An alarming snapshot of long-term economic trends

“But I’ll start with two:”

Jay, you listed 3.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s called “productivity,” Jay.

It’s a good thing.

Look it up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dare we say it? Socialization. Careful restructuring of necessary services for daily life so that it’s not about making certain individual wealthier but creating a society that functions and does not punish its working parts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fire J NOW!

• Link
• Report this comment

Computers and the Internet are a powerful tools, allowing more work to be accomplished by fewer employees. Is that a shift in political policy or just capitalism being efficient?

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s start a WAR ON SUCCESS and go TAKE money from the productive members of society.

Let’s SPREAD THE WEALTH as Comrade Obama advocates.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lets lower corporate tax rates! That fixes everything.

(except Ireland lowered theirs to 12.5% and has one of the worst economies in Europe).

• Link
• Report this comment

peanut:

There is still plenty of manufacturing, mining and agricultural work to be done. It just isn’t being done over here. And FYI: it isn’t in the interests of our political leaders to look out for what is best for capitalism. It is their job to look out for what is best for our nation: its citizens, workers and small businesses. The neo-con globalists have you convinced that looking out for capitalism is akin to looking out for our country and interests. That might have been true during the Cold War, when there was the need to oppose Marxism and our corporations were mostly regional and national, but now with the Cold War basically over (Russia and China are adopting market economies with Cuba and Viet Nam leaning that direction, leaving North Korea as the only true command economy stalwart left) and corporations tending to be global as opposed to national, it is no longer the case. What is good for Wall Street is no longer necessarily good for the American economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans are far from satisfied with these long-term trends, Jay. They want more of the same and worse.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama: We need more taxes and regulations, so we can have more bottom-up economics.

Explain please !

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer,

Deep thought there….black hat v white hat eh? How on earth can you posit that either party has a corner on the scumbag market?

• Link
• Report this comment

Corporations are more profitable by using fewer people to do the same work. A lot of it is the HUGE impact of increased productivity (especially through improved computing technology) and increased use of robotics in the factories that remained here in the USA. The other is that we have a lot of corporations “based” here that are making their profits all over the world.

None of this is a bad thing.

But the whining of certain CEOs about why they can’t make a decent salary is most definitely boorish.

• Link
• Report this comment

“You look at those charts and you conclude that there’s a “war on success”?”–JAY BOOKMAN

Not all together, Jay.

But reading your Socialist bluster and following the “Amateur’s” policies and rhetoric, leads to those statements. I hope you had a great weekend Jay, by the way.
I had the best burrito at ElMyr Saturday night. Unbelievable.

• Link
• Report this comment

Out by the pond:

“I just not sure I want them to vote.”

But they died so you could vote. Ungrateful !

• Link
• Report this comment

“USMC did someone really put a gun in your hands?you seem like the type that might not know which end is which.”–Frank

No, Frank, I just use the “USMC” monicker to prop up my “little man’s” complex. It makes me feel like a “tough guy”.

The Loony Left and their Hate knows no bounds.

• Link
• Report this comment

When small businesses are driven completely under, and entrepreneurs are non-existent, the modern corporate feudal structure will be solidly in place.

Is Tundra using his fainting couch?

• Link
• Report this comment

usmc

Same old, same old…the propaganda you shill is deafening..something is happening here and your old whipping post of gov’t is not in the mix…the people and wages are the losers, the global economy and the corporations are the winners. They are not content with this, they want it all and they want it now by privatizing every damn thing they can get their hands on, the general welfare be damned…

• Link
• Report this comment

employee wages and salaries as a share of gross domestic product

Health insurance and benefits are considered a non-cash part of compensation as well. Including those might clarify some things about the dramatic increase of non-cash compensation since the 50’s.

• Link
• Report this comment

Morning, USMC

“Let’s start a WAR ON SUCCESS and go TAKE money from the productive members of society.”

Members?

Members?

So corporations really are people?

• Link
• Report this comment

relevant

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/how-to-kill-the-corporate-income-tax.html

• Link
• Report this comment

LOL – why does data seem to confuse conservatives so much? Data? What what uh uh uh…Obama is a socialist!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I look at one of them charts and start thinking, “Y’know, the refrigerator box business might make a person rich. Lots of American workers will be looking for a place to live, and a good waterproof refrigerator box might fit the bill good.”

