how and why did the middle class expand so much during the 50's and 60's?

[LoneLaugher]

Productivity in U.S. Rises as Companies Try to Lower Costs - Bloomberg

You don't understand how this works do you?

Unpaid overtime, deferred equipment maintenance, cuts in hours and shifting labor to other activities. Are all methods of lowering costs and increasing individual productivity.

Overall.....as in total......US productivity is up. Wages are not. You are arguing someone else's point, it seems.

 

[depotoo]

What about your tired bromides? The top rate is much lower today. Where are the jobs that's supposed to bring? Since the 1% gets to keep so much more of what they earn, they can go out and spend it, instead of reinvesting to get those deductions and creating jobs.

The government is spending too much money, has grossly increased regulations they don't even understand themselves, we have a byzantine, social engineering tax code...and now ObamaCare is looming.

That's why the economy is not growing.

If the top earners can easily keep more of their money, what's the incentive to create new job-producing enterprises, when they can just sit on the money?

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

 

[konradv]

The government is spending too much money, has grossly increased regulations they don't even understand themselves, we have a byzantine, social engineering tax code...and now ObamaCare is looming.

That's why the economy is not growing.

If the top earners can easily keep more of their money, what's the incentive to create new job-producing enterprises, when they can just sit on the money?

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

If that's true, where are the jobs? The 1% are getting to keep a lot more these days, so they should have the money to create them. I think you have it backwards. If you don't have to work as hard to keep up a standard of living, many people won't. If being one of the top earners is important to the "job creators", having to do more helps everyone and brings down the deficit. I don't think the problem is my being "brain dead", but the fact that you're wearing ideological blinders.

 

[auditor0007]

i would like someone to explain this:

how and why did the middle class expand so much during the 50's and 60's?

what political and economic policies were involved? or did it not expand.

i'm having this debate with my...shall remain anonymous...nevermind...curious as to what USMB has to say

note to mods: i want both political and economic so i thought political forum would be best

The top marginal income tax rate was 70-90% over the period, i.e. the 1% paid their way AND we prospered.

What many people do not understand is that hardly anyone with have a lick of sense paid those top marginal rates, even if they earned that much money to place them in those brackets. The way to avoid paying those types of tax rates was to take that income and invest back into America. By doing this, people avoided paying taxes and increased their wealth, but what it did was force those with money to invest in our economy and to actually be the "job creators". With today's low tax rates, the wealthy do not have to do anything to protect their money, and they can invest it abroad which does nothing for our own economy.

 

[boedicca]

Productivity in U.S. Rises as Companies Try to Lower Costs - Bloomberg

You don't understand how this works do you?

Unpaid overtime, deferred equipment maintenance, cuts in hours and shifting labor to other activities. Are all methods of lowering costs and increasing individual productivity.

Overall.....as in total......US productivity is up. Wages are not. You are arguing someone else's point, it seems.

It's a pretty safe bet you don't understand what causes productivity to go up.

Here's a clue: investment in technology and equipment.

It's why an American farmer with a combine is more productive than a feudal peasant pulling a yoke. If a company invests capital in technology and equipment, part of the increased productivity lifts the incomes of workers, the rest is return on capital. The greedier unions became, they created more incentives to disintermediate their labor contribution via more capital investment. Thus they decreased the demand for their labor, increased their idle supply, and now face obsolescence in the private sector.

That worked really well.

 

[JoeBlam]

Government programs like the GI bill opened up college for a whole generation of young men who otherwise would not have gone. Eisenhower, a republican, authorized huge government investment in the infrastucture of the US, which btw helped businesses thrive.(ie. interstate highway) If he proposed such a thing today he would be called a Rhino and primaried. Unions were strong and wages remained high enough that only one parent had to work.

