Wealth Distributed Randomly?

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

Great post. One thought though. This isn’t the consumers decision. Every country protects its vital industries. Manufacturing is the most vital industry in any big country. America was the only country that didn’t protect its vital industries why? Because American workers were the highest paid workers in the world. They wanted to break those union jobs.

Before trump started talking tariffs and protecting American workers us liberals were saying it. You laughed at us but cheer trump on for taking on China.

And that trade war in 2017 caused a slowing of the economy so we only got 2.3% growth. Trump laughed at Obama for that kind of growth and this is after trump passed the biggest tax break in us history. 2019 should have been the greatest year. Was it? Nope

Of course it's the consumers' decision. If everyone left the $150 China made TVs sitting on the shelves and insisted on buying only American union made $350 TVs, the cheap crap would disappear because it wasn't selling. Money talks really loud, and the company that can provide the cheapest goods makes the most sales. That's really the bottom line. You have to provide a much more powerful incentive for the consumer to spend more, and quite frankly, for most people the cheap stuff is good enough. Why spend $1000 on a good sound system when you don't care about the marginal increase in sound quality and a set of $100 ear buds gives you 85%?

See, as long as you can charge a premium price for something, you can afford to pay higher wages than the other guy, but once something reaches commodity pricing you can't. Case in point. I worked in IT at Circuit City during their hayday when they were number one. They told us that it took 40 years for TVs to go from premium to commodity pricing. Guess how long it took DVD players to do the same thing? Two years. That's one of the reasons CC died, they were too stuck on the premium pricing model and lost out to Walmart and BestBuy. There were other reasons too, but that's a different topic, and I'm just glad I got out under my own power when I did. I could see the target on my back and really think I would have been in the next wave of layoffs had I not jumped. And all the unions in the world can't stop that from happening.

Consider what you said. On the one hand, you laud protectionism, while on the other you deride the economic impact of the higher prices, which are the inevitable result of said protectionism. That always seems to be lost in the shuffle when people start talking about artificially higher wages and preventing foreign competition. Are tariffs a good thing or a bad thing? We applied them and saw a lower increase in the rate of economic growth. Were wages helped and jobs protected by those actions? You tell me.

I don't know about you, but 2019 was a pretty good year for a whole lot of people. The tax cuts were nice, but it sure would have been good had Washington discovered the word "no" when it came to increasing spending.

Why spend more? Because that company is paying fair wages and so is yours.

How about this question. Why not send your job overseas?

 

[hadit]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

Great post. One thought though. This isn’t the consumers decision. Every country protects its vital industries. Manufacturing is the most vital industry in any big country. America was the only country that didn’t protect its vital industries why? Because American workers were the highest paid workers in the world. They wanted to break those union jobs.

Before trump started talking tariffs and protecting American workers us liberals were saying it. You laughed at us but cheer trump on for taking on China.

And that trade war in 2017 caused a slowing of the economy so we only got 2.3% growth. Trump laughed at Obama for that kind of growth and this is after trump passed the biggest tax break in us history. 2019 should have been the greatest year. Was it? Nope

Of course it's the consumers' decision. If everyone left the $150 China made TVs sitting on the shelves and insisted on buying only American union made $350 TVs, the cheap crap would disappear because it wasn't selling. Money talks really loud, and the company that can provide the cheapest goods makes the most sales. That's really the bottom line. You have to provide a much more powerful incentive for the consumer to spend more, and quite frankly, for most people the cheap stuff is good enough. Why spend $1000 on a good sound system when you don't care about the marginal increase in sound quality and a set of $100 ear buds gives you 85%?

See, as long as you can charge a premium price for something, you can afford to pay higher wages than the other guy, but once something reaches commodity pricing you can't. Case in point. I worked in IT at Circuit City during their hayday when they were number one. They told us that it took 40 years for TVs to go from premium to commodity pricing. Guess how long it took DVD players to do the same thing? Two years. That's one of the reasons CC died, they were too stuck on the premium pricing model and lost out to Walmart and BestBuy. There were other reasons too, but that's a different topic, and I'm just glad I got out under my own power when I did. I could see the target on my back and really think I would have been in the next wave of layoffs had I not jumped. And all the unions in the world can't stop that from happening.