Anyhow, it sure makes me feel good about being in the beer business. People drink in good times and they drink in bad times. They need beer to sellabrate and they need beer to drown their sorrows. I got it good—except I ain’t had a raise in three years.

Have a good Monday everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.’

• Link
• Report this comment

Eliminating the corporate-income tax in exchange for a higher capital-gains rate would make the tax system fairer, simpler and more rational.

Only if corporations can no longer buy elections and politicians. Otherwise, like churches, I say “tax them all and let the market sort them out.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey posters, I leaving now to take my grandkids to Six-Flags to pump some money into good old corporate America !

And you know, there are going to be a lot of poor folks from the North Georgia Mountains and Inner City Atlanta there doing the same thing !

Isn’t freedom great?

Don’t mess with it !!!

Back this evening ……………. everyone TRY to be nice to each other.

• Link
• Report this comment

“They are not content with this, they want it all and they want it now by privatizing every damn thing they can get their hands on, the general welfare be damned…”–Mick

Sheer hysteria and the typical dishonesty from Mick who votes as he is told.
Very few people believe that government doesn’t have a role in society, but don’t tell Mick, He is spouting the Party line of “Republicans don’t want government” to have a role.
It’s the same old dishonest talking points he was told to repeat at a Union Rally.

• Link
• Report this comment

But they died so you could vote. Ungrateful !

Hey, remember all those times Scout posted something to this effect when a conservative snarkily posted that such-and-such American citizen shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

Neither can I.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So corporations really are people?”–Paul

I am not going to play in your sandbox of delusion today, Paul.

But I will say hello and I hope you are well in Dallas.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sheer hysteria and the typical dishonesty from Mick

Posts the guy who has run virtually every time I’ve called out his BS.

For the record, USMC, I’m still waiting for an example of a “so far out of the mainstream” view from Jay.

(Remember that one? Sure you do.)

• Link
• Report this comment

usmc

Sad and pathetic response by gomer the lesser; You have to resort to cliches and stereotype. I voted for bush over dukakis cause I liked bush better, guess the union didn’t work me over long enough?, besides you anti-union wingnuts fail to discount that inside the privacy of a voting booth no one can tell you what to do…

• Link
• Report this comment

TayPayer:

Democrats also claim that the “new, clean, knowledge” economy is better for feminists too. They make it clear that some jobs they flat out don’t want, and that they want the job growth to be in areas that require a college degree.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer,

I’m completely on topic. Typical press and black and white games again…in this piece, Jay posts data that confirms our movement toward a service economy…that is the trend which is driven by global economy that benefits the consumer. This data does not suggest that either party is to blame so taking sides on this one-sided data is ridiculous…..this is not political data except to the extent the true logic behind the numbers is offered….

• Link
• Report this comment

Mick

You didn’t miss much – mostly attempting to encourage a couple of bloggers to expand their views of what constitutes a nonphysical view of things. I’d wondered how your trip was concluding, but given how it started and the neat way it progressed I was thought you’d get those batteries fully charged and the stress completely shed. So now you’re smack dab in the middle of a tropical storm, eh?

And for all of you wondering but have been too polite to ask (a first on this blog?) Mick and I had a wonderful couple hours at lunch. We followed the rule of what those on a quest for knowledge talk about when they get together.

We gossiped about all of you!

• Link
• Report this comment

“The charts document a profound, permanent and probably ongoing shift of bargaining power from the employee to the employer”…

Sounds like the same old ratings from those who support unions, socialism, and Marxism. What is it with you liberals and the anti-capitalist system?

Any fool can see that the Obama regime has failed in its attempt to implement such anti-capitalist ideas. Now the Democrat Party and it’s propaganda operatives are doubling down with the anti-capitalist campaign rhetoric against Mitt Romney. Take a look at the Luckovich cartoon in today’s paper if you need proof.

This country has gotten along just fine without the implementation of such kooky ideas and economic programs from our progressive elites.

