An alarming snapshot of long-term economic trends
Companion charts, drawn with data compiled by the St. Louis Federal Reserve and put together by Henry Blodget of Business Insider:
First, after-tax corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product:
Second, employee wages and salaries as a share of gross domestic product:
You can draw a variety of lessons and conclusions from such charts. But I’ll start with three:
1.) The notion that corporations are overtaxed and overregulated and can’t turn a profit is simply absurd. The whines of victimization from our titans of business have no basis in reality.
2.) The Great Recession, as tough as it is, does not account for the trends, which have occurred over several decades.
3.) You could argue that if the share of GDP devoted to wages and salaries has fallen to a record low, it’s because American workers have grown lazy and stupid. Given that the two charts change right around the time of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, you could also argue that it is somehow being driven by changes in government policy.
I think both interpretations in Point 3 are wrong. The charts document a profound, permanent and probably ongoing shift of bargaining power from the employee to the employer, a shift that has been driven largely by synergies between technology and globalization, with government policies playing a minor role at best.
The question is what, if anything, we do about it.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
236 comments Add your comment
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
9:24 am
“Just curious – any conservatives want to share with me why they worship the wealthy so much?”
I call it the “If I defend Massa’, Massa’ will protect me” syndrome
Steve
June 25th, 2012
9:26 am
Seriously, the trends are really disturbing here. It’s called “plutocracy.”
USMC
June 25th, 2012
9:26 am
“People raised on neo-con propaganda will never recognize this reality.”–Gerald
I can agree with part of your statement, I am not sure you really know what a neo-con is. Not that it matters, I am not a neo-con, whatever that is.
Smoke&Mirrors
June 25th, 2012
9:26 am
So we keep increasing corporate profits – that’s nice. So the supply siders would say then the corporations (job creators) hire folks to make more stuff. So let’s assume they do. So they are off making more stuff, and hiring a few more people (hopefully domestic, not overseas!)
Those in the consuming group (what’s left of the middle class) are supposed to consume that stuff, so it’s sent out on the market. But there aren’t many of them left. A few got jobs from the corporations, but not many, because their productivity is unrealistically high (by being forced to work 60 hours per week!)
Unfortunately, via chart #2, that consuming group doesn’t have much disposable income any more so they can’t buy the stuff. That pot of cash has been drying up for years.
So then, the job creators start cutting production, laying off folks and going out of business, further reducing demand, and ultimately corporate profits.
And the ship sinks.
uh oh
We need another solution – and one that smart folks, not our politicians, come up with. (and you need to fix the demand side too!)
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 25th, 2012
9:26 am
Normal – 9:22 – word!
Gordon
June 25th, 2012
9:27 am
I believe one of the major factors is a growing gulf between the skills our economy needs and the skills the American workforce has. The economy is more global, especially for high-skill information type jobs, so the American worker is now competing with workers from other countries with greater skills who work harder and for less. Companies that don’t take advantage of that cannot compete.
Technology has also led to greater effienciency. Fewer workers are needed.
The average American worker cannot keep up with the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed.
USMC
June 25th, 2012
9:28 am
The Amateur…
‘Little America’: Infighting on Obama team squandered chance for peace in Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/little-america-infighting-on-obama-team-squandered-chance-for-peace-in-afghanistan/2012/06/24/gJQAbQMB0V_print.html
EJ Moosa
June 25th, 2012
9:29 am
“Just curious – any conservatives want to share with me why they worship the wealthy so much?”
When you refer to wealth, you are referring to accumulated income that has been re-invested into the economic environment.
So where would any business be if there was no wealth to invest into them and get them started?
What mechanism do you think exists, outside of wealth, for the startup and growth of businesses?
What do you think CALPERS is, outside of the accummulated wealth of their members, that has been invested? Are you opposed to that sort of wealth as well?
Yes we live in a tainted era, where the Federal Reserve has printed money that was not accumulated earnings(wealth) for investment by the government. That will not go on much longer.
A better question is why do liberals hate the wealthy so much, when without their capital investment, there would be no economic growth?
JamVet
June 25th, 2012
9:30 am
I’ve read several very juvenile and shameful comments from the fake conservative lovers of the status quo here.
Forty years on and you guppies still have yet to wake up to the hard cold realities.
Between 2007 and 2010, the American working class lost 40% of all of their assets.
For the first time in US history there are now more working poor Americans who live in the suburbs than in the cities. Among them millions of formerly middle class families who are accessing safety net services for the very first time. People who were recently laid off and had their insurance ran out in no time flat. Now they are the often Republican face of food stamps and not being able to feed their kids on their own.
