1947-1979 v 1980-now

[Wiseacre]

IMHO, there are three major reason for decline of the working class, deregulation, decline of the unions, and the wholesale exportation of American jobs.

The deregulation that began with Reagan and continued for nearly 30 years made large corporations answerable to no one but their stockholders. Legislation that allowed financial corporations to chose their own regulator was tantamount to setting regulations aside. The demise of Glass Steagall allowed bankers to become speculators. The result was the recession of 2008 which has taken it's biggest toll on the working class.

In 1980, one every 5 workers were union members. Today the figure is closer to 1 in 10. Weaker unions have resulted in improved productivity and higher profits at the expense of blue collar workers. The decline in union membership parallels the decline of American workers.

The demise of unions with the exportation of manufacturing jobs have created a social problem that will haunt us for many years. Free trade never made any sense to American workers. Politicians and big business sold it to the public. It did exactly what it was planned to do, trade good paying American jobs for low cost foreign labor. If that's not bad enough, we created loopholes in tax laws that encourages businesses to send jobs overseas.

Not sure I see the connection between deregulation and the decline of the working class. Maybe you or some one else can elaborate.

I think the decline of the unions is partly their own fault. Union leadership got too involved in politics instead of partnering with management, and they went too far in demanding medical and retirement benefits. Not to say management wasn't fully at fault too, but unions took a very adversarial position that cost them jobs.

Free trade is a different story, if you enact protectionist measures then you ultimately hurt your economy and your citizenry. If you want an example, read what happened to Argentina under Juan Peron.

All of these issues probably deserves it's own thread.

Deregulation is being sold by Republicans as a job creator. I see no evidence of that. Firms don’t expand or contract on the basis of environmental or workplace safety rules. They do so because there’s demand for their products. In my opinion, deregulation in the financial industry was a primary cause of the recession which was most damaging to middle class workers.

I'm not in favor bringing back the tariffs of 50 years ago, but I'm not in favor of a totally free trade policy. Many of our trading partners certainly protect their industries and we should respond in kind. It makes no sense to have free trade with countries that provide massive government support to their industries, restrictions on American expansion, and large scale product dumping to ward off competition.

Free trade in theory is great. Each country is able to do what it can do best and the standard of living goes up worldwide. In theory industries that cannot compete disappear and it's workers migrate to other more competitive industries. For a multitude of reasons this doesn't happen.

A word about deregulation - The NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) does a survey of small business owners. In the latest one for July 2011, small business owners cite poor sales at 23%, taxes at 20%, and gov't regulations and red tape at 16% for their biggest problem. It is not going to be the sole reason or even biggest reason why businesses are not hiring, but it's not inconsequential either. There are estimates that small businesses have to spend approx $10k per employee to comply with all the rules, old and new, $8k for their larger brethen companies.

So, poor sales (lack of demand) is obviously a factor, but it's not that simple to just assume that our troubles are over if demand picks up. Why? Because it's gotta be sustained, it's great if we fix a road or a bridge but 6 months later the guys are out of work again and we've added another trillion or so to the debt/deficit. It should be obvious by now that stimulus packages are not the answer, however large they are. Sure, you get an uptick, but you don't solve the problem.


Small Business Economic Trends Survey - NFIB Optimism Index

 

[kiwiman127]

Not sure I see the connection between deregulation and the decline of the working class. Maybe you or some one else can elaborate.

I think the decline of the unions is partly their own fault. Union leadership got too involved in politics instead of partnering with management, and they went too far in demanding medical and retirement benefits. Not to say management wasn't fully at fault too, but unions took a very adversarial position that cost them jobs.

Free trade is a different story, if you enact protectionist measures then you ultimately hurt your economy and your citizenry. If you want an example, read what happened to Argentina under Juan Peron.

All of these issues probably deserves it's own thread.

Deregulation is being sold by Republicans as a job creator. I see no evidence of that. Firms don’t expand or contract on the basis of environmental or workplace safety rules. They do so because there’s demand for their products. In my opinion, deregulation in the financial industry was a primary cause of the recession which was most damaging to middle class workers.

I'm not in favor bringing back the tariffs of 50 years ago, but I'm not in favor of a totally free trade policy. Many of our trading partners certainly protect their industries and we should respond in kind. It makes no sense to have free trade with countries that provide massive government support to their industries, restrictions on American expansion, and large scale product dumping to ward off competition.

