40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart.

[EdwardBaiamonte]

idiot Marxist parrot blames business when govt printed money to make bubble possible!!

Neo-con nerd thinks Goldman Sachs should print the money.

if so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away once again with your liberal tail between your legs

 

[georgephillip]

See, this right here, is the fundamentals of Leftist. It's all about greed FOR YOU. It's all about Envy, FOR YOU. Because YOU are the greedy envious person.

Thank you for illustrating the conservative compulsion to kneel before wealth and privilege; your kind haven't changed since you died and killed in support of the Divine Right of Kings.

You call it ENVY when leftists point how how the conservative social experiment began in the 1980s, premised on the myth that cutting taxes for the rich would stimulate economic growth sufficient to offset lost tax revenues, has resulted in a "lost decade" punctuated with neglected infrastructure, a frayed social net, and a huge increase in the national debt.

The economic inequality problem is caused by an insufficient governmental response to the economic collapse caused by those you imagine the left envies.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nonsense. Why should a guy driving a massive train be paid 100 times more than a guy driving a truck?

Maybe the massive train's chugging around Mars, where the average temperature is about -80 degrees F.

What justifies an earthly CEO earning 331 times as much as average workers and 774 times as much as minimum wage workers?

Dunno. Maybe cause he "created" the company? Built it from the ground up. Did all the initial investments and product development.

What makes you think their wealth takes away from your wealth? You do realize don't you that wealth is not a finite quantity, right?

 

[georgephillip]

It doesn't need justified. It's his company. Not yours. You don't even have the right to comment on the wages of another person. It's none of your business.

It becomes everyone's business in a democracy based on one person: one vote. When parasitic CEOs have the ability to pre-screen candidates from both major parties for public office, based on legal bribes called campaign contributions, only slaves and conservatives would stay silent.

 

[georgephillip]

The fact that everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

The CEO, however, had her pay established by a board consisting of other (overpaid) CEOs, which leads some of us to the conclusion that the growth in CEO pay between 1978 and the present was not unrelated to the 3.6% decline in the compensation of private sector workers over the same period.
CEO pay and the top 1 How executive compensation and financial-sector pay have fueled income inequality Economic Policy Institute

 

[georgephillip]

Dunno. Maybe cause he "created" the company? Built it from the ground up. Did all the initial investments and product development.

Didn't build it by himself. did he?
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

"If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

You Didn t Build That Straw Men Manufactured Outrage and Funny Memes The Atlantic

 

[SwimExpert]

The fact that everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

The CEO, however, had her pay established by a board consisting of other (overpaid) CEOs, which leads some of us to the conclusion that the growth in CEO pay between 1978 and the present was not unrelated to the 3.6% decline in the compensation of private sector workers over the same period.
CEO pay and the top 1 How executive compensation and financial-sector pay have fueled income inequality Economic Policy Institute

That response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. At best, it's a tangent. The fact still remains: Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

 

[RKMBrown]

Dunno. Maybe cause he "created" the company? Built it from the ground up. Did all the initial investments and product development.

Didn't build it by himself. did he?
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

"If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

You Didn t Build That Straw Men Manufactured Outrage and Funny Memes The Atlantic

ROFL the people that said that shit are morons who think government money grows off trees. MY TAXES PAID FOR THAT TEACHER, MY TAXES AND MY PAYMENTS TO MY TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER BUILT THE INTERNET, MY TAXES PAID FOR GOVERNMENT RESEARCH, GOVERNMENT RESEARCH "BORROWED" FROM PRIVATE PRODUCTS.... BUILD TOGETHER? YOU FOLKS IN THE BOTTOM 50% ARE NOT PULLING YOUR WEIGHT, then you have the nerve to complain about the very people who are pulling your weight for you. WOW

 

[RKMBrown]

The fact that everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

The CEO, however, had her pay established by a board consisting of other (overpaid) CEOs, which leads some of us to the conclusion that the growth in CEO pay between 1978 and the present was not unrelated to the 3.6% decline in the compensation of private sector workers over the same period.
CEO pay and the top 1 How executive compensation and financial-sector pay have fueled income inequality Economic Policy Institute

That response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. At best, it's a tangent. The fact still remains: Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

Minor point. I work for the money that I agreed to work for yes. But I don't receive the money that I agreed to work for.. I'm actually forced to work for various governments through involuntary taxes for a good percentage of the year. Thus, I'm in effect a slave of the government for a large percentage of the year.

