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.
Why do you say so? I’d argue, on the contrary, that weakening of national governments is a pro-democratic trend, because it diminishes the power of factions or demagogues, or local corruption. It diffuses power across continents and time-zones. It reduces the serendipitous advantage of having been born in a country like the US, and diminishes the burden of having been born in Bangladesh or Nigeria. It attenuates the likelihood of major wars, as it blunts nationalism and national power.
I gotta think you didn't ponder that very long, because your rant makes no sense.
A nation is a means by which a society can secure their property and their lives. It's similar to your household. Do you like having property rights and laws that allow you to enjoy a prosperous, secure, and peaceful life? Do you open your doors and invite anyone to take whatever they like?
What is the alternative to government? How will laws be enforced that secure your rights? The weakening of government leads to chaos and poverty. Corruption rules. Might makes right. Forget about any high minded notions of freedom, human rights, public service, safety, or security.
Weakening of government diffuses power and reduces surreptitious advantage by gradually bringing us down to third world level. What then fills the power vacuum?
Democratic citizens with a strong government, have the right to decide laws that govern their lives. Our leaders are expected to support the "common good". We did not agree to have our wealth drained so that a few could become massively wealthy. Even now this fact is still obscured with persistent lies and propaganda. It's taboo, like all big lies.
So yes, democracy is obviously dead. Oligarchy is the new normal. Unlike you I do not celebrate it. I think our founding fathers would be universally outraged at what has happened.
That is a recent phenomena, on a significant scale anyway. And an anti-democratic one.
Whether or not it is recent is certainly arguable, but the main adjective is permanent. Capital can and will continue to flow through countries like the tides. Most countries protect themselves with a VAT/GST arrangement to capture the movement. The US has never had the stomach to do the same. Until that occurs, every foreign company in the world holds us at a flanked position....our exceptionalism just isn't going to be quite that good.
Why do you say so? I’d argue, on the contrary, that weakening of national governments is a pro-democratic trend, because it diminishes the power of factions or demagogues, or local corruption. It diffuses power across continents and time-zones. It reduces the serendipitous advantage of having been born in a country like the US, and diminishes the burden of having been born in Bangladesh or Nigeria. It attenuates the likelihood of major wars, as it blunts nationalism and national power.
I often don't agree with Rruff, but I do this time. Weakening of national governments centralizes decision making in fewer and fewer hands. That's very anti-democratic. The farther away governments are from the people, the more dictatorial they become. This is exactly what the New World Order globalists want.
Most countries protect themselves with a VAT/GST arrangement to capture the movement. The US has never had the stomach to do the same. Until that occurs, every foreign company in the world holds us at a flanked position....our exceptionalism just isn't going to be quite that good.
The US certainly restricts imports for favored industries (ethanol, lumber, grain, farm products, etc), but has been highly supportive of companies moving operations to foreign counties, so we can run a big trade deficit and run up fiscal debt to fill the hole. Someone definitely makes out on that deal, but it isn't you or me.
Another good way to keep capital from running off is high income taxation, which makes it difficult to extract cash, so profits are reinvested in production. And wage supports to keep domestic demand high.
I gotta think you didn't ponder that very long, because your rant makes no sense.
A nation is a means by which a society can secure their property and their lives. It's similar to your household. Do you like having property rights and laws that allow you to enjoy a prosperous, secure, and peaceful life? Do you open your doors and invite anyone to take whatever they like?
What is the alternative to government? How will laws be enforced that secure your rights? The weakening of government leads to chaos and poverty. Corruption rules. Might makes right. Forget about any high minded notions of freedom, human rights, public service, safety, or security.
Weakening of government diffuses power and reduces surreptitious advantage by gradually bringing us down to third world level. What then fills the power vacuum?
Democratic citizens with a strong government, have the right to decide laws that govern their lives. Our leaders are expected to support the "common good". We did not agree to have our wealth drained so that a few could become massively wealthy. Even now this fact is still obscured with persistent lies and propaganda. It's taboo, like all big lies.
So yes, democracy is obviously dead. Oligarchy is the new normal. Unlike you I do not celebrate it. I think our founding fathers would be universally outraged at what has happened.