Pack up your charts and your inferred community activism, Mr. Bookman. Europe, Cuba, and Venezuela are better places for you to pander your thoughts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Watchdog agency says more than $5 billion of taxpayer funds have been used on abandoned or incomplete projects

A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children’s hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets.
As the U.S. draws down in Iraq, it is leaving behind hundreds of abandoned or incomplete projects. More than $5 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds has been wasted on these projects — more than 10 percent of the $53.7 billion the US has spent on reconstruction in Iraq, according to audits from a U.S. watchdog agency.

http://www.salon.com/2010/08/30/us_wastes_billions_iraq/

_____________
How could this happen when we have cities here in the U.S. that needs to be rebuilt? Look at Detroit….

Detroit in Ruins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1IhXZD4Txs&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

Gerald,

I have not compared the pay of wage earners in the coal mines or oil fields to those assembling wind turbines or installing solar panels so I could not address your specific concern without doing a little research. Perhaps you have some data to share. Also, why do you believe that has any bearing on my comment about Republicans wanting more of the same and worse. Republicans seem to be quite content with continuing to give corporations and the wealthiest more and more tax cuts and shifting the burden of maintaining our nation more onto the poorest. That is part of the “more of the same” that I refer to.

• Link
• Report this comment

**We gossiped about all of you!**

Paul – that’s pretty funny and true! Reminds me of my youth when I worked on a 40 story building with my my dad who was the UNION general foreman. (job finished on time and under budget). All those grizzled iron workers, electricians, plumbers, laborers, and other trades were the biggest collection of wash women gossipers you’d ever seen? It was funny and the drama endless, good gossip knows no bounds….

• Link
• Report this comment

Things are gonna be hot in Dallas, USMC. 102 several days this week. Keeping the shutters and curtains closed and topping off the pool every day.

Wasn’t a gotcha’ question. Your statement ‘productive members of society’ seemed to indicate you equated corporations with individual workers.

I’d take the view the workers within the corporations are productive, yet the earnings accrue to those at the top tiers and the investors/owners.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, it’s really not that complicated. Over the years, money has come to be the number one engine running politics in our country. We all know it takes huge amounts of money to run for any major office. Big Business is the major funding source for almost all those in office and those running for office. Business demands a return on their investment, and politicians will do anything to get elected and re-elected. So, a situation where profits are high and wages are low is only one of the many things we have in the Corporate States of America.

What to do about it? A third party that is NOT utterly tied to Big Business for funding.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I see USMC has chewed, swallowed, digested and passed through his large intesting the new Right-Wing Mantra”–USinUK

I see that UsinUK has started her third or fourth spot of super strong tea.

• Link
• Report this comment

ty webb

“what exactly does this mean? “support”?”

By that I mean look at the current federal budget categories and determine which benefit (support) wage and salary earners. Everything from medical research to block grants to states to Defense.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Any fool can see that the Obama regime has failed in its attempt to implement such anti-capitalist ideas.”

When there is no attempt to “implement anti-capitalist ideas” how is that fact that they haven’t taken hold a failure?

• Link
• Report this comment

I do not understand how anyone can look at those two charts above, while also recognizing the differences in governmental policies since the 1980s that have been highly ideological, and not see that governmental policy is a very significant factor which has contributed to increasingly lower wages for workers and higher profits for corporations. (Especially since, by the second chart above, worker wages increased during the Clinton presidency years, unlike the others years since 1980, when worker wages fell.)

What can one do about it? The first step is to acknowledge that governmental policy has, in fact, been a major source of the above inequity. The second step is to vote for those who would make more equitable the balance between worker wages and corporate profits.

• Link
• Report this comment

pogo

A closed mind is a terrible thing indeed, you need an opening. As I alluded to earlier, my dad was a union general foreman. He was tough and if you didn’t produce – he fired you! He had a no nonsense reputation with the hiring hall. He always told his men that if you didn’t make the contractor money then you have no job. He even got jumped by some of his “union” brothers because of his ethic. What happened? Well those guys were thrown out of the union and took jobs in a nuclear power plant and met untimely deaths. Only the best worked for my old man who is still staunchly union and pro obama. Please get some clarity and throw away the broad brush, tunnel vision is not good for you…

• Link
• Report this comment

“OK, Stevie Ray, explain how entitlements drive either of those two charts.” – Entitlements would explain the “lazy and stupid” argument in your point 3.