 

[SwimExpert]

The fact that everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

The CEO, however, had her pay established by a board consisting of other (overpaid) CEOs, which leads some of us to the conclusion that the growth in CEO pay between 1978 and the present was not unrelated to the 3.6% decline in the compensation of private sector workers over the same period.
CEO pay and the top 1 How executive compensation and financial-sector pay have fueled income inequality Economic Policy Institute

That response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. At best, it's a tangent. The fact still remains: Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

Minor point. I work for the money that I agreed to work for yes. But I don't receive the money that I agreed to work for.. I'm actually forced to work for various governments through involuntary taxes for a good percentage of the year. Thus, I'm in effect a slave of the government for a large percentage of the year.

Oh, grow up. Taxation is a fact of life, just like bills, junk mail, and the occasional Jehovah's Witness knocking at your door. If you haven't learned to deal with that yet then maybe you should spend a little more time in mommy's basement.

 

[georgephillip]

That response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. At best, it's a tangent. The fact still remains: Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

The CEOs are working for an amount of money hundreds of times greater than their average workers; that fact is due primarily to executive compensation pay scales determined by other rich executives and their political control over tax rates. "Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for" is meaningless when a fraction of one percent of all workers determine the economic fates of the majority.

 

[SwimExpert]

That response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. At best, it's a tangent. The fact still remains: Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

The CEOs are working for an amount of money hundreds of times greater than their average workers; that fact is due primarily to executive compensation pay scales determined by other rich executives and their political control over tax rates. "Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for" is meaningless when a fraction of one percent of all workers determine the economic fates of the majority.

So. *******. What?

For the third time....Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for. Nobody forces a person to accept a job at minimum wage. Nobody forces a person to accept a job at just barely above minimum wage.

If you don't want to work for $8/hr then go out and win yourself a job paying more than that. If you want a $10/hr job go out and find one. The CEO's pay is justified because it was mutually agreed between the company and the employee. Your pay is justified because it was mutually agreed between the company and the employee. Nobody forced you to agree to anything.

 

[warf]

That response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. At best, it's a tangent. The fact still remains: Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for.

The CEOs are working for an amount of money hundreds of times greater than their average workers; that fact is due primarily to executive compensation pay scales determined by other rich executives and their political control over tax rates. "Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for" is meaningless when a fraction of one percent of all workers determine the economic fates of the majority.

So. *******. What?

For the third time....Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for. Nobody forces a person to accept a job at minimum wage. Nobody forces a person to accept a job at just barely above minimum wage.

If you don't want to work for $8/hr then go out and win yourself a job paying more than that. If you want a $10/hr job go out and find one. The CEO's pay is justified because it was mutually agreed between the company and the employee. Your pay is justified because it was mutually agreed between the company and the employee. Nobody forced you to agree to anything.

When there are 600 living wage jobs available and 1000 people needing jobs not everyone will be working for the wage they agree to work for.

Many will be just trying to stay alive.

Since our "job creators" re-created our jobs in low wage countries people are working for less because there is no other option.

 

[georgephillip]

YOU FOLKS IN THE BOTTOM 50% ARE NOT PULLING YOUR WEIGHT, then you have the nerve to complain about the very people who are pulling your weight for you. WOW

It is telling how your knee-jerk reaction to blame the poor blinds you to those who aren't "pulling their weight."

 

[SwimExpert]

When there are 600 living wage jobs available and 1000 people needing jobs not everyone will be working for the wage they agree to work for.

Horseshit. Nobody is forcing you to accept any job offer. If the company offers you a job and offers to pay minimum wage, you have a decision.

Many will be just trying to stay alive.

If I'm so desperate to "stay alive" then all the more reason I'm going to be pressing to maximize my income.

Since our "job creators" re-created our jobs in low wage countries people are working for less because there is no other option.

There is always another option. When you're given a job offer, you have a decision. Nobody forces you to accept the job offer, and nobody forces you to simply settle for whatever rate they throw out at you. The decision is yours, always. The real problem is that people lack life skills, and don't know how to properly job search or negotiate their pay.

 

[georgephillip]

For the third time....Everyone is working for exactly the amount of money they agreed to work for. Nobody forces a person to accept a job at minimum wage. Nobody forces a person to accept a job at just barely above minimum wage.

In fact, capitalism forces people to accept jobs paying less than a living wage or face homelessness, or worse. You are deluding yourself if you think wage slavery doesn't force someone to sell her labor for less than the value she produces. As a possible alternative:
"At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns no more than 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in his/her cooperative. In reality, this ratio is smaller because there are few Mondragon worker-owners that earn minimum wages, because most jobs are somewhat specialized and are classified at higher wage levels. The wage ratio of a cooperative is decided periodically by its worker-owners through a democratic vote."
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[SwimExpert]

In fact, capitalism forces people to accept jobs paying less than a living wage or face homelessness, or worse.

