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.
Our wages have been flat, but our buying power have increased substantially. Besides, wage stagnation ignores social mobility. Most Americans move up to a higher quintile they were born in.
I guess you really don't know what real income means.
And how can "most" people move up the ladder when it's relative by definition? For everyone that moves up, someone has to move down.
Before our modern monetary system, capitalists had to indulge in some form of theft as a pre mode to development.
No, but thanks for the Straw Man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
How would the US become an industrialized society had it not forcefully acquire land from indigenous people and enslave Africans?
The same way all other societies did.
Your argument fails by simply looking at maps.
And your argument fails because you don't understand the Customary Law of Land Usage. Even tribal groups in the US recognized that developed land was "owned" even if there was no properly recorded deed or title, and that undeveloped land was free for the taking.
Your argument also fails, because like the Dutch, British and other colonists did, you could purchase the land from the tribal groups.
And as usual, you ignore the fact that tribal groups helped both the colonists and the later Americans to obtain land from other tribal groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
We've shifted our manufacturing overseas, so we don't have to endure pollution costs.
No, you shifted manufacturing overseas to be more competitive globally.
The concept is one a 4th Grader can understand:
US: costs $28 to manufacture, sells for $33 yields $5 profit
non-US: costs $2 to manufacture, sells for $7 yields $5 profit
See?
$5 profit is $5 profit.
The only difference is the rest of the world can afford to pay $7 for an item, but they cannot afford to pay and they would be stupid to pay to $33.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
We in fact got flat real wages,...
Your wages should never have been this high in the first place. The only reason they are is because you have been stealing Capital from dozens of other foreign States for more than 100 years.
Your graph is all wrong with all the wrong data.
This graph applies to your wages, too....
...so get used to it.
1951-1960 Avg Wage $3,407.98
Pct Increase for Decade = 43.15%
1961-1970 Avg Wage $4,981.34
Pct Increase for Decade = 51.37%
1971-1980 Avg Wage $9,142.76
Pct Increase for Decade = 92.60% (Due to Monetary Inflation and Wage Inflation)
1981-1990 Avg Wage $17,271.12
Pct Increase for Decade = 52.67%
1991-2000 Avg Wage $26,116.49
Pct Increase for Decade = 47.42%
2001-2010 Avg Wage $37,561.78
Pct Increase for Decade = 26.58%
2011-2013 Avg Wage $44,063.15
Pct Increase for 4 year period = 4.44%
Primitive accumulation isn't a necessary stepping stone to development. It was just how the rich got richer before industrialization. Plato lamented that he could see no way for his society to exist without slavery. In order for some to have the necessary leisure and time to enjoy the finer things in life, others had to be conscripted to work. Of course there are ways to organize this with serfs and peasants rather than slaves. That's pretty much how it was everywhere in "civilized" society until industrialization.
What makes you think serfs and peasants were that much better off than slaves in Ancient Greece? At least a slave could buy his/her way free.
Serfs in particular were "tied to the land" - eg could not go anywhere. Also could not marry without the Lord's permission. And don't forget "droit de Seignuer". While this was not a codified law, if you think for one second that the guy with all the power didn't make free with the local young women (whether they were interested or not), you're a very naive person, LOL!
Serfs were the "share-croppers" of the Middle Ages - they did not own the land they worked nor even necessarily the crops they grew on their assigned (not owned) plots, as they were expected to pay taxes out of those crops. Also, the Lord's crops took priority - so if there was a storm coming just before harvest, the serf would have to work to harvest the Lord's crop first, and if that meant his own crops - upon which he depended for food and to pay taxes - got pounded into the ground, tough nuts.
Serfs were not allowed to catch so much as a rabbit without permission. It was said that the only thing a serf owned was "his belly" - even his clothes were owned by the Lord.
Serfdom became progressively more onerous as time passed - what started out as a few days of service per year per household became 6 days of 7 per week - which resulted in peasant uprisings and the eventual end of feudalism (and in some cases, of the monarchy as well).
Serf, peasant, villein, slave - 'sall bad. It's all a pyramid scheme. The only guy who "wins" is the one at the top.