YOUR neighbors and your families.
And you neocons act like NOTHING is wrong in this country.
WTF is the matter with you?
Gerald
June 25th, 2012
9:33 am
USMC:
Don’t know what a neo-con is? Neo-conservatism is the dominant ideology of the powerbrokers Republican Party and the conservative movement. Neo-liberalism is the dominant ideology of the powerbrokers of Democratic Party and the liberal/progressive movement. (Note I said powerbrokers, not rank and file). Neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism are two competing views of implementing the same basic worldview, which is called the neo-classical synthesis. Both neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism are significant departures from traditional conservative and liberal economic, social, and foreign policy ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_synthesis
USMC
June 25th, 2012
9:33 am
Ed Norton…errr…Joe Biden, In Leaked Memo, Told Obama Afghanistan Plan Flawed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/joe-biden-obama-afghanistan_n_1623666.html
Steve
June 25th, 2012
9:33 am
Moosa – I make good money. I don’t hate the wealthy. But it’s very obvious that something is wrong with a system where the wealthy are gaining in power and the economy continues to tank, the ranks of the poor are swelling, and the middle class is shrinking.
So, when pointing out this obvious problem, we “hate” the wealthy? Really?
Why do you hate everyone but the very wealthy?
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 25th, 2012
9:33 am
What you should be arguing is that we need to grow GDP to a larger size because that would mean more people earning more wages
American middle class consumers have driven GDP for decades. The chart shows our ability to spend money is declining.
How do you raise GDP without consumers?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
9:34 am
Paul — “Oh, and USMC: It’s not about which segments are productive. The data do not show that. They show which group has seen its earnings, relative to GDP, go up and which group has seen its earnings go down. It most definitely does NOT show it’s because one group is more ‘productive.”
I suspect that USMC might associate the two as being the same, but I certainly can’t speak for him.
That said, conservative wage rhetoric certainly centers around the notion that one gets what one deserves, so the wealthy (whether they worked themselves into wealth, inherited it or simply played the financial markets) *deserve* their wealth, and the poor (whether they were unable to access higher education or perhaps got sick or suffered financial reverses) “deserve* their penury.
One wonders if USMC thinks that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette *deserved* the ends to which they came.
TaxPayer
June 25th, 2012
9:34 am
• S&P 500 CEOs last year collected $10.8 million in average compensation, a total that includes the value of new stock and options grants awarded during the year. This $10.8 million represented a 27.8 percent compensation increase over 2009.
• The gap between CEO and average U.S. worker pay rose from 263-to-1 in 2009 to 325-to-1 last year.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
9:34 am
German Spank Down!
hmm… where have I heard such conservative sentiments before…
That year, Charles was asked by the American military attaché in Berlin to report on the state of Germany’s military aviation program. While in Germany, Charles and Anne attended the Summer Olympic games as the special guests of Field Marshal Hermann Goering, the head of the German military air force, the Luftwaffe. Lindbergh toured German factories, took the controls of state-of-the-art bombers, and noted the multiplying airfields.
He visited Germany twice during the next two years. With each visit, he became more impressed with the German military and the German people. He was soon convinced that no other power in Europe could stand up to Germany in the event of war. “The organized vitality of Germany was what most impressed me: the unceasing activity of the people, and the convinced dictatorial direction to create the new factories, airfields, and research laboratories…,” Lindbergh recalled in “Autobiography of Values.” His wife drew similar conclusions. “…I have never in my life been so conscious of such a directed force. It is thrilling when seen manifested in the energy, pride, and morale of the people–especially the young people,” she wrote in “The Flower and the Nettle.” By 1938, the Lindberghs were making plans to move to Berlin.
At least Charles could claim mental distress over the murder of his son. What’s your excuse for abandoning your country, Fresh Prince?
USMC
June 25th, 2012
9:34 am
Gerald, thanks for your definition of Neo-con. It was imformative.
Drudge
June 25th, 2012
9:35 am
I don’t know where this fits in, but I found it interesting – American workers are the highest paid in the world. I wonder if the % of income to GDP is really a measure of economic welfare, or just a statement of economic growth and wages not keeping pace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
Food for thought, either way, with tuition and cost of living rising, I wish this trend was not indeed true. But alas, it is.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
9:37 am
Off topic…but..once a Marine…
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/06/marine-navy-priest-charges-chaplain-twentynine-palms-062212w/
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
9:37 am
“Drudge” @ 9.35, I think you want to be looking at median wages for useful info, not averages.
