Inequality much worse than most think

[santafe2]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

20 year plan. It's a US-Centric view. But as the hegemon goes, so goes the world.

Just wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful post. As I've posted here over the years, we moved to a small town in the mountains in the middle of nowhere-USA to allow our kids to grow up in an environment where people know each other and 2-3 degrees of separation is the norm. People tend to be nice because the old lady driving 15 miles-an-hour in front of you is probably a friend's grandmother or his cousin's grandmother. When someone is impolite, it's usually a new-comer or a tourist. People are not anonymous. You can talk to the mayor or one of your city councilors at the diner on the plaza. You can know many of the people that grow your food and the teachers that educate your kids. If you try you know the people on the school board and your state representative. People volunteer, sit on boards of non-profits, try to make life better for others in their community.

But even here, many people struggle to get by and the city is getting large enough that it's become two cities with much of it unaffordable to most families. When we left Los Angeles almost 20 years ago it was obvious then that the US system was broken for the average middle class person. We bought ourselves a generation in this little place but I'm not sure how much longer it will last or where we'll go if we move but I'm beginning to feel like the good guys aren't just losing a string of battles, they're losing the war.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I believe the first step is to eliminate the Federal Reserve. I worked in steel mills in Pittsburgh when I was in college. Some of the work rules etc. that the union managed to get were pretty ridiculous. I believe strengthening union laws and other labor laws would require high import tariffs. Which, of course, raises the cost of items, not only for union workers, but non union workers also. I think if union rules are changed to help unions more, they should outlaw public worker unions. Politicians mostly care about now, not the future, so they will often allow far more generous conditions for public worker unions than they should, which hurts future generations.

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I believe the first step is to eliminate the Federal Reserve. I worked in steel mills in Pittsburgh when I was in college. Some of the work rules etc. that the union managed to get were pretty ridiculous. I believe strengthening union laws and other labor laws would require high import tariffs. Which, of course, raises the cost of items, not only for union workers, but non union workers also. I think if union rules are changed to help unions more, they should outlaw public worker unions. Politicians mostly care about now, not the future, so they will often allow far more generous conditions for public worker unions than they should, which hurts future generations.

Agree, generally. With civil service protections what they are (and if necessary, could be enhanced) the need for public employee unions is lost to me. Let them have their associations, but collective bargaining and strike actions, no.

[lektrode]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I believe the first step is to eliminate the Federal Reserve. I worked in steel mills in Pittsburgh when I was in college. Some of the work rules etc. that the union managed to get were pretty ridiculous. I believe strengthening union laws and other labor laws would require high import tariffs. Which, of course, raises the cost of items, not only for union workers, but non union workers also. I think if union rules are changed to help unions more, they should outlaw public worker unions. Politicians mostly care about now, not the future, so they will often allow far more generous conditions for public worker unions than they should, which hurts future generations.

+1
for appx 4years, in my 20's - i was a united steel worker - we had some of the best paying jobs in the county - and altho the work rules did benefit the union members, they also crippled managements ability to run the company profitably - and the same work rules, coupled with an moron union steward BANKRUPTED the company... there simply is NO way to sugarcoat nor spin it otherwise.

and while i generally believe that the private sector unions only pull as hard to the left as management pulls to the right and think that the trade unions in particular are a necessary equalizer in the game of tugowar tween labor/capital - in the case of the public sector, esp after the downward spiral of private sector union clout - mostly due _directly_ to the effects of 'free' trade and the wholesale offshoring of MILLIONS of manufacturing JOBS - whereby the union bosses power (due$) was slashed - resulting in a double-down of their efforts in the increasing public sector union-dominance (enabled by JFK's executive order allowing the unionization of the federal workforce - when they were already 'protected' by the civil service rules/laws ??)

which has led to various effects such as the BANKUPTCY OF DETROIT (i'd blame the bankruptcy of guvmint motors on the unions, but IMHO, GM's management owns at least 51% of that one) - with some of the .gov unions making far more than the typical private sector workers do with the same jobs - while their numbers have dropped certainly in the bloodbath known as 'the recovery' - why should they not have, when the private sectors jobs numbers have plummeted even more???

i still say it all gets down to the rise of the political aristocracy, that began in ernest in the 1960's - with one particular side of the aisle responsible for at least 51% of the results - which have been anything BUT 'good news' - since at least 2009.