And your argument fails because you don't understand the Customary Law of Land Usage. Even tribal groups in the US recognized that developed land was "owned" even if there was no properly recorded deed or title, and that undeveloped land was free for the taking.
Your argument also fails, because like the Dutch, British and other colonists did, you could purchase the land from the tribal groups.
And as usual, you ignore the fact that tribal groups helped both the colonists and the later Americans to obtain land from other tribal groups.
No, you shifted manufacturing overseas to be more competitive globally.
The concept is one a 4th Grader can understand:
US: costs $28 to manufacture, sells for $33 yields $5 profit
non-US: costs $2 to manufacture, sells for $7 yields $5 profit
See?
$5 profit is $5 profit.
The only difference is the rest of the world can afford to pay $7 for an item, but they cannot afford to pay and they would be stupid to pay to $33.
Your wages should never have been this high in the first place. The only reason they are is because you have been stealing Capital from dozens of other foreign States for more than 100 years.
Your graph is all wrong with all the wrong data.
This graph applies to your wages, too....
...so get used to it.
1951-1960 Avg Wage $3,407.98
Pct Increase for Decade = 43.15%
1961-1970 Avg Wage $4,981.34
Pct Increase for Decade = 51.37%
1971-1980 Avg Wage $9,142.76
Pct Increase for Decade = 92.60% (Due to Monetary Inflation and Wage Inflation)
1981-1990 Avg Wage $17,271.12
Pct Increase for Decade = 52.67%
1991-2000 Avg Wage $26,116.49
Pct Increase for Decade = 47.42%
2001-2010 Avg Wage $37,561.78
Pct Increase for Decade = 26.58%
2011-2013 Avg Wage $44,063.15
Pct Increase for 4 year period = 4.44%
Your wages should never have been this high in the first place. The only reason they are is because you have been stealing Capital from dozens of other foreign States for more than 100 years.
Your theories about empire are fascinating, but the US doesn't have a per capita GDP or average income problem at all. Rather all the productivity gains (~80% increase since 1970) have gone to a tiny fraction of the population.
How does your proposed theory regarding theft from foreign states account for that?
Mark's problem was he never worked was in possession of real. once the Revolution ended and control was taken all the elite leadership turned to seeing each other as the enemy. then once Stalin had power he and Hitler saw each other socialist governments as the enemies. power. In WWI the German government even financed Lenin's return to take Russia out of the war. What has been traded here is government more and more the middleman between workers and employers. In compensation the ACA is a heck of a increase in compensation for many as subsidity is averaging 75% of cost. Liberal love to be the middle man and not only direct compensation gained that way but the votes it locks up of those dependent on it.
Your theories about empire are fascinating, but the US doesn't have a per capita GDP or average income problem at all. Rather all the productivity gains (~80% increase since 1970) have gone to a tiny fraction of the population.
How does your proposed theory regarding theft from foreign states account for that?
If you think the 1% took too much, then you should understand that western populations are the 1%. You had higher salaries because other countries are poor. During the Cold War, many countries were under communism, which artificially created a non competitive market for westerner workers and probably unusually high wages.
What has happened in the last 20 years since the end of the Cold War is that labor cost and wages are going back to where they would be, once nearly all countries have joined global capitalism. And that's what westerners always wanted, the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism. Now, the communists don't do it anymore. Look what happened.
Call this wealth redistribution from the west to the east. It has been under way for three decades.
Some fraction of the 0.01%. The gains have been very concentrated.
Quote:
You had higher salaries because other countries are poor.
You hit some of the key elements.
I think the USSR and the cold war was the main reason why unionization and middle class wages went up so sharply from 1930-1980. Communism was considered a real threat to global domination, and we needed a strong economy, military, and public support.
When that was over, the capitalist oligarchs were free to use globalization to drain middle class wealth from the US and pile on debt in the name of "free" trade.
The wealth redistribution is from the middle class in developed countries (the US in particular) to the oligarchs. Incidentally some of the poor people in developing countries are benefiting as well.
But we'll all be screwed when tech makes consumer capitalism obsolete.
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.
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.