Free trade in theory is great. Each country is able to do what it can do best and the standard of living goes up worldwide. In theory industries that cannot compete disappear and it's workers migrate to other more competitive industries. For a multitude of reasons this doesn't happen.

A word about deregulation - The NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) does a survey of small business owners. In the latest one for July 2011, small business owners cite poor sales at 23%, taxes at 20%, and gov't regulations and red tape at 16% for their biggest problem. It is not going to be the sole reason or even biggest reason why businesses are not hiring, but it's not inconsequential either. There are estimates that small businesses have to spend approx $10k per employee to comply with all the rules, old and new, $8k for their larger brethen companies.

So, poor sales (lack of demand) is obviously a factor, but it's not that simple to just assume that our troubles are over if demand picks up. Why? Because it's gotta be sustained, it's great if we fix a road or a bridge but 6 months later the guys are out of work again and we've added another trillion or so to the debt/deficit. It should be obvious by now that stimulus packages are not the answer, however large they are. Sure, you get an uptick, but you don't solve the problem.


Small Business Economic Trends Survey - NFIB Optimism Index

Regarding regulation: I think there are good regulations that protect workers safety, the consumer and the general environment. Then there are stupid regulations that go just plain too far.
Regarding fixing roads, actually developing a strong infrastructure program is a solid and long-term move and it could be done with much lower taxpayer investment. There are actually trillions of dollars of work that needs to be done repairing the US infrastructure. When I use the word "infrastructure", I'm including all of our transportation sectors, our power grid, gas/oil lines, basically anything that falls under the term, 'infrastructure'. This includes preparing for the projected growth in our country's population which will tax our infrastructure even more.
When I mentioned doing so with much lower taxpayer investment, I'm addressing doing the infrastructure repairs by using private investment, which is a growing trend. Private investment in infrastructure is happening all over the world and it's picking up steam in the US. In other words, privatizing the infrastructure. Doing so, would create investment into the US instead of investing in other countries. And as there are so many projects that need to be done, one can count on long-term jobs.

 

[Flopper]

Not sure I see the connection between deregulation and the decline of the working class. Maybe you or some one else can elaborate.

I think the decline of the unions is partly their own fault. Union leadership got too involved in politics instead of partnering with management, and they went too far in demanding medical and retirement benefits. Not to say management wasn't fully at fault too, but unions took a very adversarial position that cost them jobs.

Free trade is a different story, if you enact protectionist measures then you ultimately hurt your economy and your citizenry. If you want an example, read what happened to Argentina under Juan Peron.

All of these issues probably deserves it's own thread.

Deregulation is being sold by Republicans as a job creator. I see no evidence of that. Firms don’t expand or contract on the basis of environmental or workplace safety rules. They do so because there’s demand for their products. In my opinion, deregulation in the financial industry was a primary cause of the recession which was most damaging to middle class workers.

I'm not in favor bringing back the tariffs of 50 years ago, but I'm not in favor of a totally free trade policy. Many of our trading partners certainly protect their industries and we should respond in kind. It makes no sense to have free trade with countries that provide massive government support to their industries, restrictions on American expansion, and large scale product dumping to ward off competition.

Free trade in theory is great. Each country is able to do what it can do best and the standard of living goes up worldwide. In theory industries that cannot compete disappear and it's workers migrate to other more competitive industries. For a multitude of reasons this doesn't happen.

A word about deregulation - The NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) does a survey of small business owners. In the latest one for July 2011, small business owners cite poor sales at 23%, taxes at 20%, and gov't regulations and red tape at 16% for their biggest problem. It is not going to be the sole reason or even biggest reason why businesses are not hiring, but it's not inconsequential either. There are estimates that small businesses have to spend approx $10k per employee to comply with all the rules, old and new, $8k for their larger brethen companies.

So, poor sales (lack of demand) is obviously a factor, but it's not that simple to just assume that our troubles are over if demand picks up. Why? Because it's gotta be sustained, it's great if we fix a road or a bridge but 6 months later the guys are out of work again and we've added another trillion or so to the debt/deficit. It should be obvious by now that stimulus packages are not the answer, however large they are. Sure, you get an uptick, but you don't solve the problem.


