New York Times: "The Downside of Liberty"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Belfast

WE ARE THE New York time. SURRENDER YOUR Liberties. WE WILL ADD YOUR taxes to more waste full spending AND this is for you own good. N. YOUR are here to serve the government. you WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE the US government and the liberals . RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

KyussBishop

Perhaps the NYT author has legitimate criticisms against him, but why frame the debate as being against 'the left'? This is not strictly on-topic I know, but rarely do peoples views converge as being 'left' or 'right'; most libertarians would be very left socially for instance, so doesn't presenting it as this kind of dichotomy not just set people a flag to take hold of for picking a 'side', when many posters views may converge?

It's odd, that fringe cases of discreditable people or parties that can be labelled 'left', get used as ideological targets for everyone who considers themselves 'right', to arm up and dig trenches against. In this instance, I think that NYT article is mostly waffle, with the author failing to make a concise point.

Why try to frame the debate, and setup faux talking points to be knocked down like that? I don't think there are many people on the forum (who may be considered 'left') who agree with this op-ed (what exact point would they be agreeing with anyway?), so is there that desperate a need to foster an "us vs them" dichotomy, that such fringe authors are used as straw men?


I think there are a lot of posters, both of a left and right persuasion, whose point of views would easily converge, without such trench digging.

I mean, how often do you find posters seeking out articles from 'right' authors which are as vacuous as this op-ed, and posting them as a target on the forum? It never happens, because nobody puts such credibility in writing which is that polarized, yet here it is taken, and used as a straw man to rally followers and frame the debate, and try to coax posters from 'the other side' into defending it.


Debates on the merits and demerits of Libertarianism have several times delved past the depths of individualism vs society, but it pays to frame the debate, and bring it right back to step zero again, because that's the way to rally followers and avoid engaging in any actual substance in debate.
Then if debate delve into more complex/specific topics, just let them drag on endlessly until people reading lose interest, and bring the discussion to a stalemate (so no failed arguments have to be conceded) by obfuscating the debate, so it can all be started again a few weeks later at step 0 once again.

It's prioritization of talking points over substance; it lacks honesty.

Belfast

KyussBishop wrote: »

Perhaps the NYT author has legitimate criticisms against him, but why frame the debate as being against 'the left'? This is not strictly on-topic I know, but rarely do peoples views converge as being 'left' or 'right'; most libertarians would be very left socially for instance, so doesn't presenting it as this kind of dichotomy not just set people a flag to take hold of for picking a 'side', when many posters views may converge?
It's odd, that fringe cases of discreditable people or parties that can be labelled 'left', get used as ideological targets for everyone who considers themselves 'right', to arm up and dig trenches against. In this instance, I think that NYT article is mostly waffle, with the author failing to make a concise point.

Why try to frame the debate, and setup faux talking points to be knocked down like that? I don't think there are many people on the forum (who may be considered 'left') who agree with this op-ed (what exact point would they be agreeing with anyway?), so is there that desperate a need to foster an "us vs them" dichotomy, that such fringe authors are used as straw men?


I think there are a lot of posters, both of a left and right persuasion, whose point of views would easily converge, without such trench digging.

I mean, how often do you find posters seeking out articles from 'right' authors which are as vacuous as this op-ed, and posting them as a target on the forum? It never happens, because nobody puts such credibility in writing which is that polarized, yet here it is taken, and used as a straw man to rally followers and frame the debate, and try to coax posters from 'the other side' into defending it.


Debates on the merits and demerits of Libertarianism have several times delved past the depths of individualism vs society, but it pays to frame the debate, and bring it right back to step zero again, because that's the way to rally followers and avoid engaging in any actual substance in debate.
Then if debate delve into more complex/specific topics, just let them drag on endlessly until people reading lose interest, and bring the discussion to a stalemate (so no failed arguments have to be conceded) by obfuscating the debate, so it can all be started again a few weeks later at step 0 once again.

It's prioritization of talking points over substance; it lacks honesty.

I agree left and right wing are just labels and I could not put my self on the right or left.

I agree the author does not seem to be making any clear points.

Can some one writing an op-ed in The New York Times be considered 'fringe' if so the new york times must be lowering it standards.

Mjollnir

The NYT is not "chief media organ of the American liberal left".

Starting off w/intellectual dishonesty doesn't exact set up an argument worth making.

Sand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why cant we?

In the Roman Republic, it was a great affront to strike another Roman and carried a hefty fine. As Rome became richer and richer, a certain politician arose who was so wealthy that he enjoyed striking other Roman politicians and paying the fine off there and then on the spot. He was so wealthy that the fine was no longer an impediment to the crime - It was an opportunity to humiliate a rival citizen and to demonstrate his own wealth.