What ridiculous bullshit.

What do you do for work, eh? How long have you been doing it? And who forced you to accept that job? What stops you from going out to seek another job?

 

[georgephillip]

What do you do for work, eh? How long have you been doing it? And who forced you to accept that job? What stops you from going out to seek another job?

When I began working full time in the mid-1960s it was possible to easily change jobs, especially if you found the new job while still employed at the old. UE was 4%-5% and many of the males in my generation were conscripted into the military. Much has changed since that time, automation in particular has replaced manual labor with machines for millions of US workers. The economic changes during the fifty years of my adult life will likely be dwarfed by those of the next half-century. Sooner or later Americans will have to ask what is the purpose of their economy among the following three choices:
"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."
Social credit - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[ralfy]

This synopsis might help:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That is, we have capitalists controlling the means of production, from which goods and services are created by a labor market, then sold by a goods and financial market to the same laborers. In short, investors, managers, and workers who are also consumers.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in the origins of modern capitalism:

The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism

That is, commons from which peasants grew food are eventually enclosed by those with physical power to control peasants. Peasants are soon allowed to grew food on land now controlled by others, but instead of receiving part of the food that they grew, they are paid in scrip. The land owners (at some point, control of the land is legitimized by government) sell the food in markets for a profit. Peasants can use their scrip to buy food there.

Obviously, in order to profit, capitalists (those who control the means of production, which in this case is enclosed land) have to sell food at prices higher than they pay peasants. It's either that, or peasants have to work harder or use technology to grew more food given the same amount of labor. In any case, with no control of the means of production (i.e., land) peasants can only sell their labor in exchange for food, while capitalists have to make peasants more productive in order to profit from their labor.

What complicates matters further is competition between capitalists. In light of that, they can lower wages, increase prices, or keep wages the same or increase them but make workers more productive through technologies and other means, and so on. In the end, the first two options work against them because workers are also the same consumers of goods and services sold. Thus, the best option is to increase productivity while keeping costs as low as possible.

This explains why productivity rises while wages not much. This also explains why markets have to keep expanding, in order to absorb increasing production of goods and services.

The problem is that as more expensive goods and services are sold (such as passenger vehicles, etc.) workers whose wages barely go up are not able to afford them. That's where banks come in: they provide credit to workers, who in turn will be able to buy all of the nice things they produce, but must be more productive and work for many years in order to pay off their loans.

For richer countries, more credit can be created to allow more workers to move to service industries while lower-paying jobs are outsourced to poor nations, where workers might go through the same process: save enough to reach middle class status, and then outsourcing leading to the shift from Main Street to Wall Street, followed by financial speculation and economic crashes.

Banks will not hesitate in extending credit because, like other businesses, they have to provide more goods and services each time to maintain operations. In this case, they have to lend more each time in order to earn more interest, which in turn is churned back into the system and re-lent to growing markets.

This explains why not only material resources and energy used to produce more goods and services are growing but also credit levels. Put simply, more money is created as more goods and services are made and sold, leading to more money in the form of interest earned or profit created, leading to more money invested in business to produce more goods and services, etc.

Since those who already have a large financial base from the start receiving percentage returns much higher than others, then the gap between capitalists and workers grows, and eventually the former controls the economy and even government.

This explains why the Fed, which is a private consortium of commercial banks, was formed, why policies governing the country are generally pro-business, why the government without hesitation bailed out Wall Street when financial speculation led to a crash, why citizens are paying for those bailouts plus military costs and others while receiving entitlements and credit to purchase houses, cars, etc., why both consumer spending and debts have been rising, and why the global economy is essentially controlled by mega-corporations, especially financial businesses.

Finally, the same global capitalist economy should be able to continue growing indefinitely as long as one can safely assume that the biosphere is unlimited in terms of material resources and energy. But since that is not the case:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

then it is likely that not only will class warfare will become more prominent in the future, multiple crises will kick in and amplify each other.

 

[warf]

That is, we have capitalists controlling the means of production, from which goods and services are created by a labor market, then sold by a goods and financial market to the same laborers. In short, investors, managers, and workers who are also consumers.

Once upon a time that was true.

But now, thanks to our job killing trade deals, our capitalists have goods made in low wage countries and then sell them to the folks who used to make them.

Good for the capitalists. Bad for the workers and the security of the country.