No concentration of power can be abided without checks (or a healthy suspicion) – be it public or private. But I trust my fellow citizens, and certainly the locals, even less than I trust international organizations, or financial markets, or the European Union, or central banks. If we could have a future world, in which the nation where one happens to live is irrelevant, and the flag shown on one’s passport is irrelevant, then I wholeheartedly welcome it. For the moment, I’m far more worried by nationalistic retrenchment, than I am by a Brave New World style of dystopia, where an omnipotent global emperor presides over a small class of super-humans, who in turn preside over everyone else. Democracy, to me, is more about the privilege of being unfettered by my neighbors’ wishes and prevailing mores; than it is about mass political participation.
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.
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.
Plus wages have declined the last 2 years, after failing to acheive the high set in 2000. And this is supposed to be a booming economy! The trendline of 0% gains for the last 40 years appears to be holding.
Total compensation is the sum of monetary compensation plus non-monetary compensation. Those charts appear to show only the monetary (cash) compensation rather than total compensation.
Non monetary compensation includes employer-paid health insurance, flex-time, time off, free or discounted parking, gym membership discounts, subsidized employee cafeterias, retirement matching, mentoring programs, tuition assistance, and childcare assistance, sabbatical programs, tuition assistance, etc.
Of these, the value of the employer-paid portion of health insurance is probably the largest and fastest growing.
The charts you cite seem to be cash compensation only rather than total compensation.
If you add in the value of the non-monetary compensation, I suspect the chart would look different.
Non monetary compensation includes employer-paid health insurance, flex-time, time off, free or discounted parking, gym membership discounts, subsidized employee cafeterias, retirement matching, mentoring programs, tuition assistance, and childcare assistance, sabbatical programs, tuition assistance, etc.
...If you add in the value of the non-monetary compensation, I suspect the chart would look different.
You are probably correct regarding monetary vs total compensation, although the list of "benefits" you cite sounds like some Scandinavian country rather than the US. Certainly for the average person. No doubt those who are highly compensated experience great benefits as well.
I'm not sure what it was like in '67. I didn't start working professionally until 1982, but the benefits constantly declined from that point. Pensions were phased out. Lots of perks eliminated. Healthcare that was initially fully paid, later required co-pays and monthly contributions. The employer's $ expense for healthcare has surely still risen, but the employees has risen a lot as well. It's a huge expense for everyone that we have no choice about.
So for the median worker how much has non-monetary compensation changed in the last 50 years? 1 minute on google didn't come up with anything. I'd be surprised if it was more than 10% of income.
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Non monetary compensation includes employer-paid health insurance, flex-time, time off, free or discounted parking, gym membership discounts, subsidized employee cafeterias, retirement matching, mentoring programs, tuition assistance, and childcare assistance, sabbatical programs, tuition assistance, etc.
Of those benefits, I only had health insurance and paid into a pension system through my employer when I started working at a full time teaching job in 1968.
We were required to continue on with post graduate work but there was no tuition assistance. Childcare assistance was unheard of. Cafeterias? Mentoring? Sabbaticals? Gym membership?
We did get to park for free. But we had no lunch time to ourselves yet--a law was later passed that granted us an entire 20 minute lunch duty free. Of course the school got around it by putting a teachers' table in the middle of the cafeteria filled with 150 kids that we had to supervise while we ate.
Just in case anyone is wondering. Oh--we didn't have unions yet and that was a good thing. We were not divided up, teachers vs administration. The school principal really was our PAL. He was there for us, not closed up in some office while we were out on the front lines. Also, he was paid more in line with what we were paid. So was the superintendent. Now they are treated like gods while the teachers get blamed for any little thing that goes wrong.
So for the median worker how much has non-monetary compensation changed in the last 50 years? 1 minute on google didn't come up with anything. I'd be surprised if it was more than 10% of income.
The last time I was responsible for a budget in a large organization (2008-2009), benefits were budgeted at 40% of income. The big items were health care and retirement plan contribution.
The last time I was responsible for a budget in a large organization (2008-2009), benefits were budgeted at 40% of income. The big items were health care and retirement plan contribution.
Right, but what income levels are we talking about and how high were benefits 50 years ago at a comparable income level?
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.
Oh--we didn't have unions yet and that was a good thing. We were not divided up, teachers vs administration. The school principal really was our PAL. He was there for us, not closed up in some office while we were out on the front lines. Also, he was paid more in line with what we were paid. So was the superintendent. Now they are treated like gods while the teachers get blamed for any little thing that goes wrong.