It led to reform of course, but the Roman Republic eventually declined to the point where it was the plaything of various incredibly wealthy and ambitious men, until one of them finally declared themselves Emperor and put the old institutions out of their misery. The Republic was maintained only as a habit, a museum piece.

Incredibly wealthy young billionaires like Sergey Brin, Larry Page, or Mark Zuckerberg sleep soundly in their beds because minimum wage young men and women watch over them while they sleep. There is a social contract - Brin, Page and Zuckerberg are only wealthy in that society, and within that society's rules: if enough people are driven down and out in that society then those people will quit *out* of that society. They then might begin to "indulge their self-expressive and hedonistic impulses" on Zuckerbergs lawn.

Stalin was a realist - how many divisions does Zuckerberg have?

Its also a pretty bad time to be championing economic individualism in the US sense, given that main street bailed out wall street in a huge, huge, huge fashion not so long ago. Main street could quite reasonably feel their *owed* something back from the young billionaires who they rescued a few years back.

poeticseraphim

The media is simply presenting an arguement that you can have too much of good thing.

Too raw a capitalist system defeats capitalism. It was laissez faire to the extreme which necessitated the biggest government intervention in banking history.

Associating economic liberalism with social liberalism is does not reflect reality. The two do not go together all the time.

Socialism and capitalism can co-exist in one economy and complimeny one another.

Germany has a social market economy the model is a middle path between socialism and laissez faire capitalism with a free market with some Govt regulation and intervention..good services and welfare..a balance between low inlation and high economic growth by using Govt intervention ..and promoing fair competition..which in reality can mean a freer economy...

And it is quite a soially liberal country with high living standards and working conditions.

It is possible to become rich ....you just don't lose it over night...

I think the label left and right come from the fact that America is only a two party system...whereas in Europe there are multi party systems....American politics and politicians create a false dichotomy to polarize voters to generate support and loyalty. They even try to identify cultural labels and groups with one side...like if your Christian then you are republican....if you are Irish American you are Democrat etc

Valmont

Sand wrote: »

Incredibly wealthy young billionaires like Sergey Brin, Larry Page, or Mark Zuckerberg sleep soundly in their beds because minimum wage young men and women watch over them while they sleep. There is a social contract - Brin, Page and Zuckerberg are only wealthy in that society, and within that society's rules: if enough people are driven down and out in that society then those people will quit *out* of that society. They then might begin to "indulge their self-expressive and hedonistic impulses" on Zuckerbergs lawn.

Stalin was a realist - how many divisions does Zuckerberg have?

I've read this about four times now and I still don't understand your point and how it relates to the separation of social and economic freedom. Could you elaborate?

Sand wrote:

Its also a pretty bad time to be championing economic individualism in the US sense, given that main street bailed out wall street in a huge, huge, huge fashion not so long ago. Main street could quite reasonably feel their *owed* something back from the young billionaires who they rescued a few years back.

'Economic individualism' in the sense of bailing out large banks with tax money is an oxymoron -- so what are you arguing against?

Valmont

Perhaps we should begin the debate at the separation of economic and social freedom. What is the basis for assuming these two distinct spheres of existence? How is constraining one not constraining the other? What is economic freedom if not the ability to direct one's own resources toward ostensibly social ends? Starting a business, hiring employees, buying luxury goods -- I can't think of many uses of money that aren't inherently social.

Is this separation just a conceptual bait-and-switch perpetrated by those who simply wish to justify their limiting of individual freedom in terms of promoting their vision of 'good' freedom and restricting of the 'bad' kind?

KyussBishop

As I touched on in my previous post, the argument on personal 'freedoms'/choice versus social 'freedom'/choice has been one of the primary elements of any discussion on the forum involving Libertarianism.

Mainly what this discussion does, is remove the entire context of discussing any individual policies Libertarianism promotes, to reframe the discussion all the way back to step 0.


It's the difference between weighing two sets of systems/policies against each other, and determining based upon likely (or even better, statistical) real world results, whether one system/policy works better than the other, versus saying "system A is built in individualist principals therefore it automatically works better".


That's the principal which all of Libertarianism hinges upon, but in discussions about Libertarianism its supporters never fully discard collective morals (as opposed to individual morals); if they did, then the response when a Libertarianism policy causes more overall social harm than good would be "so what?", but instead it's usually a notable silence.

That silence still leads me to wonder whether people are reconsidering their thoughts, or if they still favour the socially harmful policy but are unwilling to acknowledge that or that there would be any actual harm.

It makes me very (justifiably, I feel ) cynical; I think there's a massive amount of intellectual dishonesty when stuff like that goes unacknowledged, or arguments get obfuscated to try and stalemate them, only to start again at step 0 some weeks down the line(!), to avoid substantive discussion and make the same ideologically polarized arguments from that start, to rally a cause into their trenches.

