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.
First of all don't assume I agree with each of the so-called "liberal" stances that you are criticizing. Because I don't.
A) I agree with you that Carter was a bad president. Not disputing that. But I was referring to a period of 4-5 decades of economic policies before Reagon, not just the 4 years of Carter. Yes the Carter years were bad, some of the worst. But I think he also inherited lots of issues from the previous republican administration (Nixon). Also, a lot of the inflation was as a result of the Vietnam War. I also agree with you when you say that Reagon won in a landslide because of Carter. People bought into Reagan's idea's because they were so worn out from the 70's and Carter. They wanted something new so Reagan's ideas sounded appealing. My point was looking back now, the policies implemented by Reagan have had a devestating effect on our economy and we are now paying the price. You will likely disagree with me on this, but most Americans are starting to realize. This is why Obama got elected. Because the average person has realized that Reagan's free-market/supply-side economics has reduced their wages/income and increased their expenses greatly.
B) I never said or implied that inflation has been high. I said wages have declined relative to inflation. Inflation has remained relatively low (4-6% going by your figures). But wages remained stagnant or increased moderately. So after years of wages lagging behind inflation, people's income in real numbers has declined significantly. Meanwhile our expenses have quadroupled. So the problem hasn't been inflation, its been wages. Do you dispute this?
Also, certain sectors/industries have fared better than others since Reagan. Blue-collar industries that were formerly unionzed heavily but were de-regulated suffered the most. Truckers, airline-pilots, coal-miners, auto-mechanics, etc. have seen their wages decimated. Now they are earning meager wages, maybe $10 per hour. Also, the number of those jobs has descreased significantly, so the stats are skewed to not look as bad as they really are. A large number of workers were pushed out of those industries due to the declining number of positions due to outsourcing overseas. So you have a heavy amount of competition between workers to apply for limited positions which drives down wages further. Also, these jobs have been dismissed in recent years as being "unskilled labor" beause these people didn't earn a college degree in many cases.
Another great example is teachers who have seen their wages decline greatly, and are holding on by a thread to their benefits. The right-wing has been demonizing teachers and teacher's-unions for years in an attempt to destroy the unions. Why? Because they want to destroy public education so it can be privatized for-profit. They want the public schools to be so bad that no family will want to send their kids there, and they will have no choice to pay $ to send their kids to private schools. The mistake the republicans are making though is that we have hit a point where people no longer can afford to take on extra expenses beyond basic insurance, housing, and food costs.
C) No new jobs will be created unless we invest in education. So I agree that this bailout money will have a minimal effect on creating jobs. It might create a few inforstructure projects that will employ low-wage earners for a year or so building a new highway, but it will take a lot more long-term investments to actually create sustainable jobs. What I do know is that doing what we have been doing under Bush won't work. Sitting back and assuming that you can just let Americans go further into debt, have a negative trade-balance, high defecits, outsourcing manufacturing jobs oversees, continuing cheap credit/borrowing that people cannot afford to pay back, keep cutting education so people become dumber, less-skilled, less educated, etc. will not work. Because that is what we've been doing for a while.
D) I totally agree with you on the cars. They are making a bad judgement error in assuming people want to drive around these little dinky lawn-mowers with engines that cannot fit anybody inside and cannot haul anything just because they are fuel efficient. What people really want is bigger cars and SUV's, but with better gas mileage.
But lets not assume the cars we've been buying/driving for years now are what people want. American car companies have been producing cars people don't want for years which is why they've lost market share to foreign companies. Most people today would buy a Toyota or Honda over a Chevy or Ford because they are better cars and more reliable. Aside from the truck market, Ford, GM, and Chrysler have lost it. The few cars they do produce that people want/are attracted to are too expensive to insure for average people. I would love to buy a Mustang GT, but I wouldn't be able to afford the insurance.
E) I don't hear/see these "left-wing economists" you speak of very often. Whenever I turn on CNN, Foxnews, or MSNBC, all I hear is the right-wing economists who are paid by the news stations (who are conservative-owned) to come on and tell you that free-market capitalism is the way to go, or the greatest thing since hotcakes. The ones who tell you everything is fine, and that you should invest in the markets. Guys like Larry Kudlow, Rick Santelli, Jim Cramer, etc. who think the way they do because they want you to invest more money into the markets so they get richer. And these guys are on MSNBC, which is supposedly a "liberal" news station. I have yet to hear someone preaching Keynesian economics, or demand-side economics which is the only thing that can save our economy from collapsing. Demand economics is what we practiced from the depths of the Great Depression up until the year 1980, yet has been thrown off the bus by Republicans since Reagan. The media and the republicans flat our reject these policies and label them as socialism. Anything that is not extreme, hardcore free-market economics is deemed socialism.