Small Business Economic Trends Survey - NFIB Optimism Index

I suspect that the 16% government regulation and red tape is at least as much local and state as it is federal. Health codes, zoning, noise and sign restrictions, parking, occupation licenses, insurance certificates, tax certificates, state and local inspections etc.. are a major source of red tape and they're not going away. Regulations effecting small businesses such as environmental protection and worker safety are a combination of both federal and state laws. IMHO, even with the most diligent de-regulators at work, the vast majority of those regulations would remain. The reduction of that 16% figure would be so small as to have little or no effect on employment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush's Fault. Nothing else fits the facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What changed in the mid 70's?

We went off of the gold standard followed by high inflation and wages were not tied to inflation.

 

[midcan5]

Lack of regulation brought us the great depression.

Originally posted here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/183410-the-road-to-prosperity.html#post4100027

Jobs jobs jobs....

"Republicans, of course, cloak themselves in the rhetoric of freedom and necessity and express concern about future generations. That the beast they would slay ultimately translates to the lives of American citizens, including some of the most vulnerable who depend on government social programs to which they enjoy legal, political, and moral entitlement, is irrelevant. Hatred of government is a disease with them. They loathe common purpose and project, especially when channeled through the state. Their hatred of government, it seems to me, is tantamount to hatred of country." Steven Johnston The Contemporary Condition: Why Do Republicans Hate America?

 

[Wiseacre]

Deregulation is being sold by Republicans as a job creator. I see no evidence of that. Firms don’t expand or contract on the basis of environmental or workplace safety rules. They do so because there’s demand for their products. In my opinion, deregulation in the financial industry was a primary cause of the recession which was most damaging to middle class workers.

I'm not in favor bringing back the tariffs of 50 years ago, but I'm not in favor of a totally free trade policy. Many of our trading partners certainly protect their industries and we should respond in kind. It makes no sense to have free trade with countries that provide massive government support to their industries, restrictions on American expansion, and large scale product dumping to ward off competition.

Free trade in theory is great. Each country is able to do what it can do best and the standard of living goes up worldwide. In theory industries that cannot compete disappear and it's workers migrate to other more competitive industries. For a multitude of reasons this doesn't happen.

A word about deregulation - The NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) does a survey of small business owners. In the latest one for July 2011, small business owners cite poor sales at 23%, taxes at 20%, and gov't regulations and red tape at 16% for their biggest problem. It is not going to be the sole reason or even biggest reason why businesses are not hiring, but it's not inconsequential either. There are estimates that small businesses have to spend approx $10k per employee to comply with all the rules, old and new, $8k for their larger brethen companies.

So, poor sales (lack of demand) is obviously a factor, but it's not that simple to just assume that our troubles are over if demand picks up. Why? Because it's gotta be sustained, it's great if we fix a road or a bridge but 6 months later the guys are out of work again and we've added another trillion or so to the debt/deficit. It should be obvious by now that stimulus packages are not the answer, however large they are. Sure, you get an uptick, but you don't solve the problem.


Small Business Economic Trends Survey - NFIB Optimism Index

I suspect that the 16% government regulation and red tape is at least as much local and state as it is federal. Health codes, zoning, noise and sign restrictions, parking, occupation licenses, insurance certificates, tax certificates, state and local inspections etc.. are a major source of red tape and they're not going away. Regulations effecting small businesses such as environmental protection and worker safety are a combination of both federal and state laws. IMHO, even with the most diligent de-regulators at work, the vast majority of those regulations would remain. The reduction of that 16% figure would be so small as to have little or no effect on employment.

I wouldn't put money on that. No doubt the state and local laws are part of the problem, as you say. Not sure I would blow it all off though, if you're spending $10k per employee just to comply with the regs, that's too much. It's like an extra straw on the camel's back, in and of itself it ain't going to break the camel's back, but it is a drawback that we don't need at a time like this. At least we should be minimizing the cost by getting rid of the bullshit.

Even if the impact is negligible, making an honest effort in this area is one way to change the business climate in this country. I wouldn't leave any stone unturned if I was the pres.