Consider what you said. On the one hand, you laud protectionism, while on the other you deride the economic impact of the higher prices, which are the inevitable result of said protectionism. That always seems to be lost in the shuffle when people start talking about artificially higher wages and preventing foreign competition. Are tariffs a good thing or a bad thing? We applied them and saw a lower increase in the rate of economic growth. Were wages helped and jobs protected by those actions? You tell me.

I don't know about you, but 2019 was a pretty good year for a whole lot of people. The tax cuts were nice, but it sure would have been good had Washington discovered the word "no" when it came to increasing spending.

Why spend more? Because that company is paying fair wages and so is yours.

How about this question. Why not send your job overseas?

Okay, do this for me. Go into your nearest Walmart and ask this question of at least 25 shoppers. "Would you pay twice as much for what you're buying and leave the cheaper goods on the shelf if you knew that the more expensive goods were manufactured by a company that paid higher wages to its employees?". Then come back here and tell me what they said.

My job could literally be done anywhere in the world there is a reliable source of electricity and internet bandwidth (which is really cool for me because I can work from anywhere. Nobody even has to know if I'm out of town). Our company, however, requires all of its consultants to be American citizens, which is a selling point for the American companies we work with. Our company offers a premium product and we charge a premium price for it so we have to bring the quality or we lose out. Quite frankly, while a drone in Calcutta COULD do my job for 1/3 the cost, there would be a lot of problems associated with that, language barriers, differing time zones, and cultural differences being three important ones.

25 years ago I was a programmer, and realized that Indian programmers were going to dominate the programming market with high quality, lower cost workers, so I switched to database administration and never looked back. Today I'm a consultant with multiple clients, providing fractional DBA services. Could my job be shipped overseas? Physically, yes. Practically, no. You have to look forward to see which way the market is going, then take steps to move with it or ahead of it. Keeping your head down in a union job, thinking you're going to do the same thing for 40 years, then retire with a watch and a pension isn't going to cut it in today's world.

 

[Andylusion]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

Bullshit. Starting with the GI bill, social security, labor laws and unions, liberalism created a middle class the world had never seen before. But the rich fought back and if we dared fight back you cried class warfare. Not realizing the war had already been waged against you starting with Reagan and jack Walsh

No. Not true. Not even close. The middle class of today, lives a dream life compared to the middle class of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. You are just fooling yourself if you deny that, because there isn't a single statistical measure you can look at, that suggests otherwise.

And no, Social Security is horrible. If you had control of the money flushed down social security, and put it in the worst possible investment, you would be better off than under social security as it is.

In fact, that's not even theory. It's fact. In the 1980s, they allowed a county in Texas to put the money that would have gone to social security, into a private investment fund, and every single person, who put their money into even the worst investment, did better than social security.

So no, I'm not going to believe some mythical wage war, and nonsense.

Omg where to begin on how wrong you are. Do I have to even explain this?

My parents and grandparents worked for the big three in the 60s-90s. They had really cheap healthcare and higher union wages with pensions and good social security and Medicare. The people during this era were the thriving booming middle class. Back then a GM was America’s largest employer. Today it’s Walmart,

Back then a high school dropout could go find a factory job and raise a family and buy a home on those wages. Today?

So this class warfare you so ignorantly deny. Step 1. Send union jobs overseas. Step two, buy Chinese buy at Walmart. And the 3rd way they attacked the middle class. Illegal employers started hiring illegal workers rather than pay American wages. This still happens today.

Republican policies have put more money in rich peoples pockets by cutting social programs that help the poor or programs that ar3 social safety nets for the middle class.

Andy, you’re just an idiot.

Hold hold hold....