Great posts but I have to disagree with you Nolen on what people want to drive. Civic and Camry for example have been two of the top selling cars in the US for years. Some may want SUV, but would I say most? No, not at all.
I would also disagree with the merits of capitalism. In my opinion it is a barbaric system based on individualism (Read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) and in my opinion individualism in matters that affect the entire nation is irrational.
Nolen you are exactly right about wages not keeping up with inflation. This started under Nixon with his breaking of the unions. This time period also saw the rise of Credit Cards, Student Loans, Car Loans and Home Equity loans. People used these to suplement the lose in wages they suffered. This was all made possible by our friends in the middle east and asia via their lending us money (cheap and easy credit). Fundamentals are going to make a STRONG come back now because those days are gone. The bad thing is the suffering we will see along the road back to sanity. I think the first substatial thing we could do is go back to a commodity based monetary system. We must start with sound money before we can do anything else.
To further prove your point Nolen, look at home prices or even car prices. I think I read a 1977 Mustang was 7,000 dollars and the avearge income was something like 15,000 (47% of income). In 2005 the average income was 23,000 and a brand new mustang was 19,000 (83% of income). You can do this with a number of goods to see just how much Americans' purchasing power has been diminished.
Great posts but I have to disagree with you Nolen on what people want to drive. Civic and Camry for example have been two of the top selling cars in the US for years. Some may want SUV, but would I say most? No, not at all.
I would also disagree with the merits of capitalism. In my opinion it is a barbaric system based on individualism (Read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) and in my opinion individualism in matters that affect the entire nation is irrational.
Nolen you are exactly right about wages not keeping up with inflation. This started under Nixon with his breaking of the unions. This time period also saw the rise of Credit Cards, Student Loans, Car Loans and Home Equity loans. People used these to suplement the lose in wages they suffered. This was all made possible by our friends in the middle east and asia via their lending us money (cheap and easy credit). Fundamentals are going to make a STRONG come back now because those days are gone. The bad thing is the suffering we will see along the road back to sanity. I think the first substatial thing we could do is go back to a commodity based monetary system. We must start with sound money before we can do anything else.
To further prove your point Nolen, look at home prices or even car prices. I think I read a 1977 Mustang was 7,000 dollars and the avearge income was something like 15,000 (47% of income). In 2005 the average income was 23,000 and a brand new mustang was 19,000 (83% of income). You can do this with a number of goods to see just how much Americans' purchasing power has been diminished.
but wait.......from what I recall (going back in my economics memory) the NLRA bust was only regarding health care workers who were bringing hospitals to a grinding halt so as to public safety issues, you're right Nixon signed that.
Not to get into Nixon LOL but he was battling inflation, I agree...
Meanwhile, though lets not forget that if you have breast cancer in the UK you WAIT. Same in Canada.
For fun I"m gonna look up my paystubs for 1977. I even had a Mustang LOL A 1968 used one from my parents at graduation in 1972.
My personal opinion is that the 80's was the start of greed. I may be conservative but I'm not in favor of greed and idiocy including mothers thinking it's ok to throw your kid in daycare at 6 weeks old for the 2nd BMW in the driveway and that's what we had then.
I think it's an ebb and flow from left to right over and over all based on people's lack of personal self control and common sense. To put it in a non economic parochial way. APATHY being the biggest culprit. Most people have zero interest or knowledge about what's going on politically or why.
But I still dont see any Socialist country doing better in terms of personal freedoms and "opportunity" do you? I certainly don't plan to wait for 9 months for cancer treatment and that FEAR IS WHAT KEPT ME WORKING MY ASS OFF my whole life. I think it's a good thing for people to model. Wanna eat? Work. ha ha
Even Sweden returned the banks to private control.
Then again, when I was 25 I thought Carter was just awesome...till I lived him. ...I just don't see where Capitalism is the reason for politicians disgraceful corruption and the public's laziness in being involved. I agree with the corruption and complexity though. That extends to each citizen who'd rather sit around letting everyone else determine their futures.
but wait.......from what I recall (going back in my economics memory) the NLRA bust was only regarding health care workers who were bringing hospitals to a grinding halt so as to public safety issues, you're right Nixon signed that.