Denerick

Unfortunately libertarians have a tendancy to think and speak in extremes, which rarely does justice to the strawmen they hope to create.

Do I hate rich people? No.

What I do hate is the concentration of capital in ever fewer hands, and the unholy influence these capital interests wield on our democratic institutions.

Placing limits on the powers the ultra wealthy have is not a particularly socialist idea, it merely places a greater emphasis on the rights of the majority to have a say in how they are governed. If people could only understand the level of access and power that the super rich have over our institutions it would spark a new radical movement, like the chartists.

The example of Steve Jobs is a useful one - somebody who became rich because of their own inherent intelligence and genius. I don't think that can always be said about the average industrialist, most of whom enjoyed advantages and opportunities from an early age that us mere plebs could only dream about.

There is no contradiction in opposing the unrestrained animal impulses of raw capitalism whilst still believing in personal liberty. As a social libertarian I believe that what I do in my spare time - providing it does no harm to anyone else - is no one elses damn business, especially the governments. The supposed 'liberty' in raw capitalism infers exploitation and mass suffering, by affecting the standard of living of the populace and in turn increasing the net wealth of those who live a very plush existence anyhow. Just look at how median wages have been declining for generations, whilst the incomes of the wealthy have skyrocketed. I don't see anything to be proud of when children can grow up without having access to a doctor or a dentist whilst industrialists are able to spend a quarter of a million dollars on a bottle of champagne.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Perhaps we should begin the debate at the separation of economic and social freedom. What is the basis for assuming these two distinct spheres of existence? How is constraining one not constraining the other? What is economic freedom if not the ability to direct one's own resources toward ostensibly social ends? Starting a business, hiring employees, buying luxury goods -- I can't think of many uses of money that aren't inherently social.

Is this separation just a conceptual bait-and-switch perpetrated by those who simply wish to justify their limiting of individual freedom in terms of promoting their vision of 'good' freedom and restricting of the 'bad' kind?

The distinction which I believe you may be deliberately overlooking is that unrestrained 'economic liberty' causes mass suffering incomparable with the much more harmless 'personal liberty' that most social democrats would espouse.

An oil firm, which invests in a poor African country and then negates to clean up once they have extracted all of the oil, may be engaging in its own form of liberty but at the expense of the villager who has to deal with the pollution caused by this. (Plenty of African villagers could tell you a story or two, if you felt inclined to listen)

In world without a minimum wage or labour laws, an employer could quite feasibly hire a vietnamese person to work in their factory for 70 hours a week and at one euro per hour. After all, if the person is willing to work for those conditions, why shouldn't the industrialist take advantage of it? He is only expressing his own 'god given' right to economic liberty.

Which again leads us to the point that economic liberty inevitably causes harm and suffering to people, in a way that personal liberty cannot.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Unfortunately libertarians have a tendancy to think and speak in extremes, which rarely does justice to the strawmen they hope to create.

Do I hate rich people? No.

Denerick wrote: »

The distinction which I believe you may be deliberately overlooking is that unrestrained 'economic liberty' causes mass suffering incomparable with the much more harmless 'personal liberty' that most social democrats would espouse.

In world without a minimum wage or labour laws, an employer could quite feasibly hire a vietnamese person to work in their factory for 70 hours a week and at one euro per hour. After all, if the person is willing to work for those conditions, why shouldn't the industrialist take advantage of it? He is only expressing his own 'god given' right to economic liberty.

So you don't hate rich people but just people getting richer, right? Makes a ton of sense. You also hate how rich people spend their money lobbying the social-democrats like Obama, whom you so admire. Makes a ton of sense to blame that on economic freedom and not say, the inherent corruption of the modern state.
You also seem to ignore that western factory jobs are highy sought after in third world countries, often paying well above the local wage. In short, how you end up at your conclusion of

Denerick wrote: »

Which again leads us to the point that economic liberty inevitably causes harm and suffering to people, in a way that personal liberty cannot

is entirely unconvincing. Not to mention, you ignored my post asking why we should even separate social and economic freedom in the first instance; do you have justification for that state of affairs?

Chuck Stone

Denerick wrote: »

An oil firm, which invests in a poor African country and then negates to clean up once they have extracted all of the oil, may be engaging in its own form of liberty but at the expense of the villager who has to deal with the pollution caused by this. (Plenty of African villagers could tell you a story or two, if you felt inclined to listen)

Indeed, liberty for the shark is tyranny for the sardine.

jank

Sand wrote: »

Stalin was a realist - how many divisions does Zuckerberg have?

.