USMC
June 25th, 2012
9:37 am
“One wonders if USMC thinks that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette *deserved* the ends to which they came.”–Joe Hussein Omama
You gotta love JOE, I think he has just taken his meds for the morning.
Nice Delusion; he deserves it though, he is retired and should enjoy himself.
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 25th, 2012
9:38 am
Gerald, I would in no way call neoliberalism a liberal anything. From Wikipedia:
Neoliberalism is a political movement advocating economic liberalizations, free trade, and open markets[1]. Neoliberalism supports privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of markets, and promotion of the private sector’s role in society.
That is Milton Friedman laissez-faire markets. Those are ALL conservative ideals.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
9:40 am
USMC — “You gotta love JOE, I think he has just taken his meds for the morning.
Nice Delusion; he deserves it though, he is retired and should enjoy himself.”
No delusion, USMC, just a couple of really simple questions for you.
Did Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette *deserve* their wealth and luxury?
And did they *deserve* the ends to which they came?
Strap on a pair, man up and answer the questions, Marine.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
9:40 am
Finn, it’s probably difficult for some to comprehend that “Liberal” didn’t always mean “stuff I don’t happen to like.”
TaxPayer
June 25th, 2012
9:41 am
One wonders if USMC thinks that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette *deserved* the ends to which they came.
If they were still alive, USMC could be eating cake.
(Note how the smile just makes that post.)
And that one.
Oh NO!
Whew!
That was a close one.
GT
June 25th, 2012
9:41 am
Part of the conservative salvation is to go global. They are a dying breed here but almost like English imperialism they have a future colonizing the world. England did this for being an island, limited natural resources and American has done it for labor, a thirst it has had since America was colonized.
Time will balance this, China is faulty, as is most cheap labor. If it gets fixed the labor cost go up and we are competing on a level field. They are copiers not creators in those countries. Their imagination is the US.
Let the conservative go. Find a way that their money doesn’t prolong this stay. No more superpacs with foreign interest. Cut off the life supply from the US and let the creative and young of our country drive the bus. A man wants to pay taxes in Ireland he will in our minds be Irish and die Irish or Chinese or what ever haven he finds. His citizenship goes where his money goes and only dues paying members get to operate and access to the market and creativity here.
I would trade old” has beens” creative minds for new bright minds coming into our country. Nothing stays the same for longer than six months, in this world any more. If we are not changing and creating we fall behind. It will always be left to the young and hungry. Look at the difference in our parties here. Romney has only criticism of Obama, no ideas of his own. Obama moved ahead on the most pressing problem of our times health care. Obama opens the borders for the new the energized, Romney wishes to close that avenue so the tired and lazy are not challenged. Obama saved manufacturing jobs in the auto industry, Bush saved jobs on Wall Street that create nothing. A man in this time with a good idea in alternative energy or health should be able to find the money with or without Wall Street. In many cases Wall Street and its power blocks these people being discovered backing their members with money and sponsorship. Weed the top and the grassroots will grow. Bring back leadership to the country.
Gerald
June 25th, 2012
9:42 am
Finn McCool:
And what part of that did the Hillary Clinton/Al Gore New Democrats NOT support? Why else did the Clinton team keep so many holdovers from the H. W. Bush economic team, including Alan Greenspan? The neo-liberals in the Democratic Party merely support somewhat more regulations and somewhat more social programs than the neo-conservatives in the GOP do.
mm
June 25th, 2012
9:44 am
Let’s watch the cons cheer for the race to the bottom in worker pay. They don’t want to be like Greece. They just want to be like China.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
9:44 am
When you have an uppity uberclass, you get up ALEC writing your laws. When you get ALEC writing your laws, you have wildfires in Utah.
Don’t have an uppity uberclass.
EJ Moosa
June 25th, 2012
9:44 am
Steve,
And yet you saying we “worship” the wealthy?
Really?
Sorry if you are hung up on the words. You need capital to grow an economy. That capital comes from income, which then accumulates into wealth and is reinvested.
So when there is a constant assault on the income of the “wealthy”, those are the future dollars that provides the capital for future economic expansion.
Charts like Bookman are distorted for a reason. What’s the average profits for the last five years for corporations?
That’s a pretty sharp downturn in his chart? Did corporations get to have less capital investment during that period to earn those sharply lower profits?
Of course not. Because the capital investment is not a one or two year event. It’s long term.
How do you propose we get more capital investment in the US without higher levels of profits by US companies?