Not to get into Nixon LOL but he was battling inflation, I agree...
Meanwhile, though lets not forget that if you have breast cancer in the UK you WAIT. Same in Canada.
For fun I"m gonna look up my paystubs for 1977. I even had a Mustang LOL A 1968 used one from my parents at graduation in 1972.
My personal opinion is that the 80's was the start of greed. I may be conservative but I'm not in favor of greed and idiocy including mothers thinking it's ok to throw your kid in daycare at 6 weeks old for the 2nd BMW in the driveway and that's what we had then.
I think it's an ebb and flow from left to right over and over all based on people's lack of personal self control and common sense. To put it in a non economic parochial way. APATHY being the biggest culprit. Most people have zero interest or knowledge about what's going on politically or why.
But I still dont see any Socialist country doing better in terms of personal freedoms and "opportunity" do you? I certainly don't plan to wait for 9 months for cancer treatment and that FEAR IS WHAT KEPT ME WORKING MY ASS OFF my whole life. I think it's a good thing for people to model. Wanna eat? Work. ha ha
Even Sweden returned the banks to private control.
Then again, when I was 25 I thought Carter was just awesome...till I lived him.
battling inflation? No, he caused it, he took us off of the gold standard completely so that he could print up ungodly amounts of money. When foreign US debt holders realized what was going on they demanded payment in gold. Nixon said nope, we are doing away with gold backed money in favor of a fully Fiat monetary system and that's when the fun really began.
As for the reasons why people the way they are. You hit it on the head, people serving their own self interest at the expense of the good of the nation. But that is what America was founded on, unfettered individualism.
Another great example is teachers who have seen their wages decline greatly, and are holding on by a thread to their benefits. The right-wing has been demonizing teachers and teacher's-unions for years in an attempt to destroy the unions. Why? Because they want to destroy public education so it can be privatized for-profit. They want the public schools to be so bad that no family will want to send their kids there, and they will have no choice to pay $ to send their kids to private schools. The mistake the republicans are making though is that we have hit a point where people no longer can afford to take on extra expenses beyond basic insurance, housing, and food costs.
Thanks for your detailed reply I have to read it more slowly but this part...
UH...I dont know a single conservative that thinks that. I've never ever heard that accusation it makes no sense to me since everyone in America knows that people cannot afford nor will want to PAY for every year of school. Even on Little House on the Prarie (HA HA) school was free so how are you getting that Republicans are out to destroy public education??
In fact every single person I know used our public schools. And every single one of my friends in my kid's circle were either corporate types or entrepreneural types in a Republican voting district.
Wealthy people MOVED to our district because the schools were so good.
I really think you're merging a class warfare political view with something else.
Do you have kids? When you have some really disgusting crappy teachers in a 12 year period for your child, you may decide that unions notwithstanding they need to be MANAGED and not FLOAT ALONG just because they have "seniority" which is the complaint that EVERYONE has about unions. (I am also a former union member and staunch believer in them).
I can even tell you several stories of teachers with tenure who were totally out of line and one even broke the law and STOLE my kids 800.00 worth of hockey equiptment to "teach him a lesson" and his hs math teacher was in violation of the state laws regarding IEP plans and I took him out and had math via tutor.
Perhaps it's a matter of not really knowing or relating to the ACTUAL complaints about "teachers" and the teachers union.
You notice Obama flipped on vouchers in DC. Why do you think? I think he over committed to the teachers union during his campaign.
Forgot to say, I think teacher salary has kept pace with similarly situated jobs over time.
Not to say teachers can't be underpaid, they can be.
However teachers pay has normally been similar to nurses, more than cops and firefighters and close to many corporate jobs with similar education, slightly more than most run of the mill corporate jobs.
One could argue "they deserve more" but that's a separate discussion I think versus their salaries in particular lagging behind as they claim.
And again don't we have the public to blame for not wanting to pay more in taxes? Then there's the old "they only work 9 months per year" argument that has merit. Especially considering they can do most of their out of classroom work from 3-5 if they dont have extra curricular.
There was a teacher posting here surfing the net while her kids were taking a test! Right in the same room asking where to move.