Given that that Facebook thrives on an open and global free market across the world I would say Zuckerberg has the entire might of the United States military via proxy as it is the United States number one aim to keep world trade open and capitalism as the world ideaology.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

So you don't hate rich people but just people getting richer, right? Makes a ton of sense. You also hate how rich people spend their money lobbying the social-democrats like Obama, whom you so admire. Makes a ton of sense to blame that on economic freedom and not say, the inherent corruption of the modern state.

I don't hate rich people but they should understand that society must place limits to their ambition. A properly free market will have robust competition laws, for example. You don't think it dangerous that someone as... high minded... as Rupert Murdoch can own such a large slice of the global media?

I hate money in politics. full stop. The sooner we introduce a 'party tax' whereby political parties are funded by general taxation as opposed to relying on the help of magnates and Monty Burn's characters, the closer we will come to have a truly democratic republic (In Ireland as in the USA)

You also seem to ignore that western factory jobs are highy sought after in third world countries, often paying well above the local wage. In short, how you end up at your conclusion of
is entirely unconvincing. Not to mention, you ignored my post asking why we should even separate social and economic freedom in the first instance; do you have justification for that state of affairs?

I didn't ignore the fact that those jobs in third world countries are sought after by people in those countries. In fact, that was my point - that Vietnamese woman would be grateful to work for a dollar an hour, after all. My point is that the gigantic markups earnt as a result of this indisputable exploitation is what makes raw capitalism so inherently grotesque. A slave, after all, is glad to have a meal after a long day in the fields. Does this somehow infer their consent to slavery? Desperation is a powerful motivator.

I believe I adequately stated why I believe economic and social liberty to be seperate spheres - one causes harm to no-one, the other causes intentional and continuous harm to billions across the planet (When its not constrained and properly regulated)

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The political power of labour unions is a natural consequence of the unlimited financial power of the moneyed classes. Thank Christ for the unions, without them there would be no-one to stand up for the minimum waged (Constantly under attack for having the gall to expect a living wage in one of the most expensive countries in the world - I'm talking about Ireland here)

A conservative Christian might just as well say that there is no contradiction in opposing the unrestrained animal impulses of raw sexuality, while still believing in personal liberty. Everybody has his or her blind spot, it would seem. It ultimately amounts to "You should have full personal liberty to pursue the things I approve of, but not the things I disapprove of."

I believe that people should be free to pursue their interests provided it causes no harm to others. When people have full economic liberty they naturally - somewhat mechanistically - cause harm to others.

I don't see the contradiction, try as you might to make it appear ridiculous.

So you only want freedom from government interference in your "spare time"? You're quite happy to live under the shadow of Big Government in your professional life?

So long as that government protects my contract rights and ensure that I don't get exploited, I'm happy enough.

Do you have any data to back up your claim that "median wages have been declining for generations"? In reality, household incomes in the USA have moved sharply upward in recent generations (in no small part thanks to the large-scale entry of women into the workforce) despite the fact that the average hours worked have declined markedly.

I'll level with you - I don't. I may be wrong. Its a statistic I've heard and read numerous times but now I think about it, I'm not sure I've ever seen or read a proper study investigating real wage decline (Taking account of inflation etc.) over the past 30/40 years.

Otacon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Denerick wrote: »

I'll level with you - I don't. I may be wrong. Its a statistic I've heard and read numerous times but now I think about it, I'm not sure I've ever seen or read a proper study investigating real wage decline (Taking account of inflation etc.) over the past 30/40 years.

http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/col-decline-labor-force-participation-livable-communities.html

There's another aspect of these labor statistics that we should keep in mind. While worker productivity has been rising for decades, incomes have been falling. Median household income fell last year by 2.3 percent, to $49,445, and has declined by 7 percent since 2000 after adjusting for inflation — the first decade-long decline in at least half a century. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the median hourly wage for all workers is now $16.57. At that rate, it takes 2,984 hours — more than 900 hours beyond full-time at 40 hours a week — to achieve that median income of $49,445.

A brief search threw up this. While it doesn't mention generations, it does take into account 12 years.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

So long as that government protects my contract rights and ensure that I don't get exploited, I'm happy enough.

How is the state actively ensuring you aren't being exploited?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd contend that having to pay 20% of my income for the privilege of even having a job in the first place constitutes exploitation more than earning below what is essentially an arbitrary quantity.

Curious then, that two individuals earning the exact same hourly wage, with one living in Dundalk and the other in Newry, could be described as being exploited and not exploited, respectively. This definition then would make exploitation a function of geography or political culture which is silly, really. Although now that I think of it, this very use of the term exploitation is Marxist in nature and in turn based upon his labour theory of value which was conclusively debunked by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk. Why then, do these out of date Marxist sentiments still inform our everyday thoughts on freedom and liberty?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Channel Zero

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

"Household incomes in the USA have moved sharply upward in recent generations."

"Average hours worked have declined markedly."