Because that’s what leads to new products, new industries and jobs.
Grasshopper
June 25th, 2012
9:44 am
It’s interesting to note how closely Jay’s second chart (employee wages and salaries as a share of gross domestic product) corresponds to the rate of births to unmarried women.
Societal issues play a huge role in this decline as well.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
9:45 am
“Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
9:07 am
Thanks. That makes a difference.
LinkReport this comment”
It sure does. It means it’s an apples to oranges comparison.
Good catch peadawg.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
9:45 am
“you get up ALEC?”
sheesh. I gotta learn how to proof read…
Paul
June 25th, 2012
9:46 am
Joe Hussein Mama
That’s doubly interesting about one ‘gets’ (earns?) what one deserves when one considers USMC came from a system that, once you got promoted to a certain rank, there was no pay differentiation between him and the thousands of others in that rank. No matter how much better you may have performed relative to your peers, you pay did not change. And… there were by-law limits on the spread of earnings between the ranks.
Not trying to prerempt a response, it’s not directed just at USMC, but it’s also notable that for those who sign their monikers indicating some affiliation with a particular military specialty, an often-heard response to any such view about the service is “but that’s different…”
USMC
June 25th, 2012
9:48 am
“Did Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette *deserve* their wealth and luxury?”–Joe Osama Obama
Out in “Left” field… need I say more?
“Strap on a pair, man up and answer the questions, Marine.”–Joe gain
Are you kidding, Joe? “strap on a pair” … “man up”… bless your heart, buddy.
Enjoy your retirement.
Jay
June 25th, 2012
9:48 am
Grasshopper, there is no logical linkage whatsoever.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
9:48 am
EJ Moosa — “Sorry if you are hung up on the words. You need capital to grow an economy. That capital comes from income, which then accumulates into wealth and is reinvested. So when there is a constant assault on the income of the “wealthy”, those are the future dollars that provides the capital for future economic expansion.”
We’ve pretty clearly seen, over the last ten years, that that’s simply not true. Far from being under “assault,” the wealthy have seen their income increase significantly, yet economic expansion is moribund.
“Charts like Bookman are distorted for a reason. What’s the average profits for the last five years for corporations? ”
Where, precisely, do you think the distortion(s) is(are)?
“How do you propose we get more capital investment in the US without higher levels of profits by US companies? Because that’s what leads to new products, new industries and jobs.”
Again, given the last ten years, Americans are increasingly unwilling to hear that.
Steve
June 25th, 2012
9:49 am
Moosa, remember when the wealthy were taxed at 90% under Ike, and the middle class was booming? Well, our economy was booming too.
YOU, Sir, have been suckered into the greatest lie in the 20th century which started under the Reagan era. Trickle down economics. What a bunch of crap!
USMC
June 25th, 2012
9:50 am
“(Note how the smile just makes that post.)”–The Angry and Unproductive
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
9:50 am
11% profits
Oooooo scary. Those guys are just making way too much
Sarc
Truth
June 25th, 2012
9:50 am
One could state that Chart 2 is intuitive once you understand that the level of active employment in the US is now less than 60%, and has been on a downward trend since the early 1990’s.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
9:50 am
USMC — “Out in “Left” field… need I say more?”
Not at all. I recognize that you’re simply not equal to the task. Yet your silence speaks volumes.
“Are you kidding, Joe? “strap on a pair” … “man up”… bless your heart, buddy. Enjoy your retirement.”
Didn’t think you would. That’s why I asked you those questions.
PWNED.
Don't Tread
June 25th, 2012
9:52 am
Tax them at 100%. Seize their bank accounts too. That’ll fix it.
Damned evil rich.
JohnnyReb
June 25th, 2012
9:52 am
“Between 2007 and 2010, the American working class lost 40% of all of their assets.”
Almost all of that is due to the housing market collapse. Every homeowner was affected, even the wealthy. The difference is, most middle class assests are house and car whereas the more affluent have other investments.
This has nothing to do with wages.
We have grown into a world market. A worker no longer competes just with Joe down the street for a job. He is competing with all the world, in some cases.
Gordon
June 25th, 2012
9:53 am
No one ever paid 90% in taxes. That may have been the rate for top earners, but that is not what was paid by anyone. Revenue as a percentage of GDP has remained fairly constant (between 15 and 20 percent) for decades.
godless heathen
June 25th, 2012
9:54 am
Here’s a graph to compare and contrast. During the same period covered by Jay’s graph, govt spending vs gdp has increased from about 20% to 40%. Doubled. After tax corporate profits have increased about 2%. So increasing the size of government appears to have not helped.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Spending%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP
USMC
June 25th, 2012
9:54 am
“Didn’t think you would. That’s why I asked you those questions.”
