U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-01-2018, 10:27 PM
 
6,308 posts, read 4,774,343 times
Reputation: 8437

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
Right, but what income levels are we talking about and how high were benefits 50 years ago at a comparable income level?
$75K-$375K and they were less 50 years ago because health insurance was dirt cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2018, 10:42 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 2,000,887 times
Reputation: 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/econo...ports/1967.pdf

50 Years ago. The US Economy was a peach. Aside from the report Time reported that 10% of all goods consumed in the UK were from the US. The US sold 40% of Europe's autos and 80% of their computing power. Sheer capital made scale possible for the US companies that the war torn regions just couldn't catch up to...of course some may say that was only until we started diverting said capital advantage to war efforts, others may say it's actually healthier and inevitable that the world started producing its own goods. I never realized how dominant the US really was. Trade surpluses are pretty nice.

At any rate, it amazes me, the script style, the simplicity, the cause and effect. It also treats money as a finite resource. GNP growth was x, this much will be spent on the military, this much left to the private sector.

I though it was neat. Maybe you guys will too.
A peach for whom? Maybe 1% of the population located in the us it was great. For another 4.5 billion not so much.

Competition has been the great equalizer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,737,218 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
And a strong government, I would argue, is a bad government – whether it is local, national or international; whether it is democratic, autocratic or anything in between. The best situation is where there is no concentration of power, be it in official governments or in private hands, in churches or corporations, in armies or militias.
A strong government is one that can make and enforce laws. A strong *democratic* government is one in which the public has a fair say in those laws. You seem to be railing against something else, but I'm not quite sure what it is.

You wouldn't want to live in a country with weak government. Businesses don't want to operate in them either.

The US government hasn't been weakened, rather it's democracy that has been weakened. I'd say that the invasive spying and surveillance has made the government much stronger, while it has also grown more corrupt.

Quote:
But getting back to the thread’s topic, before this thread becomes too political… you are looking at economic changes over the past 50 years, and are finding them to range somewhere between regrettable and pernicious. I also regret, that the average American working man’s wherewithal has in relative terms slipped. But at the risk of sounding callous, I think that this slippage is a reasonable price to pay, for an overall greater global prosperity. Today’s world is certainly no utopia. But it offers more opportunity to more people, than did the world of 1967.
Your assumption is pure fantasy though. World GDP growth has declined, and world gini has increased. Compared to what we have lost, the gains in poorer countries have been small. Follow the money. Your clever "elite" have been executing a plan to make themselves fabulously rich and powerful. When they no longer need "consumers" what do you suppose they will do? The newly made "middle class" in developing countries will also be in a world of ****.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 03:01 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,031,855 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow View Post
I got my first job in 1967. I was a nurse's aide in a convent nursing home in Massachusetts for the princely sum of $1.65 per hour. Part time, I was a kid in school. I think I told them I was a bit older than I actually was to get the job.

Here's what I remember about the economics of those times. My dad worked and easily supported the 4 of us. We had a normal middle class life. We had a home, car, and went on vacation every year plus usually a trip to visit the grandparents in another state. We had pretty much everything we needed and most of what we wanted. Dad usually went on several hunting trips every year with his buddies as well. We all went to the dentist and the doctor at least twice a year. We weren't rich by any means but dad's job paid enough to take care of us quite well. To the best of my knowledge, my parents didn't fight about money and we had no problems paying the bills. My father was not a college graduate. He was able to use the GI Bill for training in accounting after WWII and Korea.

I had a lot of relatives who were poor. Not because they didn't work but because they were trying to support too many kids. Even with some of the wives working as well. Most of the women(aunts) were nurses or teachers. My mom was also a nurse and she wanted to work but my dad was against it. I can actually remember him saying he didn't want people to think he didn't make enough money to support his family...

Working people then were much more secure than they are today. You could pretty much assume that as long as you worked hard, you could retire from your job. You were not constantly afraid of losing your job. And most likely your job had healthcare and a pension included.

Things sure did change and not for the better.
Exactly.
Due to inflation over run and greedy business, this what put us in trouble today. No reason why we are paying what were paying now for things. We got to stop the inflation business manipulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 03:09 PM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
20,822 posts, read 37,497,249 times
Reputation: 20883
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
Exactly.
Due to inflation over run and greedy business, this what put us in trouble today. No reason why we are paying what were paying now for things. We got to stop the inflation business manipulation.
1st look to your GOV / voter initiatives...(which YOU may have voted for...)

consider the new minimum wages that started yesterday...

Then the expense of having / filing for / insuring / training / replacing employees...

Businesses are run pretty lean...

Lots of employees make more than the 'boss'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 03:13 PM
 
6,827 posts, read 4,420,233 times
Reputation: 11978
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
The US government hasn't been weakened, rather it's democracy that has been weakened. I'd say that the invasive spying and surveillance has made the government much stronger, while it has also grown more corrupt.
On this, we agree. But it’s not the case, that tens of millions of Americans are writing their Congressmen, about the need to repeal the “USA PATRIOT” Act, and that these Congressmen are ignoring their constituents. Rather, most Americans are either too apathetic or too obtuse to care; or, they actually prefer the tradeoff of [infinitesimally] more security, for [vastly] less freedom. It is democracy that brought us the modern security-state. It wasn’t a cabal of shadowy fat men chain-smoking cigars in the back-room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 06:43 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,031,855 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
1st look to your GOV / voter initiatives...(which YOU may have voted for...) Dont vote on anything that refers to tax related issues. Just one way or another they will get their funds and i dont want a hand in that process. Rather i say no to tax increase on this x they will eventually raise x on another item, "sales tax" to get it.

consider the new minimum wages that started yesterday...People wouldnt be asking for wage increase if the market would stop inflating prices so we can eat. simple solution to that problem

Then the expense of having / filing for / insuring / training / replacing employees...Never that much expensive to train. I train alot of people and still was able to do my job. So no lost in production. Most companies use that excuse to keep from hiring or training new people. Just a excuse with no merit or proof it costs the company anything.

Businesses are run pretty lean... Most are, and majority are profiting like their is no end. *amazon, walmart, business financials.

Lots of employees make more than the 'boss' Maybe, if you a small business owner, than i can see your point. But if your a major fortune 500.. Bull.. lol. Differ views on what you can consider making more, as the boss/owner you can give your self a raise any time, but would you sacrifice your work force for that extra grand a week?

Really the inflation has got to stop. Its like somebody designed a solution to raise cost to see how much they can really get out of a item. If somebody made 10k in 1950 and housing was in the low 45-60k, then everybody was buying homes and now they are paid off. If they kept up with wages and housing today, we wouldnt be having so many people throwing money on rentals. wages should ALWAYS keep up with COL. but it doesnt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,737,218 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
On this, we agree. But it’s not the case, that tens of millions of Americans are writing their Congressmen, about the need to repeal the “USA PATRIOT” Act, and that these Congressmen are ignoring their constituents. Rather, most Americans are either too apathetic or too obtuse to care; or, they actually prefer the tradeoff of [infinitesimally] more security, for [vastly] less freedom. It is democracy that brought us the modern security-state. It wasn’t a cabal of shadowy fat men chain-smoking cigars in the back-room.
People have lost faith in the system, and for good reason. Propaganda is more effective than it's ever been at keeping us confused and divided. Is our democracy weaker because the oligarchs want that, or does it just happen accidentally?

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." FDR

BTW, regarding protests against the Patriot Act, were you aware that US citizens suspected of terrorism can be held indefinitely without trial?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-trial/333690/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top