I'm not talking about college professors they live in their OWN WORLD LOL
I think you took everything I said and flipped it backwards. I didn't say most people want SUV's. I said that MOST people want BIGGER cars and SUV's, not smaller cars. If someone had a choice between a big car that fits lots of passengers comfortably and has trunk room versus a little box car with a lawn-mower engine, most people will chose the big car if money wasn't a factor. Also, I stated that people are buying Toyota's and Hondas over Fords and Chevy's. So you're echoeing me here. This is because Hondas and Toyotas are better cars. They last longer, they're more reliable, and they're more stylistically attractive than American cars. They're also less costly to maintain generally. These are reasons why people have been flocking to foreign made cars. My point with the SUV's and pickup trucks was that they are the only portion of market share where Ford and GM still dominate over the foreign ones. And they're starting to lose hold of that market as well since less and less people can afford to buy a $45,000 SUV. All of these Chevy Tahoes and Lincoln Navigators are going to become less affordable as time goes on due to gas prices, lower family incomes, and credit drying up.
Also, the U.S. does not have any trade barriers/import taxes/tariff's on foreign cars coming in, whereas other countries such as Japan, China, and Germany do. So we're buying lots of their cars, but they're not buying many of ours. So it creates a huge disadvantage for American car companies to compete with foreign manufacturers. We keep hearing how the unions are destroying GM and Chrysler because GM has to pay their employees health benefits and Toyota doesn't, but nobody mentions import tariff's as being an unequal playing field between U.S. companies and formerly foreign companies.
OK Scissors down memory lane, I have my IRS box out since I filed an extension.
This is how normal people lived in the 70's who weren't in college full time and worked.
1972 $7287 101.50 per week at an entry level union office job with full benefits including college paid.
I paid my parents 50.00 per week to pay back the 1968 Red Mustang graduation gift. some gift, huh? LOL
BTW my parents were of some means, not ultra rich but this shows you kids didnt' just go get brand new expensive cars like in the 90's like my dam kid from my parents.
Other girls out of high school were making 75.00 per week, as a matter of comparison. 4000.00 per year. Which is the only reason I took that job for the summer until college but ended up staying for the money.
1975 $10,300 - I bought a new car but shouldn't have it was too much of my income and I lived at home at the time even. A Gran Prix LOL I thought I was awesome ha ha.
1977 $ 12,500 1978 $ 14,800 1979 $ 18,000
1980 $ 3392 (had a baby LOL) then worked part time for awhile
1983 $ 24,327
1984 $ 28,082
1985 $ 32,500
here I became management so it's not an equal comparison....thereafter
You can see we got nice raises back then. This decade 2000-2007 the union got 2% annually but the 70's had a COLA INDEX that drove the raise too.
OK so all I can say is nobody who was an everyday person without an advanced career in 1977 had any business even buying a brand new car unless they were on two incomes.Most of my friends drove used cars or semi new.
It was a different time. Most of the single women in my office from 1972 till about then were buying a place setting of china every week for their future weddings. LOL
People were just starting to wear pants to an "office" AND they had to be pants suits never jeans.
"Woman's lib" as we called it at the time was a big problem. Women in senior positions stopped at mid level and were ALWAYS single. We're even now paid less than men statistically. I still don't know what the proper answer is. It's just time, I suppose to level out.
All of a sudden everyone dumped the kids in daycare. Shocking really and the beginning of the "slide to greed" IMO. I was lucky and my husband was in grad school up until 1980 so we just swapped the one income. Then my mother became the baby sitter at around age 3-4. We had that one car. EVERYONE had ONE CAR unless the husband was a fire fighter or a cop on a 12 hour 12 day shift or some other specific reason.
I know this isn't economics but you can see how salaries went from a real everyday person. ..and how FAMILIES lived, there was none of this kids raising themselves and I know that makes me sound old but I see the harmful effects and detachment syndrome of so many people raised that way IMO. After all, what good is it for a baby to see it's parents 1 or 2 hours per day or be forced to stay awake till 10 pm and have to go to daycare at 7 when they should be asleep?
So in 1977 that office worker was making 12,500 and a mustang was around 4000.00
That same job was paying around 55000 in 2005 so somehow the "average income" statistic doesn't apply to that job because the difference is not major with a Mustang being around 19,000.
I don't doubt you and I know you work off of study/stat numbers so it's just that it doesn't apply to me, and I'm a very typical person. (except for changing jobs and moving around LOL)
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.
....from what I recall (going back in my economics memory) the NLRA bust was only regarding health care workers who were bringing hospitals to a grinding halt so as to public safety issues, you're right Nixon signed that. 
...I just don't see where Capitalism is the reason for politicians disgraceful corruption and the public's laziness in being involved. I agree with the corruption and complexity though. That extends to each citizen who'd rather sit around letting everyone else determine their futures.
Right in the same room asking where to move. 