But sending jobs overseas is probably the main problem that has caused this imo.

• Link
• Report this comment

USMC:

The interests of global capitalism and the interests of any particular nation will always diverge. People raised on neo-con propaganda will never recognize this reality.

• Link
• Report this comment

**Cheer up, Mick, you can be as successful as you want.**

Most lucid comment to date! I am of good cheer and doing quite nicely under the socialist/communist kenyan regime..four more please…

• Link
• Report this comment

Years ago employees were called “hands.” That did not fit well with the touchy-feelie and team work crowd, so that term went away. However, what has not changed is, employees are “worth” only so much.

If production, whether manufacturing or otherwise is in the USA, a job will pay X amount. If someone working that job demands more, he/she will be replaced by someone willing to accept the offered wage. Balancing books or packing soap in a box is only going to pay so much regardless of company profits.

If the situation develops where the government and unions demand more than a company is willing to pay, the company moves to a more friendly location either in another state or overseas.

The reality is, we are in a world market. Moonbats throw that out everytime there is debate on oil. Its a reality of the labor force also just somewhat more complicated.

Just because a company has high profits, it does not mean the wages are commensurate.

• Link
• Report this comment

Seriously, the trends are really disturbing here. It’s called “plutocracy.”

• Link
• Report this comment

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!)

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Drudge” @ 9.35, I think you want to be looking at median wages for useful info, not averages.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn, it’s probably difficult for some to comprehend that “Liberal” didn’t always mean “stuff I don’t happen to like.”

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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…”

• Link
• Report this comment

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!

• Link
• Report this comment

11% profits

Oooooo scary. Those guys are just making way too much

Sarc

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

CEO to worker pay ratio:

2007: 344-to-1
2008: 299-to-1
2009: 263-to-1
2010: 325-to-1

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The question is what, if anything, we do about it.”

What does one have to do with the other?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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!

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

The SC has ruled on the juvenile justice case. One case down.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The question is what, if anything, we do about it. ”
.
Nullify Washington.
.
Vote Ron Paul.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

If running a business is so damn easy go ahead and start your own.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gordon,

What do you think any CEO does that is worth an average of 10 million per year?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben the absurd is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack

So, you mean how the military industrial complex (govt) has a disturbing amount of money and power? I agree.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve, show me what anti-middle class policies the Republicans have pushed through.

I’m waiting.

(crickets chirping)

• Link
• Report this comment

Blame democrats/republicans of course.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben, you kill me. Use the googles. What do you think tax cuts on the wealthy and anti-union legislation do?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay-how does one know when the Supremes ruling will be or how do you know it will not be today?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben, all strawman arguments.

Obamacare is all about propping up the PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

Social Security – the wealthy are capped at 106K for what they put in, so please – they are not paying for this WE ARE

Public schools are failing because property taxes are so low in conservative areas that the schools are underfunded and setup to fail, where the wealthy can send THEIR kids to the nice private schools.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Obamacare is all about propping up the PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY”

LMAO!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul@10:23,

I would sure like to see some examples of that. I doubt that is the case the vast majority of the time.

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve, what was your impression of the middle class voters in wisconsin, and their views on government workers union?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ouch. Ben Shockley is giving Steve a beat down. I hope Steve has insurance.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Grasshopper, there is no logical linkage whatsoever.”

Says who?

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone

I know you and a lot of others have a problem with that concept of 150 years of occupation. It just don’t sound good. But it is nonetheless a factor. The policies and the reactions to them are at the base of what you are trying to ameliorate. Slavery, segregation, occupation and reeducation lie at the very heart of why these sections of the country remain so skeptical of anything from outside, even when it is in their own best interest. You can ignore it, but it doesn’t go away.

• Link
• Report this comment

Too many links maybe? One at a time then.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/single-mothers-poverty-no-jobs_n_964500.html

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM – “Is THAT how much pharmaceutical testing volunteers are getting these days?”

That was funny.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I see the Activist U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the Arizona immigration law. This is one reason why we need to be able to secede from this country. I sure hope they ain’t Activist with the health care law.