Health Care was really cheap in the 60s and 70s? Yeah, and you know why? Compare the level of care available in the 60s and 70s, to today. That's like saying getting transportation was cheaper in the 1880s. Yeah, Wagons are cheaper than Modern automobiles. Shocking. Go get yourself an Amish Wagon for a $1,000. Much cheaper than a Honda Accord.

There is no comparison between the health care of the 60s and 70s, and the health care today. In Congressional testimony, a Doctor from Canada pointed out that in the 1840s if someone had a heart attack, they gave you alcohol, and told you to get some bed rest. In the 1940s (if I remember right), Winston Churchill was in the US and had a heart attack. They gave him Aspirin, and put him on bed rest.

100 years of medical advancement resulting in giving someone Aspirin for a heart attack. You think health care is was cheaper when that was the advancement of care? Sure.

Advancement in medical technology exploded in 1970s to 1980s. Today we have endless treatments and procedures, and medicines, and computers, and equipment, and MRIs, and CATs, and on and on and on.

You complaining that health care was cheap in the 60s and 70s, and is expensive today, is like saying "When health care practically didn't exist, it was cheaper". Yeah, when doctors can't recommend a CAT scan in the 1960s, because CAT scans don't exist...... then you don't have pay for it. And when you don't have to pay for it... it's cheap.

Is it logical that if you work for me for an entire month, instead of a few hours, that I have to pay you more money for your time and labor?

Yes.

So when you are getting more and more health care services and products today than in the past, is it logical that you have to pay more for those greater services and products you are getting? Yes.

Back then a high school dropout could go find a factory job and raise a family and buy a home on those wages. Today?

That depends. You can be very successful as a high school dropout. Extremely successful.

Richard Branson
David Karp
Mike Hudack
And many many more.

And I could list hundreds of immigrants who never went to high school at all, and became very successful.

Now I *DO* agree with you that people who don't want to be self employed, or work a trade skill... are pretty much screwed, unless they can get into a factory somewhere.

However, even that is debatable. You can work your way up. I know guy that worked at the Advance Auto Parts store I was at. He started minimum wage, and today he's a store manager of his own store.

The Barber I go to, his wife didn't go to college, and just worked at the bank, as a bank teller. Fast forward 20 years, she's now manager over the mortgage department of the bank, and has a 6-figure income.

But even Honda is still hiring production workers, and the pay is not bad. A full time, hired on as a permanent employees, will yield you $26/hour, which is solidly middle class.

Now I get it, you'd like to have those 1950s Union Pensions. That's over with. The 1950s style defined benefit pensions failed because they were Ponzi schemes. The current workers, were working to pay for the retired workers. Which that system only worked as long as the number of working people, far exceeded the number of retired workers.

Well... that didn't last. As Europe recovered, and the United States was no longer the sole provider of manufactured goods in a World War wrecked planet, we no longer had this clean 'lock' on manufacturing. International demand subsided, and at the same time, the number of retired people was piling up.

Pensions died under that system. The company hits some troubled spots, and suddenly that pension is a boat anchor wrapped around a sinking ship, that they can't cut off.

Which by the way, will happen with Social Security too.

This is why pensions are having trouble around the world. Again, it isn't just an American thing, or a Republican thing, or a Reagan thing. It's happening everywhere. Ponzi scheme will always fail eventually. Soviet Union lasted 70 years, and it still failed. Ponzi Schemes fail. All of them.

However, to say people can't possibly make it after dropping out of high school, depends entirely on their willingness to put in the effort and work hard.

1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school drop out. He was working fast-food joint, and purchased a pickup for just $700, and started hauling trash. Now he's got a multi-national billion dollar company.

So the world has changed, for sure. You can't just walk to the factory, and get a middle class job. I agree, those days are over. (I mean you can... provided there is a job opening, but the number of those jobs, verses the number of people, is not in your favor)

But you can with effort, easily achieve a middle class life in this country, that people in 1960s and 70s, could only dream of.

Just down the road from me, we have a company called Eco-Plumbers. This guy learned how to install hot water tanks. That's all he did. Dropped out of high school, installed hot water tanks.