Eisenhower built the interstates strong enough to move tank traffic on them...it was as much a defense expenditure as it was for civilian travel. I agree with your post on everything but him being called a "rhino" nowadays....we'd give our first-born for a GOP candidate like Ike about now.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Where are the jobs? the local help wanted board is full of $20 dollar and hour manufacturing jobs in the Upstate of South Carolina, (I was just reading it) Its great to live in a low cost of living rtw red state.

 

[depotoo]

If the top earners can easily keep more of their money, what's the incentive to create new job-producing enterprises, when they can just sit on the money?

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

If that's true, where are the jobs? The 1% are getting to keep a lot more these days, so they should have the money to create them. I think you have it backwards. If you don't have to work as hard to keep up a standard of living, many people won't. If being one of the top earners is important to the "job creators", having to do more helps everyone and brings down the deficit. I don't think the problem is my being "brain dead", but the fact that you're wearing ideological blinders.

There are several different ballgames going on here. Are you talking about corporate profits or are you talking about individual pay? If corporate profits, do you know if those are through investment gains or actually profits from the services/ products sold? Are you talking about gains earned by individuals that just happen to be within the 1% through investments or the individuals that are in the 1% which got there through corporate pay? I could go on and on. It is very complex, yet the left likes to round it all into one game, in which that is just ludicrous.
Do you have a problem with the billions that Soro's has earned through investments?

 

[auditor0007]

The government is spending too much money, has grossly increased regulations they don't even understand themselves, we have a byzantine, social engineering tax code...and now ObamaCare is looming.

That's why the economy is not growing.

If the top earners can easily keep more of their money, what's the incentive to create new job-producing enterprises, when they can just sit on the money?

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

That has been the conservative talking point for as long as I can remember, and for the most part, it's bullshit. People who want to become rich will work as hard as they need to in order to achieve what they want. On the other side, many rich people get rich out of pure luck, and they really don't give a shit about the money; they just enjoy the success, so the tax rates have nothing to do with it. When I talk about people getting rich out of pure luck, it doesn't mean they didn't work for it, but many people just fall into things. Zuckerberg had a neat idea that became Facebook, but he could never have imagined what it would become when he started it as a social thing for students where he went to school. Many businesses start out like that. It doesn't mean the people who started them didn't work hard, but they did get lucky that they found/created something that worked. For every one of them, there are countless others who work just as hard and never catch the golden egg.

But back to the basic point; higher tax rates do not dissuade people from trying to increase their earnings or wealth. It sounds like a good argument, but for the most part, it's hogwash. I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence of it, but overall it doesn't fly.

 

[boedicca]

If the top earners can easily keep more of their money, what's the incentive to create new job-producing enterprises, when they can just sit on the money?

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

That has been the conservative talking point for as long as I can remember, and for the most part, it's bullshit. People who want to become rich will work as hard as they need to in order to achieve what they want. On the other side, many rich people get rich out of pure luck, and they really don't give a shit about the money; they just enjoy the success, so the tax rates have nothing to do with it. When I talk about people getting rich out of pure luck, it doesn't mean they didn't work for it, but many people just fall into things. Zuckerberg had a neat idea that became Facebook, but he could never have imagined what it would become when he started it as a social thing for students where he went to school. Many businesses start out like that. It doesn't mean the people who started them didn't work hard, but they did get lucky that they found/created something that worked. For every one of them, there are countless others who work just as hard and never catch the golden egg.

But back to the basic point; higher tax rates do not dissuade people from trying to increase their earnings or wealth. It sounds like a good argument, but for the most part, it's hogwash. I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence of it, but overall it doesn't fly.

You are a moron, and display a complete lack of understanding of human nature and economics.

When the marginal benefit of an activity is diminished to the point where the effort, risk and cost exceed the expected benefit, there is no reason to engage in the activity. It's a Hopeless Cause.

But I bet you're one of those guys who, despite being turned down repeatedly by a beautiful woman, continues to humiliate yourself in the pursuit of her.

 

[Oldstyle]

Where are the jobs that's supposed to bring? Since the 1% gets to keep so much more of what they earn, they can go out and spend it, instead of reinvesting to get those deductions and creating jobs.