As long as it strokes your tiny ego and makes you feel good, Joe. I’m okay with it.
TaxPayer
June 25th, 2012
9:55 am
CEO to worker pay ratio:
2007: 344-to-1
2008: 299-to-1
2009: 263-to-1
2010: 325-to-1
TaxPayer
June 25th, 2012
9:57 am
The Angry and Unproductive
Yet you think that smile makes you less angry and less unproductive. Okay, that deserves a smile.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
9:57 am
Tax them at 100%. Seize their bank accounts too. That’ll fix it.
Alternatively, propose that they pay a measly 3-5% or so higher an income tax, as part of incremental measures to get revenue and spending under some sort of sustainable direction, and get called a “socialist” for doing so.
Gordon
June 25th, 2012
9:58 am
Taxpayer,
How much more do you think those workers would have made if the CEO’s salary was zero? I’m not saying some CEO’s aren’t grossly overpaid, but in the big picture their compensation does not affect the salaries of average workers. That’s not the problem.
Erwin's cat
June 25th, 2012
9:59 am
“The question is what, if anything, we do about it.”
What does one have to do with the other?
real john
June 25th, 2012
9:59 am
Jay:
I’m not sure what the answer is here…many moving parts.
I think you have a lot of very overpaid people (most athletes, actors, and CEO’s). However, I also think you have a lot of jobs where the employee really isn’t providing that much benefit to employer. Basically if you aren’t directly involved in sales, design, or manufacturing, or building of a product, your job is probably more of a supportive role. Now that doesn’t mean the job isn’t useful; it just means its harder to define what an adequate compensation is.
Bottom line is I know plenty of people who don’t really work very hard and high pretty high paying jobs. You see this a lot with big companies where people have stuck around for a long time. Also in many government agencies the same is true. On the opposite side, I know a lot of people busting their tails who are barely getting by. Its a tricky slope. Unfortunately many of the jobs being created our low skill jobs…the jobs that require advanced degrees …Engineering, medicine, research, the pay is still rising.
Its a very tough problem to solve
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
10:00 am
J. Reb — “Almost all of that is due to the housing market collapse. Every homeowner was affected, even the wealthy. The difference is, most middle class assests are house and car whereas the more affluent have other investments.”
And yet look who got bailed out.
“This has nothing to do with wages.”
Of course it does. Where do you think middle- and lower-class workers were making the majority of their investments? In their HOMES.
“We have grown into a world market. A worker no longer competes just with Joe down the street for a job. He is competing with all the world, in some cases.”
Frankly, I don’t buy the global-competition-for-wages bulldada. I’ve seen too many companies do a perfunctory job search for a purple unicorn, KNOWING they’re not going to find one, just so they can go back to the State Department and get authorization for an H1B worker — whose actual job duties bear no resemblance whatsoever to the original description. Not only that, but the job they *really* wanted to fill would have been easily fillable by an American — if they had just been willing to pay market rates.
EJ Moosa
June 25th, 2012
10:00 am
The profits are distorted after the recession because for many businesses they had losses rolling forward from previous years.
Average the profits for the last 4 years, and they are not that spectacular, which would explain why we are not adding that many jobs.
And that corporate profit growth has flattened dramatically, We are now below 5% year over year growth, and that is not enough to stimulate expansion or hiring.
And when rates were at 90%, you could even deduct credit card interest, That’s not apples to apples.
At some point you have to go back to fundamental economics. But it’s the harder way, without a lot of shortcuts.
Pretty much every approach the government has done over the last 40 years are shortcuts to get someone something they had not yet earned.
And everytime we do that, it has backfired.
Minimum wage increase—fewer minimum wage jobs.
Lower loan requirements- Housing bust.
Lower student loan rates: Higher tuitions and more student debt.
The more things do not turn out the way they theorize, the more they scratch their heads, and try again.
Economic shortcuts do not work in the long run. But because government rewards failure, we refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.
Our total debt, however, is a stark reminder. It’s not the sign of success, it indicates failure.
USMC
June 25th, 2012
10:00 am
“Yet you think that smile makes you less angry and less unproductive. Okay, that deserves a smile.”
Okay, it is certainly a good start and funny. Touche!
