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 05-02-2019, 09:05 AM
 
8,788 posts, read 3,841,919 times
Reputation: 1713

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCHP View Post
I am beginning to think that the rise of the range of middle classes after WW2 was the historic anomaly and is not sustainable. We will eventually return to a three class system, vassals, merchants, and lords.
Vast amounts of new centrally directed moneys, along with central social support programs did infuse the broad middle class with a serious bit of oomf.

Today we might look for new central moneys for HC, infrastructure and education that might provide some oomf to our middle class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2019, 10:05 AM
 
639 posts, read 147,476 times
Reputation: 913
Because the profits have been mostly funneled to those that have been continually complaining that their profits have been too low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,946 posts, read 2,428,491 times
Reputation: 10801
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCHP View Post
I am beginning to think that the rise of the range of middle classes after WW2 was the historic anomaly and is not sustainable.
The rise was the anomaly; perpetuating it is not necessarily impossible.

What I really think is needed here is abandonment of the term. It used to apply to a fairly small and specific group - those above "poor" and "working class" (don't get me started), but below any level of elite. Made it, comfortable, not rich.

But misuse and blurring of SE lines has made it a category everyone thinks they are in and which pols and pundits stretch any way they like. It's completely meaningless, just multi-hundred-post argument fodder. The ultimate humpty-dumpty term.

There's no reason not to have a very broad class of those who are working, stable, reasonably comfortable but not accumulating wealth at any great rate - I think that describes a desirable situation for our turbulent future. Just don't call it the g'damn 'middle class' any more.

Quote:
We will eventually return to a three class system, vassals, merchants, and lords.
After some variant of armageddon, maybe. In foreseeable, reasonably linear terms, no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2019, 05:26 AM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
4,011 posts, read 1,485,211 times
Reputation: 7322
You do live three times well. 1/3 pays for what it always covered. The other 2/3 divides roughly into three parts:

--glitzy electronic toys and communications
--ten years longer life and miracle health care
--government-mandated regulatory compliance and "protection".

Is it worth it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2019, 12:53 AM
 
Location: midwest
1,422 posts, read 1,013,920 times
Reputation: 864
There is no mention of NNP or NDP. Is the GROSS really more important than the NET?

Economists do not mention it much.

NDP = GDP - Depreciation

But that Depreciation is for Capital Goods only. When do economists talk about how much consumers lose on the depreciation of automobiles and refrigerators and televisions? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1994. At $1500 of depreciation per car per year that comes to $300,000,000,000 lost per year in automobile depreciation alone. How much must that depreciation amount to in the 50 years since the moon landing?

Is our real problem that we are slaves to planned obsolescence? The Laws of Physics do not change style year to year and there is nothing the automobile manufacturers can do about that. So why are we making cars more expensive just so they look different every year?

Economic Wargames: How the economic model is unsustainable and enslaving.

I don't hear economists suggesting that accounting be mandatory in high school either. Double-entry accounting is 700 years old and we have had cheap computers for 20+ years. This ain't rocket science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2019, 02:49 AM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
4,011 posts, read 1,485,211 times
Reputation: 7322
^^^^ This begins to remind me of Goldstien's explanation in "1984". Waste the national productivity on high-depreciation war materials (with no real war) to keep the public impoverished in potential time of plenty.


This week, I saw an ad, a guy bragging about his new car which is wirelessly charging his phone as he speaks. I hope he had better reasons than for trading in his car on a new one. Car ads are replete with this trivial geewhiz.

Last edited by cebuan; 05-05-2019 at 03:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2019, 08:09 AM
 
2,102 posts, read 793,740 times
Reputation: 2850
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Food for Thought: And I think most of us know the reasons why.

But the unpleasant fact remains that the post-industrial workplace is structured, as it was for long before, to diminish the options, and bargaining power, of the self-reliant, and the measure of a skilled manager is often an ability to compel his/her subordinates to put in longer hours (often without direct compensation) at tasks for which they're obviously over-qualified.

Or, as Robert Frost expressed it a long time ago: "By working diligently eight hours a day, you may eventually get to be a boss -- and work diligently ten hours a day."

I'm just looking "to stir the pot"; and am interested in what some of our junior/recent members think, and have to say about this.

I make 45 times as much per hour now than when I was a teenager. I could work 1/3 as much as I did as a teen and have a far, far better lifestyle. What's your point?


Let's do some math. In 1995, the minimum wage $4.25 per hour. If you worked 40 hours per week, your gross pay per year would be $8,840. Fast forward 28 years, and you now make the median US income, or about $60K per year. You can live far better on $60K in 2019 than you could on $8,800 in 1995.

Last edited by YourWakeUpCall; 05-05-2019 at 08:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2019, 08:19 AM
 
8,788 posts, read 3,841,919 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
There is no mention of NNP or NDP. Is the GROSS really more important than the NET?

Economists do not mention it much.

NDP = GDP - Depreciation

But that Depreciation is for Capital Goods only. When do economists talk about how much consumers lose on the depreciation of automobiles and refrigerators and televisions? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1994. At $1500 of depreciation per car per year that comes to $300,000,000,000 lost per year in automobile depreciation alone. How much must that depreciation amount to in the 50 years since the moon landing?

Is our real problem that we are slaves to planned obsolescence? The Laws of Physics do not change style year to year and there is nothing the automobile manufacturers can do about that. So why are we making cars more expensive just so they look different every year?

Economic Wargames: How the economic model is unsustainable and enslaving.

I don't hear economists suggesting that accounting be mandatory in high school either. Double-entry accounting is 700 years old and we have had cheap computers for 20+ years. This ain't rocket science.
GDP is crude as a number at best and always somewhat arcane in meaning as it relates to Joe Blow.
Looking at the big picture IMO the trend is what is important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2019, 08:27 AM
 
8,788 posts, read 3,841,919 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by cebuan View Post
^^^^ This begins to remind me of Goldstien's explanation in "1984". Waste the national productivity on high-depreciation war materials (with no real war) to keep the public impoverished in potential time of plenty.


This week, I saw an ad, a guy bragging about his new car which is wirelessly charging his phone as he speaks. I hope he had better reasons than for trading in his car on a new one. Car ads are replete with this trivial geewhiz.
With modern money, spending on our military should have little impact on spending for other public support programs. Unless there are direct conflicts with resources or inflation erupts, we can do HC, education and/or infrastructure, and keep our military. i.e. we are no longer limited by USD as we were on a gold std. in 1949.

With Progressives and Trump in 2020 I believe that our people will be getting further education on the USD. Which is our/their money that they deserve to control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2019, 10:23 AM
 
Location: plano
6,416 posts, read 7,956,699 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Food for Thought: And I think most of us know the reasons why.

But the unpleasant fact remains that the post-industrial workplace is structured, as it was for long before, to diminish the options, and bargaining power, of the self-reliant, and the measure of a skilled manager is often an ability to compel his/her subordinates to put in longer hours (often without direct compensation) at tasks for which they're obviously over-qualified.

Or, as Robert Frost expressed it a long time ago: "By working diligently eight hours a day, you may eventually get to be a boss -- and work diligently ten hours a day."

I'm just looking "to stir the pot"; and am interested in what some of our junior/recent members think, and have to say about this.
It takes three times as much money to live the same way. Inflation especially in medical and anything involving people have soared in cost. Home prices have more than tripled since my growing up days and along with it property tax and insurance costs and repairs. New roof for my current house cost twice the price if my first house in 1973. Thank you DC

Last edited by Johnhw2; 05-05-2019 at 10:32 AM..
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

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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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