Ask Obama when he gets back from Martha's Vineyard.

So you're saying he should come back with a plan to raise the top marginal rates with big write offs for investing in job-producing enterprises. I'll go for that.

LOL...anyone that thinks Barry is spending any time coming up with a plan to create jobs while he's golfing on the Vineyard is delusional!

Might I point out that he's made promises to do just that in the past and has instead returned with the same old policies he's tried and failed to create jobs with?

Barack Obama is running out the string, folks. He has no ideas to create jobs other than to double down on another form of the Obama Stimulus...spending billions of dollars we don't have on programs that didn't create jobs. That would be obvious if he could get anything through the GOP controlled House. In a way the Republicans controlling one part of the legislative process is a godsend for this President. He can blame them for nothing getting done instead of watching what he proposes go down in flames once again.

 

[deltex1]

L L has found a way to automate pimping...

 

[depotoo]

If the top earners can easily keep more of their money, what's the incentive to create new job-producing enterprises, when they can just sit on the money?

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

That has been the conservative talking point for as long as I can remember, and for the most part, it's bullshit. People who want to become rich will work as hard as they need to in order to achieve what they want. On the other side, many rich people get rich out of pure luck, and they really don't give a shit about the money; they just enjoy the success, so the tax rates have nothing to do with it. When I talk about people getting rich out of pure luck, it doesn't mean they didn't work for it, but many people just fall into things. Zuckerberg had a neat idea that became Facebook, but he could never have imagined what it would become when he started it as a social thing for students where he went to school. Many businesses start out like that. It doesn't mean the people who started them didn't work hard, but they did get lucky that they found/created something that worked. For every one of them, there are countless others who work just as hard and never catch the golden egg.

But back to the basic point; higher tax rates do not dissuade people from trying to increase their earnings or wealth. It sounds like a good argument, but for the most part, it's hogwash. I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence of it, but overall it doesn't fly.

so the smart gambler (not addict) knows when his pockets get down to a certain level to pull from the game as well as when his pockets get filled to a certain level that the odds are his luck will begin to run out and pulls from the game.

The addict doesn't and the odds are he is gonna walk away with his pockets empty even though his pockets may suddenly be full at one point in the game.

Which one takes brains? Which one uses strategic planning to stay ahead for those bad times that may appear on the horizon? Which one looks at and reasons out all the odds to stay ahead in the game? Which one holds in his pocket that for the rainy day that may happen upon them?

Which one plays as a reactionary rather than proactively? Do you think it takes more discipline to be a reactionary or a proactive player?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Union membership in the US peaked in the 1960's. The middle class has been in decline ever since.

Another fan of the correlation implies causation fallacy, allow me to throw another one at you, The Beatles were still a group in the 1960's , so clearly the cause of the problem was The Beatles breaking up in 1970.

Given that the presence and relative power of unions directly impacts the wages and benefits of those who are in unions or are not,

and since the Beatles have nothing to do with wages and benefit issues of American labor,

I'd say your analogy was retarded, at best.

 

[Oldstyle]

If the top earners can easily keep more of their money, what's the incentive to create new job-producing enterprises, when they can just sit on the money?

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

That has been the conservative talking point for as long as I can remember, and for the most part, it's bullshit. People who want to become rich will work as hard as they need to in order to achieve what they want. On the other side, many rich people get rich out of pure luck, and they really don't give a shit about the money; they just enjoy the success, so the tax rates have nothing to do with it. When I talk about people getting rich out of pure luck, it doesn't mean they didn't work for it, but many people just fall into things. Zuckerberg had a neat idea that became Facebook, but he could never have imagined what it would become when he started it as a social thing for students where he went to school. Many businesses start out like that. It doesn't mean the people who started them didn't work hard, but they did get lucky that they found/created something that worked. For every one of them, there are countless others who work just as hard and never catch the golden egg.