Gerald
June 25th, 2012
10:00 am
EJ Moosa:
Your problem is that you are working on a “wealth accumulation/investment/economic growth/job creation” paradigm that hasn’t existed since the 1990s at the very latest, and possibly since the early 80s.
1. Wealthy people no longer need to invest in industry – even the service industry – to get a return. They can get an equal or higher return by investing in futures and other transactions. The days of “building a better mousetrap” are long over. Wealthy people can grow and invest their fortunes without creating a single job. They can even grow their fortunes by destroying jobs.
2. Even if they do create jobs, it is increasingly unlikely that those jobs will be in America. They will be in India, China, Mexico, Brazil, etc. where there is an increasing amount of infrastructure and semi-skilled labor but very low wages.
Add the two up and there is no incentive for the wealthy to create American jobs.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
10:01 am
How much more do you think those workers would have made if the CEO’s salary was zero? I’m not saying some CEO’s aren’t grossly overpaid, but in the big picture their compensation does not affect the salaries of average workers. That’s not the problem.
Do you (and others) not get that this phenomenon might not at least be symptomatic of a troubling concentration of wealth and power?
And that stuff like, oh, a clearly bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court is only making things worse?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
10:01 am
USMC — “As long as it strokes your tiny ego and makes you feel good, Joe. I’m okay with it.”
Oh, Punkin, you must have yourself confused with a *real* challenge. I don’t even expect you to put up a fight any more when I call you on your nonsense.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
10:02 am
most athletes, actors, and CEO’s
You might want to compare actual earnings of athletes and actors before putting them in the same galaxy as CEOs.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
10:04 am
EJ Moosa — “Minimum wage increase—fewer minimum wage jobs.”
This claim gets trotted out a lot, but there’s no hard, unambiguous evidence that this actually happens.
I recognize that *in theory* it should work that way, but economists haven’t been able to empirically demonstrate it, let alone quantify the anticipated effect from raising or lowering the MW.
Steve
June 25th, 2012
10:05 am
You can rationalize away about how rich do or don’t pay taxes, but it’s clear that we, as a country, prosper when the middle class is strong. We are not in that situation now. The wealthy are stronger and are funneling jobs out of the country, yet you brain-dead ultra right wingers vote lock step with the wealthy who control your party, who continue to manipulate you to vote for THEIR interests, not yours. You have been punked.
USMC
June 25th, 2012
10:05 am
“Alternatively, propose that they pay a measly 3-5% or so higher an income tax, as part of incremental measures to get revenue and spending under some sort of sustainable direction, and get called a “socialist” for doing so.”
-Has obviously never run a successful business or worked in the real world, but is a real Super Star Hall Monitor/Teacher’s Pet in the world of Jay’s Blogosphere.
josef
June 25th, 2012
10:06 am
Also explain how this “union-based education system” drives these trends, given that education performance is quite often much higher in states with strong teacher unions, and much weaker in states such as Georgia without unions.
IMAM:
You’re being somewhat disingenuous with this. The presence or absence of unions is not the issue. Historical factors relative to the populations of those states are much more at issue in analysis. You don’t go through 250 years of slavery, 75 years of enforced segregation, the loss of an entire generation of the educated males and 150 years of occupation and economic policies aimed at keeping the local population in a submissive position without bringing about a wide gap between the populations of those areas with those which have no such history.
You might want to some charts and graphs on that sometime. Seriously.
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
10:09 am
“150 years of occupation and economic policies aimed at keeping the local population in a submissive position without bringing about a wide gap between the populations of those areas with those which have no such history”
And has it never occured to you that a friendlier atmosphere towards unions might have gone a long way to mitigate those circumstances? You can’t really blame “occupation” for the populations rejection of most unions.
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
10:11 am
The SC has ruled on the juvenile justice case. One case down.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
10:11 am
Has obviously never run a successful business or worked in the real world,
WTF are you on about now, USMC?
Unlike you, I have never had a government-paid gig. I have always worked in the private sector and–hey, come to think of it, for awhile, I actually supported myself and my family through freelance/consulting work. By most folks’ yardsticks, that’d be “running a successful business”, actually, even though that’s not what I called it, because that’s not really what I wanted to be doing with my skill set.
Keep running your mouth. I’ll keep on embarrassing you with examples of when you’ve run away from honest inquiries I’ve made.
(and to the weak-ass point you were trying to address: I’ve been on record for years now as supporting a return to the Clinton-era tax rates which, yes, would include a nontrivial increase in my own income taxes.)
Thomas Heyward Jr.
June 25th, 2012
10:13 am
“The question is what, if anything, we do about it. ”
.