He got an order to install a tank-less water heater. He thought that was the coolest thing. So he decided to start a business that focused exclusively on installing tank-less water heaters. He now has a small fleet of trucks, and a dozen plus people working for him.

Eco® Plumbers, Electricians & HVAC Technicians in Columbus, OH

Premier Home Services Company Serving the Greater Columbus Area. Trusted by Over 10,000+ Homeowners with Our 100% Satisfaction Guarantee

www.ecoplumbers.com

You can succeed, and become very wealthy in this country, doing almost.... almost anything.

 

[wamose]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

Great post. One thought though. This isn’t the consumers decision. Every country protects its vital industries. Manufacturing is the most vital industry in any big country. America was the only country that didn’t protect its vital industries why? Because American workers were the highest paid workers in the world. They wanted to break those union jobs.

Before trump started talking tariffs and protecting American workers us liberals were saying it. You laughed at us but cheer trump on for taking on China.

And that trade war in 2017 caused a slowing of the economy so we only got 2.3% growth. Trump laughed at Obama for that kind of growth and this is after trump passed the biggest tax break in us history. 2019 should have been the greatest year. Was it? Nope

Of course it's the consumers' decision. If everyone left the $150 China made TVs sitting on the shelves and insisted on buying only American union made $350 TVs, the cheap crap would disappear because it wasn't selling. Money talks really loud, and the company that can provide the cheapest goods makes the most sales. That's really the bottom line. You have to provide a much more powerful incentive for the consumer to spend more, and quite frankly, for most people the cheap stuff is good enough. Why spend $1000 on a good sound system when you don't care about the marginal increase in sound quality and a set of $100 ear buds gives you 85%?

See, as long as you can charge a premium price for something, you can afford to pay higher wages than the other guy, but once something reaches commodity pricing you can't. Case in point. I worked in IT at Circuit City during their hayday when they were number one. They told us that it took 40 years for TVs to go from premium to commodity pricing. Guess how long it took DVD players to do the same thing? Two years. That's one of the reasons CC died, they were too stuck on the premium pricing model and lost out to Walmart and BestBuy. There were other reasons too, but that's a different topic, and I'm just glad I got out under my own power when I did. I could see the target on my back and really think I would have been in the next wave of layoffs had I not jumped. And all the unions in the world can't stop that from happening.

Consider what you said. On the one hand, you laud protectionism, while on the other you deride the economic impact of the higher prices, which are the inevitable result of said protectionism. That always seems to be lost in the shuffle when people start talking about artificially higher wages and preventing foreign competition. Are tariffs a good thing or a bad thing? We applied them and saw a lower increase in the rate of economic growth. Were wages helped and jobs protected by those actions? You tell me.

I don't know about you, but 2019 was a pretty good year for a whole lot of people. The tax cuts were nice, but it sure would have been good had Washington discovered the word "no" when it came to increasing spending.

Excellent argument for tariffs. Thank you.

 

[Andylusion]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

Great post. One thought though. This isn’t the consumers decision. Every country protects its vital industries. Manufacturing is the most vital industry in any big country. America was the only country that didn’t protect its vital industries why? Because American workers were the highest paid workers in the world. They wanted to break those union jobs.

Before trump started talking tariffs and protecting American workers us liberals were saying it. You laughed at us but cheer trump on for taking on China.

And that trade war in 2017 caused a slowing of the economy so we only got 2.3% growth. Trump laughed at Obama for that kind of growth and this is after trump passed the biggest tax break in us history. 2019 should have been the greatest year. Was it? Nope

Of course it's the consumers' decision. If everyone left the $150 China made TVs sitting on the shelves and insisted on buying only American union made $350 TVs, the cheap crap would disappear because it wasn't selling. Money talks really loud, and the company that can provide the cheapest goods makes the most sales. That's really the bottom line. You have to provide a much more powerful incentive for the consumer to spend more, and quite frankly, for most people the cheap stuff is good enough. Why spend $1000 on a good sound system when you don't care about the marginal increase in sound quality and a set of $100 ear buds gives you 85%?