But back to the basic point; higher tax rates do not dissuade people from trying to increase their earnings or wealth. It sounds like a good argument, but for the most part, it's hogwash. I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence of it, but overall it doesn't fly.

This concept that people get wealthy because of "luck" or because of a "national infrastructure" and therefore don't deserve what they make is naive to the Nth degree. Is there luck involved in business? Of course...good and bad! The truth is most business people who are "successful" have failed many times BEFORE that took place! What keeps them stepping up to the plate and trying again and again is the possibility of becoming successful.

It is ridiculous to think that you can steal the profits that people have made from the blood, sweat and tears of starting up their own business and NOT have fewer people willing to make that commitment. It's SO much easier to work for someone else and not have a care in the world when you punch out at the end of the day. Where would we be today if Henry Ford had just decided that working as a mechanic was good enough for him? Where would we be if Steven Jobs wanted to spend more quality time with his family and couldn't be bothered with the stress of a start up company?

You progressives want to take away the incentive to make that sacrifice...and then you're baffled why people won't start new companies or expand existing ones. It's an amazing thing to watch...

 

[JoeBlam]

Ask Obama when he gets back from Martha's Vineyard.

So you're saying he should come back with a plan to raise the top marginal rates with big write offs for investing in job-producing enterprises. I'll go for that.

LOL...anyone that thinks Barry is spending any time coming up with a plan to create jobs while he's golfing on the Vineyard is delusional!

Might I point out that he's made promises to do just that in the past and has instead returned with the same old policies he's tried and failed to create jobs with?

Barack Obama is running out the string, folks. He has no ideas to create jobs other than to double down on another form of the Obama Stimulus...spending billions of dollars we don't have on programs that didn't create jobs. That would be obvious if he could get anything through the GOP controlled House. In a way the Republicans controlling one part of the legislative process is a godsend for this President. He can blame them for nothing getting done instead of watching what he proposes go down in flames once again.

Barry is a stuttering muslim moron....he has no clue about anything real-world other than political posturing and deniablity. It's one of the reasons we'll never see his college transcripts...because he wasn't much of a student....the other reason being he once got a student loan as an exchange-student from Kenya. He sees taxes as punishment for white people knowing he's half-white himself.....Michelle is the boss in that house because he's not man enough to stand up to her, much less an alpha wolf like Putin.....his 8 years are the end of the USA as we've known it...if I were a young man, I'd be on the next flight to Australia.

 

[JoeNormal]

And yet the 1% pay a high portion of all income taxes than they did back then...go figure.

Geez, talk about a tired bromide. The reason the 1% pay a higher portion of taxes now than they did then is because wealth disparity is ridiculous now compared to then.

 

[boedicca]

And yet the 1% pay a high portion of all income taxes than they did back then...go figure.

Geez, talk about a tired bromide. The reason the 1% pay a higher portion of taxes now than they did then is because wealth disparity is ridiculous now compared to then.

And your little pea brain has no idea what causes the disparity.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Union membership in the US peaked in the 1960's. The middle class has been in decline ever since.

Another fan of the correlation implies causation fallacy, allow me to throw another one at you, The Beatles were still a group in the 1960's , so clearly the cause of the problem was The Beatles breaking up in 1970.

Given that the presence and relative power of unions directly impacts the wages and benefits of those who are in unions or are not,

and since the Beatles have nothing to do with wages and benefit issues of American labor,

I'd say your analogy was retarded, at best.

You know why we made a come back after the crappy Unions and disco of the 70's? The mini skirt came back along with the rise of MTV and we partyed all the way to 1999 and then it all crashed and burned.... lol

 

[JoeNormal]

And yet the 1% pay a high portion of all income taxes than they did back then...go figure.

Geez, talk about a tired bromide. The reason the 1% pay a higher portion of taxes now than they did then is because wealth disparity is ridiculous now compared to then.

And your little pea brain has no idea what causes the disparity.

My little pea brain has made more money than you'll see in three or four lifetimes.