These statements are misleading and don't tell the true story of what's happened since the '70's. I fully agree with the sentiments of the NYT article, as do a lot of people who get their info from credible sources.

KyussBishop

I don't think I'll bite this time, I'll focus on the bigger picture surrounding all these discussions (besides, we've already had the minimum wage discussion, and I showed pretty well how it's better to have than not):
One of the most common dishonest methods of argument I've seen used in these discussions, is to take an economic policy someone argues in favour of, find out a label to pin it to (Marxism/socialism being some of the big ones), then construct a straw man out of it by applying all policies associated with that label to the poster, and trying to beat them all as a whole instead of addressing the actual argument.

These discussions always draw down to beating on labels rather than discussion anything of substance; is there anyone watching these discussions who does not see or acknowledge that?

Read back on my other two posts on this topic as well, it's the pattern these discussions take; does anyone think that isn't completely intellectually dishonest? (at the very least, it certainly doesn't add to any discussion, it just steers people toward their trenches)


I don't fully know what to think about that, whether people making them really are aware of their dishonest arguments (or if those that support them are aware), I've just encountered them so many times now I find it difficult to believe they don't (hence my cynicism).

If people aren't aware when making dishonest arguments like that, again I find it very curious but fair enough, but if people are aware, it makes me really wonder what would be the motive for that?


As much as many would prefer a kind of monopoly on authority to talk about economics, and thus denigrate my views to try and discredit them, it takes very little skepticism and reading to see the faults in most Libertarian policies put forward thus far.

I've learned a lot about economics in all these discussions (and researching the topics surrounding them) over the last few months, and it's a topic I have an interest in now as a result, so am happy enough to debate Libertarianism every now and then to develop my views; a major caveat of that though is the inevitable label bashing and trench digging that ensues, which puts a limit on what can be learned from any discussion.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thanks for misrepresenting my position in such an absurd way. In no way did I make that distinction (Which is ridiculously arbitrary) between the exploited and the unexploited.

For the last year I have worked for a corporation and it is only since moving into this new area of work (Following a lenghty period on the minimum wage) that I have come to see the economic orthodoxies of our age for what they really are. Curious really, I was more right wing when I was a student.

sarumite

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Slightly off topic, but if I am French, Swedish, Dutch, Danish, Finnish etc chances are my second 'foreign language' is more than likely English and I find myself in the exact same position as the Irish, stuck in my own country or emigrating to a far flung Anglophone country.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Youth unemployment has little to do with structural problems caused by 'regulation' or 'the minimum wage' (At least not in Ireland - perhaps in some Latin countries like Italy or Spain, the labour regulatory system has added to youth unemployment)

The real cause of youth unemployment in Ireland, and in most countries, is the economic crisis. At the height of the boom we had full employment. Your argument is disingenous. I know the forces of capital are attempting to roll back all labour market protections in order to increase their margins, but most people see this strategy for what it is. Unemployment is caused by a lack of demand in the economy, that demand can be created through a greater distribution of wealth and its transfer to the poor and middle classes (Who are more likely to spend it productively than the idle rich)

In my experience, it's because the humanities, social sciences, arts, and media are infested with self-styled Marxists who have never cracked an economics textbook in their lives, but who nevertheless influence the young and naive to believe that capitalism is inexcusably exploitative while Marxism is the one true path to social and economic justice.

A bit personal?

As I said in my last post, I've only really become a fully fledged social democrat since I started working for a major company and directly experienced how its strangles suppliers, ensures maximum margins for itself, all for the personal enrichment of a family who seem to spend their time re-investing those profits in beach houses in America and the latest sports cars.

I've read my fair share of economists too by the way, so you can take your patronising tone elsewhere.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

I'd contend that having to pay 20% of my income for the privilege of even having a job in the first place constitutes exploitation more than earning below what is essentially an arbitrary quantity.

Curious then, that two individuals earning the exact same hourly wage, with one living in Dundalk and the other in Newry, could be described as being exploited and not exploited, respectively. This definition then would make exploitation a function of geography or political culture which is silly, really. Although now that I think of it, this very use of the term exploitation is Marxist in nature and in turn based upon his labour theory of value which was conclusively debunked by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk. Why then, do these out of date Marxist sentiments still inform our everyday thoughts on freedom and liberty?

I've already adressed the silly strawman argument about the minimum wage.

As for the rest of your post, let me summarise:

Says vaguely left wing things = Marxist = somebody who rebuked Mark = Valmont is Queen of the internet.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

How is the state actively ensuring you aren't being exploited?

In short, it could do more.

But it does ensure that workers are guaranteed a basic minimum wage, that companies must abide by European working time regulations (I am forced to exceed this, but obviously my anti union employers wouldn't take kindly to me pointing this out) etc. etc.

