Re: Men Who Work Full-Time Earn Less Than 40 Years Ago

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:10:16 -0700, Gunner Asch


To understand why this is so, see (Amazon.com product link shortened)98841572&sr=1-1&keywords=piketty
This is a long book [685 pages] and it is difficult to summarize a work of this length and depth, but IIUC his basic findings are:
(1) The golden thirty year period from 1950-1979 when many of us grew up, was not normal but exceptional, primarily because of the destruction or consumption of 50% or more of existing capital in WW1 and WW2, and the boom caused by the reconstruction of war damage. Because of the low [relatively] amount of capital, a much larger than "normal" share of national profit went to labor.
(2) After 1970, in large part due to Reagen and Thatcher, national private capital stocks [particularly large hereditary blocs, e. g. Koch Brothers] began to grow, and due to compounding, rapidly attained their pre WW1 levels, which meant that increasing amounts of national income were going to capital and not to labor.
(3) Because of globalization, supranational corporatism rapidly grew, promoting widespread tax avoidance/evasion again increasing the amount of capital accumulation and thus capital's share of the national income. Additionally, the political influence that large amounts of wealth provides was used to promote "trickle down" and "supply side" economics and the Laffer curve, resulting in even faster growth in high net worth individual capital, due to increased income and compounding.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/men-who-work-full-time-earn-less-40-years-ago
(4) Unless the rate of capital accumulation by the "lucky few" can be limited, and indeed reversed, there will be continually less available for labor's share of the national income. The late stages will be a oligarchy/plutocracy rather than a representative democracy, which will collapse, when capital's share of the national income is so high, that labor's share no longer provides subsistence. This problem has been compounded by several states allowing perpetual trusts, which have been illegal since the middle ages.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/clr27&div &id=&pagehttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-perpetual-trust.htm#didyouknowout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
(5) For an educator, the importance of Piketty's work is that education and training are no longer a solution, or even a palliative, for the large majority, unless the rate and amount/fraction of capital accumulation can be limited and as possible reduced.
FWIW -- As a conservative, I find Piketty's solutions of progressive levies on all types of capital above a few tens of million dollars, much steeper progressive income taxes, elimination [or at least severe restriction] of the capital gains tax preference, and international tracking of assets and capital flows to be about as appealing as a double root canal, but the replacement of the Republic as we knew it, with an oligarchy is even less appealing, and least appealing of all is a bloody revolt as occurred when the French endgame played out in 1790, and the rentiers lost not only their capital but also their heads.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rentier http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/who-are-the-rentiers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/30/2014 3:16 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

What idiot would work when Obama will give you everything you need?
Nothing impresses a woman like a man on welfare...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/30/2014 11:59 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

In the neighborhood around the shop, work shirts are very attractive to the ladies. They feel that a working man beats a welfare sloth every time...even if it's a low-end job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:59:00 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid98841572&sr=1-1&keywords=piketty

time-earn-less-40-years-ago

clr27&div&id=&page>> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-perpetual-trust.htm#didyouknowout

_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Do you mean actual "welfare" (actually WIC, which stands for Women, Infants, and Children) in the US, where you must have a child in tow to be considered? Or are you on some pseudo-conservative fantasy trip?
--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:23:06 -0500, Tim Wescott
"pseudo-conservative fantasy trip" may be unduly pejorative. His observations may well have been correct in 1950, but are archaic in 2013, given the profound changes in demographics, society, culture, the economy, and the relative economic standing of the U.S. v other national economies. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d79ffff8-cfb7-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30Ij1ePVu
FWIW -- https://www.google.com/finance?cid 3582 Question: Is the market on steroids or crank?
--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:17:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee wrote:

cfb7-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30Ij1ePVu

I was referring to his statement about "men on welfare". Welfare is supposed to only get paid out to single parents of minors, and is done so on the presumption (not always true) that the money will be spent on the kid.
The idea behind it is to keep the children from starving in the gutters.
--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 1 May 2014 05:09:12 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org"

====================Yes, and this shows the difficulties when seeing things from different perspectives.
While you may well have accumulated "enough" for retirement, even without a Maybach, a house in the Hamptons and his/hers Lear jets, much of this will be expended, and you are unlikely to leave a significant estate [in the 1% sense], meaning your heirs will have to start from ground zero, or near to it, even if you provided them with a college/professional education.
Contrast this with the individual who inherits a significant pool of capital, large enough that it provides for [lavish/posh] living expenses while still providing enough for reinvestment. The dynamics and dynastic mind set of the 0.1% are *VERY* different, and they expect the "family fortune" they pass on, to be larger than the one they inherited. Income from gainful employment ==>at this level<== is *NOT* significant as any contributions to income are not significant compared to the income from capital (except for the CEOs of the largest corporations), although it may enable faster capital growth/compounding.
Be reminded, none of this should be considered on an ethical basis [or what is "fair"]. Rather this is pointing out that once the amount of private capital exceeds about 5X GDP, and is highly concentrated, it tends to rapidly reproduce itself [compound/increase], become even more concentrated, and because capital, labor and government must divvy up the national income, the share going to capital continuously increases, decreasing the share available for labor and government [i.e. the shares must total to 100%].
Highly concentrated wealth, and therefore income, is historically known to have serious effects on social stability and to produce significant distortions in politics, society, and the economy, none of which, from the viewpoint of the typical citizen, are to the good.
--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/1/2014 2:38 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

Given the Dems obsession with the death tax, yeah!

So you think the Kochs have not worked hard to grow their businesses?

Capital is not static fool, what kind of sleight of words are you engaging in?

So the Gates Foundation is not "good" for the typical citizen?
Really?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 01 May 2014 15:38:16 -0500, F. George McDuffee wrote:

Excellent post but obviously you're wasting your effort.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 01 May 2014 08:47:38 -0500, Ignoramus26576

===================This problematic is due to the difference of what you and a member of the 0.1% consider adequate capital.
If you still have to engage in "vulgar trade," and your capital pool is not growing nicely (to be passed on to your heirs), in addition to providing you with a lux (even lavish) life style, it is not "adequate."
FWIW -- the catch phrase "you can never too rich or too thin" applies here.
--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.