Nullify Washington.
.
Vote Ron Paul.
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
10:13 am
“House Speaker John Boehnber has said if the law is not completely thrown out Republicans will move quickly to repeal whatever is left of it.”
I don’t get this. There is some good stuff in the Obamacare bill like people can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions and whatnot.
josef
June 25th, 2012
10:14 am
Doggone
I would refer you to Cash’s “Mind of the South” and his analysis of the unions and the role of the northern capitalists in squashing them. The “unfriendly atmosphere” was the product of the Carpetbag-Scalawag elite of that occupation.
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
10:14 am
“The wealthy are stronger and are funneling jobs out of the country, yet you brain-dead ultra right wingers vote lock step with the wealthy who control your party”
Yeah, who controls YOUR party…the Kennedys? George Soros? John Edwards? John Kerry? Hollywood/actors/actresses?
LMAO
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
10:14 am
“I don’t get this”
You’re not supposed to take him seriously. He knows, and we know, there’s NO WAY they’re going to get it repealed if the court rules in favor. It’s just a sop thrown out to the rabid conservatives who will THINK something will be done…even thought it won’t.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
10:15 am
I don’t get this.
I can help you. Step one: Note whether or not the House Speaker’s lips are moving…
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 25th, 2012
10:15 am
If running a business is so damn easy go ahead and start your own.
Jay
June 25th, 2012
10:16 am
Josef, we agree.
Somebody blamed teacher unions for the declining percentage of GDP going to wages and salaries, and I said that’s nonsense.
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
10:16 am
“I would refer you to Cash’s “Mind of the South” and his analysis of the unions and the role of the northern capitalists in squashing them”
If the people want unions they will get them. I refer YOU to the miners in West Virginia and the HELL they were put throught to get unions. Sure the “captialists” want to squash them – hasn’t recent history taught you anything? But if the workers want them, they’ll get them. If they don’t, they won’t…and then they’ll complain because they aren’t doing as well as more union friendly areas.
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
10:17 am
“Do you (and others) not get that this phenomenon might not at least be symptomatic of a troubling concentration of wealth and power?”
I view government as a troubling concentration of wealth and power. Next question?
TaxPayer
June 25th, 2012
10:17 am
Gordon,
What do you think any CEO does that is worth an average of 10 million per year?
Steve
June 25th, 2012
10:18 am
Ben, show me how wealthy Dems have pushed through anti union, anti middle class, and pro tax cuts on the wealthy legislation.
I’m waiting.
(crickets chirping)
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
10:19 am
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/?hpt=hp_t1
Arizona case has been ruled on.
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
10:19 am
“There is some good stuff in the Obamacare bill like people can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions and whatnot.”
If people don’t have to buy insurance until they get sick, and the insurance companies have to take them, the insurance companies will all be out of business in, like, 6 months….which is what the libs want….
Steve
June 25th, 2012
10:20 am
Ben the absurd is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack
So, you mean how the military industrial complex (govt) has a disturbing amount of money and power? I agree.
Jay
June 25th, 2012
10:20 am
No health-care decision from the Supremes today; a lot of the Arizona immigration law is thrown out.
Steve
June 25th, 2012
10:21 am
If people don’t buy insurance until they are sick, the costs of insurance will continue to skyrocket to the point where the insurance industry will collapse.
See how that works?
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 25th, 2012
10:21 am
“I view government as a troubling concentration of wealth and power. Next question?”
I don’t agree with most of what you write but you hit that one out the park.
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
10:21 am
Steve, show me what anti-middle class policies the Republicans have pushed through.
I’m waiting.
(crickets chirping)
Oscar
June 25th, 2012
10:21 am
One interpretation might be that with increasing technology, there are fewer employees needed to produce products.
that results in a decline in the number of emplohyees and reduced overall amount of saleries compared to revenues.
Another interpretation or theorty would be that the decrease in unions had decreaded the power of employees to demand highter wages for line workers and lower compensation for company officers.
I think both contribute.
Without uniions employees are left wih their elected representatives to protect and speak up for them in passage of laws. That has not worked so well so far. But it might, with increased awareness for the trends and present reality.
That Black Guy,
June 25th, 2012
10:22 am
Blame democrats/republicans of course.
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
10:22 am
“No health-care decision from the Supremes today”
Where’d you hear that? You got someone on the inside, Jay?
Steve
June 25th, 2012
10:22 am
Ben, you kill me. Use the googles. What do you think tax cuts on the wealthy and anti-union legislation do?