Channel Zero

Misleading stats, misleading figures, linguistic padding, and outright dishonesty can be and have been utilised to paper over the cracks.

When i'm looking to get credible figures and analysis of the last couple of recent generations in the U.S. (since the early '70's), i usually steer clear of unverified Wall Street Journal articles and corporate-funded think tank rubbish. Am sure this might sound condescending, but they are actually hopeless sources. Utterly.

My personal pick for the purposes of approaching reality in this thread are mostly the E.P.I. and Les Leopold
but this for starters is from Brookings:

Although median wages for two-parent families have increased 23 percent since 1975, the evidence suggests that this is not the result of higher wages. Rather, these families are just working more. In 2009, for instance, the typical two-parent family worked 26 percent longer than the typical family in 1975.”

The authors also note that while wages have increased over time, those increases do not come from higher wages for time worked. Rather, they are a result of over-time. As an addendum to this Brookings research, it’s important to note that while median wages for most Americans have not grown with productivity, the wealthiest Americans continue to eat up more and more of the nation’s wealth.

They illustrate this with the following graph:
So that's the rise in median household income rise explained. Families are working longer hours just to tread water.

After 1973, productivity grew strongly, especially after 1995, while the typical worker’s compensation was relatively stagnant. This divergence of pay and productivity has meant that many workers were not benefitting from productivity growth—the economy could afford higher pay but it was not providing it.

Figure AFigure A (continued)

Growth of real hourly compensation for production/nonsupervisory workers and productivity, 1948–2011






http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/

Where is the "sharply upward movement" in recent generations?? Is it up there with the truly sharp upward movement of productivity?

No it isn't.

From 1978–2011, CEO pay grew more than 725 percent, substantially more than the stock market and remarkably more than the annual compensation of a typical private-sector worker, which grew a meager 5.7 percent.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-231-times-greater-average-worker/

Now that's what i call a sharp upward movement. Silence on this though as it's a consequence of "the markets" and natural as apple pie. Sure it trickles down doesn't it? Or so they would have us believe.
More reality-based stats here: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib327-young-workers-wages/

This upwardly mobile economy changed during the 1970s, and it wasn’t an accident. That’s when our nation’s leaders embarked on a series of policies that were supposed to break down stagflation and rebuild our economic miracle. We now call it neo-liberalism. That’s when we decided to unleash innovation through deregulation, especially financial deregulation. That’s when we lowered taxes on the wealthy. That’s when we pushed forward globalization. That’s when we stopped raising the minimum wage. That’s when we undercut the labor movement. All this was supposed to make the economy boom and reignite the post-WWII economic miracle.
These policies, not the blind actions of markets, broke open the cookie jar of productivity. And there was plenty in there to take: Since 1975, productivity increased by nearly 180 percent – meaning that we almost tripled what we could produce per hour of labor. But unlike the post-WWII period, it wasn’t shared. Here are the brutal facts:

• The average real wage of the non-supervisory production workers (which comprise 82.4 percent of total private non-farm employees) actually declined by 9 percent between 1975 and 2010.

• Meanwhile the top 1 percent saw their share of national income rise from 8 percent in 1975 to 23.5 percent in 2005

• More amazing still, the wage gap between the top 100 CEOs and the average worker jumped from $45 to $1 in 1970 to an unbelievable $1,723 to $1 in 2006

• Today after the crash, financial incomes are so enormous that in 2010, John Paulson, the top hedge fund manager, earned $2.4 million an HOUR (not a misprint), and his tax rate is less than yours

http://www.alternet.org/story/150343/the_real_story_of_our_economy%3A_why_our_standard_of_living_has_stalled_out/?page=entire

Wall St and their cronies in certain parts of the media are trying to make us forget who started the financial crash and who is responsible for this massive transfer of wealth upwards.

http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1319223556_screenshot20111020at11.28.24am.png

http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1319223531_screenshot20111020at11.27.54am.png

http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1319223833_screenshot20111020at11.33.12am.png

http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1319223713_screenshot20111020at11.31.19am.png

http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1319223577_screenshot20111020at11.28.51am.png

http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1319223593_screenshot20111020at11.29.13am.png
link

K-9

Channel Zero wrote: »

Wall St and their cronies in certain parts of the media are trying to make us forget who started the financial crash and who is responsible for this massive transfer of wealth upwards.

That is one thing I notice, there seems to be a concerted attempt at blaming Government and socialism for the bank bail outs and a certain amnesia about what got us there. It is very easy to blame Government for everything, an easy target after all, but it suits certain agendas to blame them solely for the mess.

Black Swan

It appears that posters with opposing political perspectives and sources (e.g., NY Times, etc.) in this thread have attempted to empirically ground those perspectives though the use of financial statistics for argument purposes.

