottom line:

In 2001, the top 50% of wage earners paid over 96% of income tax

That means the bottom HALF of us are paying less than 4% of the total tax load.

The top 1% of earners paid over 33%.

cthulu23

See this page for some interesting numbers about stock ownership...

The idea that janitors are equal partners in the "stock game" is a recent American conservative illusion.

Here are some other economic tidbits from the same site:

So there is obviously lots 'o money out there. Why hasn't it trickled down?
If you argue that gains have been made by the bottom 40% of society, I'd like to see some numbers that back this up.

wonderwench

Those figures are only for federal income tax. Add in Social Security, state income, property, sales and other taxes, and one sees that the tax burden has increased substantially. I recommend the taxfoundation link in one of my more recent posts.

cthulu23

Hwed, I don't smoke a pipe.

http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm#1

wonderwench

So what you are advocating is the confiscation of wealth (capital) by the government?

Talk about a job-killing strategy.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the two pie charts from the Tax Foundation which shows that people today actually spend less of their income of food, clothing and shelter than they did 50 years ago.

cthulu23

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. Accusing me of wanting to confiscte wealth is not a substitute for supporting facts. I've just been trying to show that income has declined for many Americans, which calls into question of the wealth generating power of trickle down for the bottom half of society.

Some taxation is necessary. Should we abolish all business taxes and regulations in exchange for jobs? Businesses are part of this society and should contribute to it. Many fortune 500 companies pay no taxes at all but enjoy the benefits of operating in this country. Is that right or reasonable?

And after all of our pandering to business (tax abatements, etc) to keep them here, they still leave.

I'm still waiting on evidence that income has risen for the bottom segment of society.

cthulu23

I'm not sure what that means, but I bet that you have a suggestion.

onetime2

Funny I don't seem to recall saying that they were equal partners or that they owned significant levels of stock. Obviously the wealthy will own more stock than the not so wealthy. Just because they don't own a majority of the stock it does not mean they don't benefit from owning stocks or homes, or anything else.

There is no reason for the bottom 40% to suddenly be granted equal levels of wealth. Anyone who looks at it this way will never see any evidence of improvement. Pointing to the fact that there are wealthy people who own lots of stocks has nothing to do with the argument you put forth about real wages declining over the last 30 years.

You want evidence of improvement? How about the fact that the vast majority of people have jobs? The rapid influx of workers over the period you pointed to earlier has been absorbed by the economy and that results in lower wages for all. That very fact is missed in the real wage analysis.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

And I'm still waiting for yours that shows it's declined. I've outlined why real wages is a poor indicator but you only point to the fact that the "rich" own the most stock in defense of it.

Who do you think gets overtime more often the "poor" or the "rich"?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

wonderwench

Here is is: Due to production efficiencies, the relative costs of necessities (food, clothing and shelter) have declined dramatically. Instead of enabling families to save this money and build some wealth for the future, the every expanding and hungry government Hydra has consumed the savings.

Rather than blaming The Rich, your energies would be better spent understanding the negative impact this unchecked government consumption has had upon working and middle class Americans.

The Rich in any era, will have the resources to protect themselves from government, except in extreme violent revolutions - one of the reasons it is Good To Be Rich.

cthulu23

No one suggested that the bottom 40% should be granted equal levels of wealth...I was using the growing income disparity as an example of how trickle down has failed it's promises to lift all boats. You can accuse me of this if it makes youi feel better, though.

There have not been "lower wages for all." In fact, many people have been making money hand over fist.

cthulu23

OK, so let's scale the governement back...we still have declining wages and wealth concentration. Our economic policies have been to the advantage of the wealthiest 1% of this society. Middle class tax cuts do not change that fact.

wonderwench

Take home pay, my friend, take home pay.

Would you rather have net pay of 90% on $40,000 or 60% of $50,000?

onetime2

Whatever. You pointed to the levels of stock ownership by income group in response to my pointing out that there are other drivers of wealth. Nowhere does that dispute that the poor and rich alike have access to stocks and benefit from the gains in the stock market. You then claim in the next breath that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer while only pointing to "real wages" as evidence. Since "real wages" does not capture overtime worked (and tips, pay for vacations, holidays, and non production bonuses) you are relying on an indicator which by its very nature ineffectively captures income for the group you are focused on.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

roachboy

there is no misunderstanding in my use of the term equality.
sorry.
think about what you are saying...think about the extent to which, for example, your understanding of poverty and what it means is a version of one of reagans most ethically indefensable statements, the one concerning the "welfare queens"?

it is obvious that a significant problem in the exchanges across this whole thread is that there is no agreement whatsoever on the frame of reference, so it is nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion---what one side excludes in order to start their chain of deductions is not excluded by the other. and both sides operate entirely within their respective frame of reference--whenever it comes down to a question about the frame of reference, the conservative folk in this thread in particular do not react--it is as if they cannot relativize their framework--or they cannot explain or defend how the variables they work with or defined.

why is that?

and is there any way to get us all (myself included obviously) to step back a second and see if by opening up the frames of reference to debate that we might be able to deepen the conversation?

otherwise it will continue as it is--an example of why people operating in different ideological positions--and these are ideological questions, political questions, that are at stake in how one is understanding what is and is not relevant in the matters being discussed--why different ideological positions cannot talk coherently to each other.

and might it be possible when it comes to throwing around data that one also at least note where the source is politically? over the past 20 years, the network of right thinktanks have specialized in producing pseudo-proof for their position--the reason it is pseudo-proof is because of the way the data is analyzed, what is included, what is excluded--the problems star t **before** the deductions, which may in themselves be formally correct.

and an aside: my suspicion has long been that people operating in a more neoclassical frame cannot or will not move to this level of conversation either because (a) they cannot do it--in which case what prompts you to accept the frame in the first place? or (b) are unwilling because they suspect that in a conceptually oriented debate, they could not defend themselves.

but i would be really pleased to find myself in a conversation that proved me wrong about this assumption.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

The other fallacy is that the economic pie is static. A smaller piece of a much larger pie is not a bad portion. Our efforts would be better spent on ensuring healthy economic growth which benefits society in general. The only group with a vested interested in class warfare is the career politicians/bureaucrats. By pitching Rich against Poor, they distract the voting and taxpaying population from the large cut they extract for themselves.

wonderwench

I can make the same claim regarding those who ignore the abundance of documentation left by the Framers which supports the notion of equality under the law and individual liberty which recognizes difference of condition.

Please provide evidence that the original concept of equality was mean to entail equal economic circumstances.

cthulu23

That still doesn't address the growing income gap.

wonderwench

Why is an income gap bad is the pie is growing and everyone benefits?

cthulu23

OK, so "real wages" may not be a perfect economic indicator. That still does nothing to disprove the premise that wages are declining for median families. You can look at census data that states the same thing.

Access to stocks is largely a measure of wealth...if one does not have wealth, one does not have much stock.

cthulu23

Not everyone is benefiting from the "growing pie." That's the entire thrust of my argument.