`
`
The decay that has enveloped the general US populace, has been very slow, spanning back many generations and is not so simplistic as to sum it up it's causes to just one or two reasons. The disease of self-righteous extremism, as portrayed by both the left and right, have become intransigent to a degree that neither side is rational.
I'm not sure it has been that slow and consistent.
Self-righteous extremism has always existed.
But even those who were not living rightly, or did not care as much for morals, still had a foundation they lived by.
I remember watching this video of a pimp from the 1970s. He's running a brothel. Thanksgiving roles around, and the pimp lays out a thanksgiving dinner for all the prostitutes. He stands there and says that even though he's a pimp, and they are all prostitutes, that they still need to thank the Lord for all the good things in their life.
Equally, you go back and read the lyrics of Dream On, by Aerosmith, and they read...
"Sing with me, sing for the years
Sing for the laughter, sing for the tears
Sing with me, just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good lord will take you away…" -1973
Even a drugged up, living crazy, band like Aerosmith, still acknowledges the Good Lord.
Now can you imagine anyone saying that today? Of course not. The break down of the family. The loss of all morals. The lack of any consideration of what is right or wrong (unless it affects yourself, than you know it's wrong), and failure to gain respect, or give respect...
This has all happened within the last few decades. From 1776 (and before) until the 1980s... we had this. Divorce was rare. Life had meaning. Respect and dignity was a must. Now it's all gone.
Note that your timeline correlates to the rise of neo-liberal ideology and the assault on the American working class. It is not insignificant.
Neo-liberal?
The 1970s were the end of free-market capitalism. Are you suggesting that we have a more free-market capitalist system today, than before the 1970s? I was suggest not. Regulations and controls on every aspect of the economy dramatically increased in the 1970s, to the 1980s.
And the "assault" on the working class, was done by those who opposed the free-market capitalist system.
Why do you think wages have not increased as quickly now, than before? I'll give you a hint.... When you raise taxes on business... where do they get that money? From paying workers less.
When you demand business cover more benefits, health care, and unemployment compensation.... where do you think they get that money? From paying people less.
That isn't the effect of Neo-liberalism. In a free market, most, if not all, employees would rather have cash than a benefit.
I have news for you.........the corporate tax rate is lower than it was in the late 1960's. Tax on business has decreased. The other benefits to employees also predate the 70's. Doesn't seem likely that those are causes of wage stagnation, especially in light of corporate profits.
No, I'm talking GATT, NAFTA and China. Trade liberalization is what set the American worker in competition with workers in low wage countries. I'm talking the assault on trade unions. These have had a negative effect on the health of our society and correlate to your timeline.
Funny how conservatives hate liberalism as they do yet can't get enough of economic liberalism. They blame all of societies ills on liberalism yet remain oblivious to the negative effects economic liberalism has had. The one aspect that relates to the health of our society more than anything, the ability to provide for one's family. Strange.
I don't really understand your somewhat odd definition of Liberalism.
Apparently from your comments you believe that sole defining factor of socialism, and left-ideology is taxes.
Based on that false claim, you are saying that we have neo-liberalism because of one single factor... lower tax rates. While that's a cute twist of logic, it doesn't hold true...and even your single factor doesn't hold true.
Yes, corporate tax rates have fallen. But if you compare them to any of the praised socialist Utopia's around the 1st world, we still have the highest tax rate. Even France has a lower corporate tax rate. I guess that means they are a neo-liberal strong hold? Even Bernie's favorite examples of European Socialism, the nordic countries, all have lower taxes rates. Switzerland, only has an 8.5% corporate tax. Are they a bastion of neo-liberal thinking?
Quite frankly I do not at this point, know of any country with a higher corporate tax rate, that would be anything close to an example we would want to follow.
But as I said, corporate tax is not a defining factor to begin with. We are talking about all regulations and all controls on the market.
Regardless of what metric you use, the clear evidence shows that US regulations and controls on the industry are costly. And the amount of that cost has increased dramatically in the last few decades since the 1980s.
Further, lets look at wage stagnation.