 

[Trajan]

the right-wing ideologues ran congress thru the last 6 years of the Clinton presidency when Reich was around.

how is that they get zero credit, Clinton and Reich apparently get it all and when obama has both houses of congress , its the rw who is at fault for whatever bad happens or if the economy is still going south?

what are the 'dangers'?

what is social mobility?

how is it that with the rightwingnuts running the congress now, you give them no blame? or the blame for destroying the economy when baby bush was in power?

get a grip, hackboy.

Who has a majority in the Senate, dearie?

she won't be back, you know that.

shes once again boxed herself in and most importantly, she has delivered her daily dose of bloviation ala wingnut, nut bar, fruit of the loon, whacko regurgitation/ruminations. *shrugs* did she ever have game?

 

[Flopper]

A word about deregulation - The NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) does a survey of small business owners. In the latest one for July 2011, small business owners cite poor sales at 23%, taxes at 20%, and gov't regulations and red tape at 16% for their biggest problem. It is not going to be the sole reason or even biggest reason why businesses are not hiring, but it's not inconsequential either. There are estimates that small businesses have to spend approx $10k per employee to comply with all the rules, old and new, $8k for their larger brethen companies.

So, poor sales (lack of demand) is obviously a factor, but it's not that simple to just assume that our troubles are over if demand picks up. Why? Because it's gotta be sustained, it's great if we fix a road or a bridge but 6 months later the guys are out of work again and we've added another trillion or so to the debt/deficit. It should be obvious by now that stimulus packages are not the answer, however large they are. Sure, you get an uptick, but you don't solve the problem.


Small Business Economic Trends Survey - NFIB Optimism Index

I suspect that the 16% government regulation and red tape is at least as much local and state as it is federal. Health codes, zoning, noise and sign restrictions, parking, occupation licenses, insurance certificates, tax certificates, state and local inspections etc.. are a major source of red tape and they're not going away. Regulations effecting small businesses such as environmental protection and worker safety are a combination of both federal and state laws. IMHO, even with the most diligent de-regulators at work, the vast majority of those regulations would remain. The reduction of that 16% figure would be so small as to have little or no effect on employment.

I wouldn't put money on that. No doubt the state and local laws are part of the problem, as you say. Not sure I would blow it all off though, if you're spending $10k per employee just to comply with the regs, that's too much. It's like an extra straw on the camel's back, in and of itself it ain't going to break the camel's back, but it is a drawback that we don't need at a time like this. At least we should be minimizing the cost by getting rid of the bullshit.

Even if the impact is negligible, making an honest effort in this area is one way to change the business climate in this country. I wouldn't leave any stone unturned if I was the pres.

I have a cousin who owns two restaurants who is always complaining about regulations, however those regulations are mostly state and local. I think you'll find the biggest impact of federal regulations are on larger businesses, state, and local government.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How does higher food and energy prices help lower income people?

When prices inflate, in general, so do wages and salaries - while debts effectively shrink.

All these big government do gooders have left this country with 10s of trillions in unfounded liabilities,

No they haven't.

 

[editec]

You might find this interesting too

 

[expat_panama]

You might find this interesting too

This income/union issue is important and corrupting the facts with political bias is a bad way to go.

When Democrat hack Faiz Shakir made that graph his title said "middle class income", yet he plotted instead "middle class share of income". The sources for his data are political -the extreme left wing Center for American Progress Action Fund. Serious sources including the Census Bureau Home Page and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show how middle class income has soared along with all other incomes while unions have lost power.

We can agree that workers are generally turning away from unions, and the record on incomes shows why. Our choice here is between either understanding incomes or spouting propaganda. Some here will go over the numbers together while others will post slogans and personal attacks.

 

[kiwiman127]

You might find this interesting too

This income/union issue is important and corrupting the facts with political bias is a bad way to go.

When Democrat hack Faiz Shakir made that graph his title said "middle class income", yet he plotted instead "middle class share of income". The sources for his data are political -the extreme left wing Center for American Progress Action Fund. Serious sources including the Census Bureau Home Page and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show how middle class income has soared along with all other incomes while unions have lost power.

We can agree that workers are generally turning away from unions, and the record on incomes shows why. Our choice here is between either understanding incomes or spouting propaganda. Some here will go over the numbers together while others will post slogans and personal attacks.