Activist—ruling against the way us Conservatives want them to rule.
Doing Their Constitutional Duty—agreeing with us Conservatives.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben,

I’m wondering about the efficacy of comparing our test results to the 16 or so countries who outperform us…seems those countries have a fraction of the kids to educate and the idea that on the benchmarks tested, it is unreasonable to compare us to them…

Not suggesting our education system is not in need of overhaul but the constant comparison to much smaller countries is ridiculously misleading. IMO we should go to a more trade based and technology based education cirriculum that is more practical relative to job skills needed presently….unions will of course impede any such changes as the status quo serves them well..

• Link
• Report this comment

Too bad Obama and worthless folks in congress couldn’t agree on the Federal Immigration policy to keep this kind of crap out of the courts…lack of leadership and further evidence that both parties are more concerned serving those who contribute big money as opposed to us taxpayers…

• Link
• Report this comment

Gordon

As I said, it was previous thread and discussed quite at length. Examples given were some of the larger Fortune 500s that Jay kicked off the thread with. But you can run the numbers, also. Just have to be careful how the total comp package is figured and under total employees, if it’s full-time equivalents or lists part-time employees in with full time.

Going upstairs.

• Link
• Report this comment

And I’m only bothering to point out the idiocy in this dead thread because “Ben” harbors illusions that SS is somehow a bad deal for participants, even though I’ve called him out and corrected him repeatedly.

back upstairs…

• Link
• Report this comment

I believe you recently wrote a piece, Jay, about successful venture capitalist Nick Hanauer and his new book “Garden of Democracy.” And in it, he describes a capitalist economy, our “garden” if you will, as needing demand first to grow, not supply.

In other words, it’s those who spend money who actually create the jobs with their spending, not the supply-siders, who are only going to wait and see which goods and services are selling.

It’s kind of a no-brainer, I know, but we’re currently in an election cycle in which a whole political party doesn’t seem to get this and apparently never will – the Republicans.

And if they win and continue giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and taking money from we poor and middle class – the most of us and ones who actually do most of the spending – well, it’s just going to be more of the same sluggish economic growth, maybe even less.

So what to do? We The People need to plan to vote this November and put representatives in power who really do understand how an economy works, not just tell us they do so they can get themselves elected.

By that, of course, I mean we need a demand-side economy for a change and government that will help us get one, not a continuing supply-side that will give us at best your charts!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay: ” a shift that has been driven largely by synergies between technology and globalization, with government policies playing a minor role at best.”

This interpretation is badly mistaken, Jay. These “synergies” between technology and globalization have EVERYthing to do with policy. Which is not the same thing as saying that policy has controlled these trends in every detail. It’s just to point out that policies – from the takeover of the Fed’s mission in the late 70s (to fight inflation and to hell with employment), to the wrecking of labor in the country, deregulation, and on up finally to the hollowing out of manufacturing with the last vestiges of the 20th C full employment social model – had everything to do with the changes we’ve seen.

Just remember, NAFTA was avidly pushed, and ultimately passed, by a Democratic president without very much public debate considering its vast implications on our society, not to mention the world.

You can argue that given the crisis of capitalism and profits in the 1970s and the destabilization of America’s role as the center of world finance, with the dismantling of Bretton Woods, etc., that policies of this type were unavoidable, but to argue that there simply weren’t any policies and that all that has happened has been simply the ‘natural’ working out of the system, is misguided and inaccurate.

• Link
• Report this comment

Post Script: In my 2:36 pm post, I was obviously referring to “re-education” in the sense of educating Southern workers to the value of unions for their benefit, not the reverse. However, the power structure in the South has had a history of being so paternalistic, and so oppressive, toward persons lower on the power hierarchy, that workers would not have dared to risk voicing their support of unions, even if unions ultimately would have been of benefit to them, because their job security would have been forfeited. My teachers’ union illustration, above, was only one example of how Southern power structure could impose its will on workers.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] this article: An alarming snapshot of long-term economic trends | Jay Bookman ← 8 Points to Assist Determine Your Correct Submitting Status – [...]

• Link
• Report this comment