While there may be some relationship between "median wages" and "household income," there are significant differences too. The same can be said about looking at "average hours worked" in different contexts, which may be misleading if not qualified.

In an old book, but still relevant to our discussion here, Darrell Huff in How to Lie with Statistics (1954) cautioned us that statistics don't lie, but sometimes people use statistics inappropriately to support their positions when arguing a point. They may or may not do this intentionally, but in the heat of argument, it sometimes happens.

For example, the simple reference (here in this thread) to increases or decreases in "household income" to justify a political position can be problematic. This is a very complex concept, subject to major financial, demographic, and cultural changes over time; i.e., to merely quote a household income number from years before, then compare it to now, even if adjusted for inflation, can be very misleading, and can produce significant error.

The sources of household income have dramatically changed during past decades, one major shift being a move from the single head of household breadwinner (husband) model of the past, to a dual earner model (husband and wife) of the present and future; i.e., doubling the number of earners from past to present should affect household income.

In the USA, in 1960 only 18% of married women with a child under 6 were in the labour force, whereas in 1997 there were 64%. Also during the old breadwinner era, households were larger (more children), whereas today, if it was not for both legal and illegal immigration, the USA would be near zero population growth (2.1 children per household); i.e., households are shrinking, giving women more time to work. Plus the earning power of women has significantly increased, partly as the result of their increasing education, with women in 1960 achieving 35% of all bachelors degrees, whereas in 1995 they earned 55%.

Treating household income as one generic category when arguing the pros or cons of a political perspective can be very misleading too. If you stratify them by number of earners with or without children, there are substantial differences in household income; e.g., in most cases, dual earners without children have significantly higher incomes than one earner with children.

What this all boils down to for discussion in our thread, is when posters start attempting to show how their political perspective is better than someone else's, and they do so by quoting statistics, the reader is advised to use caution when interpreting the results.

Sources:

• Hertz, R. and Marshall, N., Editors (2001). Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home. London: University of California Press.
• Huff, D. (1954). How to Lie with Statistics, 39th printing. New York: W.W. Norton Company.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

I've already adressed the silly strawman argument about the minimum wage.

As for the rest of your post, let me summarise:

Says vaguely left wing things = Marxist = somebody who rebuked Mark = Valmont is Queen of the internet.

I'm not talking about vaguely left-wing ideas but the specific idea of labour exploitation that is directly and precisely a Marxist idea. If your remarks about being protected from exploitation by the state did not refer to this formulation, then what did you mean? If you make ambiguous remarks without clarifying your meaning, don't be surprised if people take you up wrong.

Valmont

K-9 wrote: »

That is one thing I notice, there seems to be a concerted attempt at blaming Government and socialism for the bank bail outs and a certain amnesia about what got us there.

Blaming governments for the bank bailouts?! Are you saying they didn't?

Channel Zero

I'm standing over those stats and i personally don't think they're dishonest.

K-9

Valmont wrote: »

Blaming governments for the bank bailouts?! Are you saying they didn't?

No, the complete opposite. They obviously did but focusing on that and blaming all our ills on big Government is very popular atm. People shouldn't forget what got us to that point.

Channel Zero wrote: »

I'm standing over those stats and i personally don't think they're dishonest.

I don't think Black Swan was saying that at all, it is something I've noticed myself. People take an overall, general stat and assumes it applies across the board.

My reading of Black Swans point would be, yes, incomes have risen significantly and that's a fair stat. However when you delve into it male incomes probably haven't increased as much as female incomes for the reasons she outlined. More women went from zero income other than a family allowance to an earned salary or wage, also equality legislation increased their income.

Valmont

K-9 wrote: »

No, the complete opposite. They obviously did but focusing on that and blaming all our ills on big Government is very popular atm. People shouldn't forget what got us to that point.

But we should forget that the government made the disastrous decision of guaranteeing the banks? Or take our focus away from it?

Are you simply saying we should forgive the government their mistakes, but not the mistakes made by the banks in the first place? Why the bias?

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

(besides, we've already had the minimum wage discussion, and I showed pretty well how it's better to have than not.

Funny that one man in a small corner of the internet, showed pretty much how minimum wage is good, despite the majority of literature on the subject having negative conclusions.

And to quote yourself from the thread on min. wage when opposing literature was pointed out to you:

Sorry but it would be confirmation bias to give much credence to stats going either way in light of the heavy skepticism; I said earlier I judged the evidence to be mostly inconclusive.

:pac:

K-9

Valmont wrote: »

But we should forget that the government made the disastrous decision of guaranteeing the banks? Or take our focus away from it?

Are you simply saying we should forgive the government their mistakes, but not the mistakes made by the banks in the first place? Why the bias?

Yep, I'm saying we should automatically forgive Governments!

As a centrist in these type of discussions I find the logic and blame game in these debates baffling. It seems my view is incomprehensible to some, equal blame for Governments, banks and markets.