The Middle Class soaring is in Nominal dollars, not Real Dollars. The wages for non-farm and non-supervisory workers in Real Dollars is at 295.33 per week.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
In 2004 those wages were 277.57 in Real Dollars.
Wages and Benefits: Real Wages (1964-2004) - Working Life
The CPI for July 2004 was 189.92, the CPI for July 2011 was 225.92.
Historical Consumer Price Index
If the wage increase from 2004 to 2011 kept up with inflation, the wages in Real Dollars should have been 331.06. So again, the working class loses out to inflation. That isn't exactly soaring income increases.

 

[expat_panama]

...Serious sources including the Census Bureau Home Page and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show how middle class income has soared along with all other incomes while unions have lost power.

...

The Middle Class soaring is in Nominal dollars, not Real Dollars. The wages for non-farm and non-supervisory workers in Real Dollars is at 295.33 per week...

First, we need to understand together that "2005$" means "current dollars adusted by inflation indexes to 2005 prices."

Second, there's a very big difference between "middle class income" and "wages for non-farm and non-supervisory workers".

Real middle class incomes have been soaring.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

...Serious sources including the Census Bureau Home Page and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show how middle class income has soared along with all other incomes while unions have lost power.

...

The Middle Class soaring is in Nominal dollars, not Real Dollars. The wages for non-farm and non-supervisory workers in Real Dollars is at 295.33 per week...

First, we need to understand together that "2005$" means "current dollars adusted by inflation indexes to 2005 prices."

Second, there's a very big difference between "middle class income" and "wages for non-farm and non-supervisory workers".

Real middle class incomes have been soaring.

No they haven't

The median household income fell from 2007-2009 after inflation.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

2009 in lower than in 1997 in inflation adjusted dollars

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm using the same methodology that the Department of Labor uses in constant 1982 dollars. If you look at the first link I used from the Labor Department, they pair the CPI with the wages, which is exactly what I did.
In 1965, in 1982 dollars, the wage earner made 310.46 per week. That's more than workers are making today in 1982 dollars.

 

[expat_panama]

...The median household income fell from 2007-2009 after inflation...

Ah, we're getting on the same page now. What we're talking about here is editec's post --

--that union memebership has been falling for over forty years and he's saying that caused a decline in middle class incomes. I said that sources like census.gov and bls.gov show middle class real incomes soaring over the past forty years and your link helps explain what I was trying to explain--

thanks.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

...The median household income fell from 2007-2009 after inflation...

Ah, we're getting on the same page now. What we're talking about here is editec's post --

--that union memebership has been falling for over forty years and he's saying that caused a decline in middle class incomes. I said that sources like census.gov and bls.gov show middle class real incomes soaring over the past forty years and your link helps explain what I was trying to explain--

thanks.

What the first plot shows is that the divide between middle class have a lower share of the total national income with declining union memberships, doesn't say anything about income per person.

And according to the graph you provided, the net average annualized increase in middle class incomes has been less than 1% since 1975 - only netting a 11% increase since 1975. That's hardly SOARING income! Meanwhile the incomes of the rich have gone up quite a bit more.

 

[expat_panama]

...the first plot shows is that the divide between middle class have a lower share of the total national income with declining union memberships, doesn't say anything about income per person...

Well, actually it's the title on editec's graph "middle class income shrinks" that started it all, and your Davemanual link showed with census/bls numbers that middle class incomes have in fact, soared. That's all I'm pointing out.

..according to the graph you provided, the net average annualized increase in middle class incomes has been less than 1% since 1975...

Huh. Which graph are you talking about and how did you come up with 'less than 1%'?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

...the first plot shows is that the divide between middle class have a lower share of the total national income with declining union memberships, doesn't say anything about income per person...

Well, actually it's the title on editec's graph "middle class income shrinks" that started it all, and your Davemanual link showed with census/bls numbers that middle class incomes have in fact, soared. That's all I'm pointing out.

..according to the graph you provided, the net average annualized increase in middle class incomes has been less than 1% since 1975...

Huh. Which graph are you talking about and how did you come up with 'less than 1%'?

This one

2010 - 48.2
1975 - 43.4

48.2/43.4 = 1.110599078

1.110599078^(1/(2010-1975)) = 1.003001627
1.003001627 - 1 = 0.003001627
0.003001627 X 100% = 0.3001627%


0.3 % < 1 %