and once again, will point to why the Great State of New Hampshire is _still_ the GOLD STANDARD of how the .gov _should_ be run - with a VOLUNTEER legislature, that still manages to get The Public's business done and _still_ near 400 years later, WITH NO INCOME AND NO SALES TAXES (read: no 'broadbased' revenue streams that the political class can use to BUY VOTES with)

the problem began with the unionization of the federal workforce and the rise - during the reign of the 'camelot' bunch - of THE POLITICAL ARISTOCRACY - that has been bought-off by the FIre brigade - while the political class' clout, tenure, wages/benefits continues to grow - LOCKSTEP - with lower manhattan's stranglehold on the treasury - the ONLY WAY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM

is TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS - 2 TERMS MAX AND THEY ARE ***OUT***

else they simply have no incentive to change _anything_

and with NO gold-plated lifetime retirement packages for serving one term, either -
they do their time in office
AND THEN THEY GO BACK TO WORK, like The Rest of US do -

just like the NH legislature does and has done, for near 400 years.

and still, with NO INCOME and NO SALES TAXES.

[santafe2]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I believe the first step is to eliminate the Federal Reserve. I worked in steel mills in Pittsburgh when I was in college. Some of the work rules etc. that the union managed to get were pretty ridiculous. I believe strengthening union laws and other labor laws would require high import tariffs. Which, of course, raises the cost of items, not only for union workers, but non union workers also. I think if union rules are changed to help unions more, they should outlaw public worker unions. Politicians mostly care about now, not the future, so they will often allow far more generous conditions for public worker unions than they should, which hurts future generations.

This appears to be the direction we're headed. I think the percentage of workers in a union is down to about 15% nationwide and many/most? are public worker unions. I'm not sure I'd outlaw them, but I share some of your concerns. The percentage of unionized employees are less than 1/2 that number here so I don't think unions hold much sway.

Regarding tariffs, if we want American workers to compete directly with Chinese workers + shipping costs, we should just tell them they're screwed unless they go to college and become something we respect like a banker or a lawyer. I don't think it's useful to have a union vs. no-union debate as that will just end with finger pointing and yelling about global warming.... God knows I've had enough of those here to understand futility.

While I agree that unions can get way out of touch with what workers need and what the system under which they work can support, (especially a public system...see California), but I do think people have a right to a living wage. Even in this back water hamlet, that's probably $15 an hour for someone 18+. It gets more complex and more expensive when calculating for families. If others think a living wage or for that matter, any specific wage is not a right, I think they only need to wait another 10 years or so to see how that plays out in the US as right-to-work laws spread.

[lektrode]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Agree, generally. With civil service protections what they are (and if necessary, could be enhanced) the need for public employee unions is lost to me. Let them have their associations, but collective bargaining and strike actions, no.

hey!
every once in awhile woody -
+1
esp in the bluestates - where they have 'binding arbitration' - since the unions WIN just about every time - while
We, The People - The Rest of US - LOSE EVERY TIME.

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I don't think it's useful to have a union vs. no-union debate as that will just end with finger pointing and yelling about global warming....

Amen to that, brother!

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

hey!
every once in awhile woody -
+1
esp in the bluestates - where they have 'binding arbitration' - since the unions WIN just about every time - while
We, The People - The Rest of US - LOSE EVERY TIME.

Yep.

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Benjamin Franklin

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Can't disagree. There is hope, only not for us.

Even in the darkest times there is hope. Things can change. "Impossible" change in social systems can happen suddenly and more quickly than we imagine. After all, we made it all up.

Things are always darkest before the dawn. Legislation, Constitutional, and institutional changes are always reactive, not proactive. It always begins with the spread of an idea.

As that old rabblerouse Thomas Paine once wrote: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

[jiimbergin]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Even in the darkest times there is hope. Things can change. "Impossible" change in social systems can happen suddenly and more quickly than we imagine. After all, we made it all up.

Things are always darkest before the dawn. Legislation, Constitutional, and institutional changes are always reactive, not proactive. It always begins with the spread of an idea.

As that old rabblerouse Thomas Paine once wrote: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

+1

[Forrest]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0

I don't know how to post the video other than the link, but dcarrig, you must be a lot younger than me. Tennessee Ernie Ford was the one who made this song famous in 1955! It has always been one of my favorites!

On this song, definitely Ford over Cash...but my favorite is still Big Bad John. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnnHprUGKF0

Still grim reality, but a hopeful note over all.

[Forrest]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Can't disagree. There is hope, only not for us.

Is there? For whom?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Is there? For whom?

Our replacements.