See, as long as you can charge a premium price for something, you can afford to pay higher wages than the other guy, but once something reaches commodity pricing you can't. Case in point. I worked in IT at Circuit City during their hayday when they were number one. They told us that it took 40 years for TVs to go from premium to commodity pricing. Guess how long it took DVD players to do the same thing? Two years. That's one of the reasons CC died, they were too stuck on the premium pricing model and lost out to Walmart and BestBuy. There were other reasons too, but that's a different topic, and I'm just glad I got out under my own power when I did. I could see the target on my back and really think I would have been in the next wave of layoffs had I not jumped. And all the unions in the world can't stop that from happening.

Consider what you said. On the one hand, you laud protectionism, while on the other you deride the economic impact of the higher prices, which are the inevitable result of said protectionism. That always seems to be lost in the shuffle when people start talking about artificially higher wages and preventing foreign competition. Are tariffs a good thing or a bad thing? We applied them and saw a lower increase in the rate of economic growth. Were wages helped and jobs protected by those actions? You tell me.

I don't know about you, but 2019 was a pretty good year for a whole lot of people. The tax cuts were nice, but it sure would have been good had Washington discovered the word "no" when it came to increasing spending.

Why spend more? Because that company is paying fair wages and so is yours.

How about this question. Why not send your job overseas?

But that doesn't help me. Whether I buy from you, or from a guy in China, my income isn't going to change.

What will change is that I will be poorer for buying a TV for $350, when I can get the exact same nearly identical TV for $100.

And if I am now poorer, what does that mean for the economy?

Think about it. What effect does that have on the economy? I now have $250 less than I would have, had I purchased the $100 TV.

That means I can spend $250 on other things. Which means more purchases. Which means more economic activity.

By the way, this is why small changes in the tax code, can have large effects on the economy. Because think about it... if every single person in your entire community had $250 less, if every person in your city had $250 less.... if every person in your state had $250 less money.....

That would have a massive compounding effect throughout the entire economy.

Cheaper goods, results in greater economic activity. Because I spent only $100 on that TV, now I have $250 more that I can spend on other things. That causes more economic growth.

 

[Andylusion]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

Great post. One thought though. This isn’t the consumers decision. Every country protects its vital industries. Manufacturing is the most vital industry in any big country. America was the only country that didn’t protect its vital industries why? Because American workers were the highest paid workers in the world. They wanted to break those union jobs.

Before trump started talking tariffs and protecting American workers us liberals were saying it. You laughed at us but cheer trump on for taking on China.

And that trade war in 2017 caused a slowing of the economy so we only got 2.3% growth. Trump laughed at Obama for that kind of growth and this is after trump passed the biggest tax break in us history. 2019 should have been the greatest year. Was it? Nope

Of course it's the consumers' decision. If everyone left the $150 China made TVs sitting on the shelves and insisted on buying only American union made $350 TVs, the cheap crap would disappear because it wasn't selling. Money talks really loud, and the company that can provide the cheapest goods makes the most sales. That's really the bottom line. You have to provide a much more powerful incentive for the consumer to spend more, and quite frankly, for most people the cheap stuff is good enough. Why spend $1000 on a good sound system when you don't care about the marginal increase in sound quality and a set of $100 ear buds gives you 85%?

See, as long as you can charge a premium price for something, you can afford to pay higher wages than the other guy, but once something reaches commodity pricing you can't. Case in point. I worked in IT at Circuit City during their hayday when they were number one. They told us that it took 40 years for TVs to go from premium to commodity pricing. Guess how long it took DVD players to do the same thing? Two years. That's one of the reasons CC died, they were too stuck on the premium pricing model and lost out to Walmart and BestBuy. There were other reasons too, but that's a different topic, and I'm just glad I got out under my own power when I did. I could see the target on my back and really think I would have been in the next wave of layoffs had I not jumped. And all the unions in the world can't stop that from happening.