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
June 25th, 2012
10:22 am
Jay,
Sorry about delay I had to go get my eyes examined…perhaps that will help with my blogging prowness….
Entitlements IMO create low expectations that are generally not overcome and become family tradition. The folks who benefit the most from entitlements should rise up and turn on Democrats who keep these folks in a sorry state. Look no further than Detroit.
The teacher unions traditionally maintain a cirriculum and agenda the best serves the interest of the teachers instead of students.
the cat
June 25th, 2012
10:22 am
Jay-how does one know when the Supremes ruling will be or how do you know it will not be today?
Steve
June 25th, 2012
10:23 am
Ben, what do you think tax cuts on the wealthy and gutting spending on unemployment, medicare, and social security mean and do?
Paul
June 25th, 2012
10:23 am
Gordon
“How much more do you think those workers would have made if the CEO’s salary was zero? I’m not saying some CEO’s aren’t grossly overpaid, but in the big picture their compensation does not affect the salaries of average workers.”
On one of the previous threads, when the topic was the specific salaries of some Fortune 500 CEOs, it was noted that if they’d reduce their comp packages down to several tens of millions it would equal 5-10 percent of employee salary, depending on the pay level under consideration.
I don’t think there’s many middle-class folks who would consider that insignificant.
EJ Moosa
“Average the profits for the last 4 years, and they are not that spectacular, which would explain why we are not adding that many jobs”
But referring back to the top chart, the long-term trend is still up. Without a lot of slope to the line.
josef
June 25th, 2012
10:24 am
IMAM
I understand your point, and I do agree with it and what prompted it. I just think we in Georgia (and the rest of the South) need to step back and take a closer look at what has produced the pretty pass we find ourselves in vis a vis education.
DOGGONE
You are missing the point. The question of the unions has to do with the reeducation process that the populations of these states went through. You have to educate those populations as to the benefits of the union. It’s a matter of propaganda. Secondly, you still miss the point of Cash’s analysis of why the union movement, which took off pretty strongly initially, was ultimately squashed.
Cosby
June 25th, 2012
10:25 am
Wonder what the true numbers are. With Jay and the rest of the liberals socialist, you get part of the picture. I do not have time to dig into it, but I would bet there is further numbers that may explain this a lot better…but then we could not blame Bush, the right, the TEA party, the conservatives, Capitalism..well you get the picture. But just think, if Jay and all his buddies were around when Henry Ford started mass producing the Ford at reasonable pricing, they would have balked because it would have put blacksmith’s out of business..then we would all be riding horses!!!
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
10:25 am
Bummer on the Arizona illegal-immigration bill ruling.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
10:27 am
Gerald
“Wealthy people no longer need to invest in industry – even the service industry – to get a return. They can get an equal or higher return by investing in futures and other transactions. The days of “building a better mousetrap” are long over. Wealthy people can grow and invest their fortunes without creating a single job. They can even grow their fortunes by destroying jobs.”
That’s an excellent point. I’d guess that many very wealthy people really don’t have much awareness of how their money managers’ investment strategies are affecting the economy. The focus is on the portfolio and how it’s doing.
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
10:27 am
Steve has posied a hypothesis…that conservatives are “brain dead.” Let’s test that hypothessi, shall we?
HEALTH CARE
Conservatives- prefer to choose their own plans, doctors, and insurers, and be responsible for theor own care.
Liberals – gee, that’s too hard, I’ll just depend on government and make the rich pay for it.
RETIREMENT SAVINGS
Conservatives – We can save an invest our own money, managing risk vs return, and set our own goals. we are responsible for ourselves.
Liberals – Wow, that is just too darn hard, I’m gonna depend on government and make the rich pay for it.
EDUCATION
Conservatives – I can choose from among many options for my child, and I think there are many choices more suited to my child than our miserably failign public schools.
Liberals – I might pick a crappy school, I’ll just entrust my child to government.
Steve, so far your hypothesis ain’t looking too good.
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
10:28 am
“You have to educate those populations as to the benefits of the union”
I think it’s not that difficult to do. But when you have an area with an historic distrust of industrialization…then it becomes more difficult because of the juxtaposition of most unions and “northern” industrialization. But the union movement can, and HAS, been successful sometimes. And in this day and age of more or less universal education it’s not that hard to learn the benefits and shortcomings of unions.
But it IS disingenuous to blame “150 years of occupation” – which is a bunch of BS, for the failure of unions and then bitch because the are that rejected them isn’t doing as well as the areas that have them.