[Forrest]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

While I agree that unions can get way out of touch with what workers need and what the system under which they work can support, (especially a public system...see California), but I do think people have a right to a living wage. Even in this back water hamlet, that's probably $15 an hour for someone 18+. It gets more complex and more expensive when calculating for families. If others think a living wage or for that matter, any specific wage is not a right, I think they only need to wait another 10 years or so to see how that plays out in the US as right-to-work laws spread.

There are problems with minimum wages of any kind...it raises the cost level of the product, as the company will not hit the investor with any of these costs, which raises prices all round, and makes it hard for the minimum wage earner to buy even the product he makes.

Making wages begin at a particular price only drives the company involved to cheaper solutions...like robots and computer operated everything...which helps no one but the company and it's investors.

Quality product, with competitive wages and prices are what drives a functioning market, but one also needs a hands off approach by Government, and by streamlining entitlements, and the addition of lower or targeted taxes to stimulate invention, research, and production, a market system that is not controlled.

I do not see any such sanity pending, and with the continuing insanity a society going further and further out of balance until it collapses...which is what we are all waiting for...and waiting for...and wating for....

[EJ]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Can't disagree. There is hope, only not for us.

I question the antiquated framework of the social policy debate on economic equality, set as Labor vs Capital. It's a holdover from an era of slow technological innovation and highly limited social and economic mobility.

In Marx's time the chance of any young man or woman starting life as Labor and later in life becoming part of the Capitalist class, per the Marxian conceptions, was so remote as to be irrelevant from the perspective of his analysis of the political economy, yet such is common if not typical today, at least among certain cultural groups. In Marx's day if you were born to a family of laborers then a laborer you would be, too, and if you were born to wealth and privilege then you were forged from birth a Capitalist, so he can be forgiven for conceiving of the conflict between economic classes as between two immutable populations sets. As for the class aspiring to rise from one to the other Marx was contemptuous, referring to them as the Petite Bourgeoisie.

In the United States and a few other countries today social and economic mobility is largely a matter of family and culture, outside the control of the State.

Speaking for a moment from personal experience, I started my working life as a tech wiring and soldering circuit boards for a few dollars an hour and now spend a good amount of my time investing in and helping start-up companies. I had no inheritance to speak of when my parents passed away when I was in my 30s. What I did have was the luck of intelligence, health, education, and culture, some of which are hereditary advantages and others a factors of family and culture.

No matter what it does the State can never compensate for the poor distribution of these advantages among all citizens. It can endeavor to improve by law better equality of opportunity but anything the State tries to do to create equality of result inevitably backfires.

Among the critical factors for economic success culture and family are clearly now the most significant but still the least discussed, despite the clear evidence of this all around us.

A family from China moved in down the street from us during the housing downturn. Prices didn't go down much here but did somewhat and they timed their purchase to the downturn. The house is small, maybe 1500 square feet, with two bedrooms and one bathroom, swamp behind it and power lines beside it. I don't know exactly how many people live there but by rough count there are the mother and father, three kids, and at least one grand parent living in the home. They could have purchased a larger home on a larger and less modest lot in the neighboring town. But what the little house by the power line lacks for amenities it makes up for in one aspect of its location that was of primary importance to the family: proximity to one of the best elementary schools in the country. From there their children can attend to one of the best high schools, and after that be in a good position to get into MIT or Harvard. By moving into the cramped house they know that when their kids grow up they will be well educated, and speak without with an accent and vocabulary that instantly identifies them as part of the educated class. With that they have a ticket to a well paying profession or not, if they so choose.

The upper hand that they will have over the native-born kids the next town over, advantages that will serve them all of their lives, will be entirely due to decisions made by their parents, which decisions are a factor largely of culture. They will have nothing to do with the State.

When I speak with immigrants from Russia or India or China or virtually anywhere in the world they invariably express their confusion at hearing the complaints by native-born Americans about the unfairness of the American economy, as indicated by the fact that some are wealthy while others are poor.

A friend's Russian girlfriend put it to me this way -- paraphrasing. I asked her what she thought of economic inequality in America. Rolling her eyes, she said "All this whining and complaining. 'It's not fair that these guys have so little and these other guys have so much.' In my country as a woman I had no opportunities to advance myself. To even want to advance yourself was bad and unladylike. Your family history, race, religion, gender, accent... all of these narrow you down there. Here no one cares, or, well, not nearly so much. Here your boss cares what you can do for him. Promise results and deliver and it does not matter if you're a woman or African or what you are. If you fail you get to try again! Start over! And if you are broke you have welfare and food stamps, not to live like a king but you will not starve. America is the Socialist dream but better because you can opt-out. What more do people here want than this? I don't understand it."