If you go back to my original post, I said Governments are in danger of getting the sole blame for the mess. We've somehow got to you interpreting that as we should forget Governments part in it.

KyussBishop

SupaNova wrote: »

Funny that one man in a small corner of the internet, showed pretty much how minimum wage is good, despite the majority of literature on the subject having negative conclusions.

And to quote yourself from the thread on min. wage when opposing literature was pointed out to you:


:pac:

If you want to, bump the thread to continue the discussion there or start a new one, but when your calibre of argument lately is bashing and point scoring (plus selective out of context quoting), it doesn't leave me with the impression there's going to be much honest/constructive discussion.

That's another common theme with some (not all) posters supporting Libertarianism: Frequent efforts to bash other posters (usually combined with a label like mentioned in my last post) or the 'other side' in general, and denigrating their views/posts (and them personally), instead of addressing actual arguments.
Usually there's a constant effort to push threads in that direction; started with the very first post in this one.

Why do posters try to dig trenches and lob grenades like that, vying for more dishonest methods of argument?
A lot of the time I wonder if there's little interest in an honest discussion, and if people just want to mutually reinforce their supporters views by grouping up and bashing on the imaginary 'other side'.

SupaNova

Pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in other peoples posts is not bashing them or being dishonest, and I didn't label you either so I'm not sure what is the point of your lengthy response to me. :cool:

KyussBishop

It's dishonest when out of context; multiple stats studies were posted in that thread, going both for and against minimum wage.
Instead of picking stats that supported my side and ignoring the rest (confirmation bias), I decided the conflict makes it pretty inconclusive.

My arguments for minimum wage, added with adjustments I think could be made to current minimum wage (as discussed in the thread), pretty much resolved most of the significant arguments against it, leaving only those stats studies.

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's dishonest when out of context; multiple stats studies were posted in that thread, going both for and against minimum wage.
Instead of picking stats that supported my side and ignoring the rest (confirmation bias), I decided the conflict makes it pretty inconclusive.

You decided in the previous thread that the data was inconclusive, and you now restate the same again, but yet you tried to claim in this thread that you had showed the minimum wage to be good in a previous thread.

How have I taken you out of context?

KyussBishop

I've decided the stats are inconclusive; those stats were trying to support arguments showing harm caused by minimum wage, leaving the arguments over theory (where the primary problematic times for minimum wage are economic depressions, which have arguments mitigating those problems, with it having pretty much no drawbacks in a well functioning economy), and the other most obvious stats showing a benefit from minimum wage (wages).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Yes we all know government played their part bringing us into this mess, the difference being that most people can acknowledge the faults caused by government, business, 'the markets', unions etc., whereas most proponents of Right/Austro-Libertarianism generally only acknowledge government and unions, ignoring the destructive influences of business and markets when left unfettered.

The other difference, is the approach people want to take towards resolving the crisis: Libertarian policies take the route of maximal social harm, stripping away social safety nets (welfare and minimum wage), and decimating services (spinning them off into private hands); desiring significant damage in the short term, in a great reset, to support the idea that 'the markets' will fix it in the long term, and even if social protections need to be eroded somewhat to get there, they don't need to be thrown out completely.

Most people acknowledge that some social harm is inevitable due to the helpless position Ireland is in financially, but are not going to support radical political and economic change (with significant harm caused) to get there; it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


It's not a coincidence that many of the supporters of Libertarianism (particularly those funding the Libertarian 'think tanks' and lobby institutes in general), are intimately involved with financial and business interests that both caused the crisis, and who gained from the financial crisis personally (and indeed, stand a lot to gain personally by perpetuating further economic crisis), and thus have every interest in downplaying their responsibility for the crisis.

What do they stand to gain still from Libertarian policies? The firesale of public assets to the private sector, and subsequent asset stripping of those gains, plus the ability to dominate freed up markets that government previously had a strong hand in, as well as massive deregulation in all areas that get in the way of profit interests (at the expense of the environment, public safety/health, financial stability, income equality etc.).


Additionally, it's also worth noting that Libertarian policies aren't proposed just for dealing with the economic crisis, they are proposed as permanent policies to live on long past the crisis, for when economic prosperity is eventually reached again.

That means even in good times, no minimum wage, no welfare, all-private education, no financial regulation (making further economic crisis inevitable), etc. etc.; as much as austerity is inevitable in the short term for us and is used as a justification for many Libertarian policies, any policies enacted from that will live on far past the crisis.

What is promoted as "but we've no choice" now, is used not as a temporary rollback of government run services, to balance the books, but as a permanent abolition of them so they won't return; it's not promoting a resolution to the crisis, it's promoting an entirely revised economic and government system.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is this not US politics Permabear?