Now if you look at the green dash line at the bottom showing wages and salaries, and compare that to the blue dot line showing all benefits, you can see an inverse relationship. When the benefits costs increased, wages and salaries go down. When benefits costs go down, wages and salaries go up.
The only exception to this general pattern, is when the whole economy was in recession, around 2009.
But it's pretty clear that benefits do offset wages. Which even without data and a graph, anyone with any business knowledge, or understanding of economics should grasp this intuitively.
You can see here, where the cumulative costs of regulations has dramatically increased over time.
No, I'm talking GATT, NAFTA and China. Trade liberalization is what set the American worker in competition with workers in low wage countries. I'm talking the assault on trade unions. These have had a negative effect on the health of our society and correlate to your timeline.
Now let's quickly talk about some of your other claims.
First this mythical 'assault on trade unions'. There is no assault on trade unions. The Unions have worked to destroy themselves.
The perfect example is the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. GM, the number one top selling manufacturer in the US, even during the worst of the recession, ended up in Bankruptcy. Even while Honda and Toyota thrived and expanded.
The primary difference being GM and Chrysler were Union, and Honda and Toyota are not.
Another example is the Steel industry. There have been a number of steel plants across the country, that under Union contract were driven out of business. However after closing, the same plant with the same equipment, is re-opened as a non-union shop, and is profitable.
Another example would be Hostess. Run by unions, the company was run into the ground, and ended in bankruptcy. Purchased by a non-union company, and opened up with a ban on hiring former union members, Hostess is not profitable and growing.
There is no super secret 'assault on unions'. Math is destroying unions. Unions drive up the cost of doing business, until the business isn't profitable, and everyone is laid off. Then the exact same plant, doing the exact same business, is reopened without suicidal union influence, and thrives. Unions are killing unions. That's all there is to it.
Now with trade and GATT, NAFTA and China.... Every single country that has engaged in protectionism, has destroyed itself. There is no example in the world, or in history, where a country closed off trade, and ended up better off.
Trade is inherently beneficial to all people. The driving force that pushed the entire world into a global depression, was a trade war and protectionism in the 1930s. World trade on a global scale, dropped to 1/3rd of it's previous high.
Yet this removal of the working people being in competition with international labor, didn't result in a Utopia, but rather a purgatory.
In truth, America has always been in competition with low-wage countries. The difference is that with regulations and minimum wage laws, domestic business isn't as competitive with low-wage labor, when for decades it was.
Moreover, even if you did ban all trade, the results would not only be devastating for the economy, but it wouldn't provide the jobs you want. Even if the Iphone was built domestically, it wouldn't be built with manual labor, like you see in China. Instead it would be built by machine. No large number of jobs would be created.
Funny how conservatives hate liberalism as they do yet can't get enough of economic liberalism. They blame all of societies ills on liberalism yet remain oblivious to the negative effects economic liberalism has had. The one aspect that relates to the health of our society more than anything, the ability to provide for one's family. Strange.
Economic Liberalism is the reason we are in the most wealthy country, with the highest standard of living in the world.
I was talking with a woman from Nepal. In Nepal, most people don't own cars. They can't afford it. Most don't own their own home. Can't afford it. Most women stay at home, and do nothing but clean and cook. Can't afford to do anything else.
I was talking to a man from Bangladesh, who had never seen a dish washer before.
I was talking with a couple from Laos, that had a Ford Excursion. They had never had a car that fit more than 4 people before, let alone luggage and pets.
The idea that people can't afford to provide for one's family in the US, is beyond false... it is flat out ridiculous. One man, working as a truck driver, with zero education, or skills of any kind, other than shifting gears, and using gas and break pedals, can earn enough money to put them in the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world.
Are you suggesting that 99% of the entire planet can't provide for one's family? That's billions on billions of people proving that claim wrong, on a daily basis.
So if they can... which they are.... then your claim is bonkers. Some of the poorest people in our country, drive cars, and have smart phones. If they can't provide for their family, how do they afford all these extras? Why are so many people on welfare obese?
The claim is simply false.