Consider what you said. On the one hand, you laud protectionism, while on the other you deride the economic impact of the higher prices, which are the inevitable result of said protectionism. That always seems to be lost in the shuffle when people start talking about artificially higher wages and preventing foreign competition. Are tariffs a good thing or a bad thing? We applied them and saw a lower increase in the rate of economic growth. Were wages helped and jobs protected by those actions? You tell me.

I don't know about you, but 2019 was a pretty good year for a whole lot of people. The tax cuts were nice, but it sure would have been good had Washington discovered the word "no" when it came to increasing spending.

Excellent argument for tariffs. Thank you.

How is damaging the economy, and destroying our standard of living, an argument in favor of tariffs?

 

[wamose]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

Great post. One thought though. This isn’t the consumers decision. Every country protects its vital industries. Manufacturing is the most vital industry in any big country. America was the only country that didn’t protect its vital industries why? Because American workers were the highest paid workers in the world. They wanted to break those union jobs.

Before trump started talking tariffs and protecting American workers us liberals were saying it. You laughed at us but cheer trump on for taking on China.

And that trade war in 2017 caused a slowing of the economy so we only got 2.3% growth. Trump laughed at Obama for that kind of growth and this is after trump passed the biggest tax break in us history. 2019 should have been the greatest year. Was it? Nope

Of course it's the consumers' decision. If everyone left the $150 China made TVs sitting on the shelves and insisted on buying only American union made $350 TVs, the cheap crap would disappear because it wasn't selling. Money talks really loud, and the company that can provide the cheapest goods makes the most sales. That's really the bottom line. You have to provide a much more powerful incentive for the consumer to spend more, and quite frankly, for most people the cheap stuff is good enough. Why spend $1000 on a good sound system when you don't care about the marginal increase in sound quality and a set of $100 ear buds gives you 85%?

See, as long as you can charge a premium price for something, you can afford to pay higher wages than the other guy, but once something reaches commodity pricing you can't. Case in point. I worked in IT at Circuit City during their hayday when they were number one. They told us that it took 40 years for TVs to go from premium to commodity pricing. Guess how long it took DVD players to do the same thing? Two years. That's one of the reasons CC died, they were too stuck on the premium pricing model and lost out to Walmart and BestBuy. There were other reasons too, but that's a different topic, and I'm just glad I got out under my own power when I did. I could see the target on my back and really think I would have been in the next wave of layoffs had I not jumped. And all the unions in the world can't stop that from happening.

Consider what you said. On the one hand, you laud protectionism, while on the other you deride the economic impact of the higher prices, which are the inevitable result of said protectionism. That always seems to be lost in the shuffle when people start talking about artificially higher wages and preventing foreign competition. Are tariffs a good thing or a bad thing? We applied them and saw a lower increase in the rate of economic growth. Were wages helped and jobs protected by those actions? You tell me.

I don't know about you, but 2019 was a pretty good year for a whole lot of people. The tax cuts were nice, but it sure would have been good had Washington discovered the word "no" when it came to increasing spending.

Excellent argument for tariffs. Thank you.

How is damaging the economy, and destroying our standard of living, an argument in favor of tariffs?

How do you figure that putting the American worker on an equal footing with cheap Chinese labor will damage our economy? Free trade never benefitted the American economy. It did make rich elitists richer at the expense of the American worker.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you figure that putting the American worker on an equal footing with cheap Chinese labor will damage our economy? Free trade never benefitted the American economy. It did make rich elitists richer at the expense of the American worker.

So let's talk about that.

Right now... NOW.... The average income in America is $59K a year.

Average income in China is $11K.

We have had relatively free trade with China since 1979.

Average and median compensation for workers in the US, have more than doubled.

Average wages, median wages, and wage dispersion

So what "expense" of the American worker are you talking about? We are more wealthy today, than ever before in human history. Making just $32K a year, places you in the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world. We're better off today, than at any time in our countries history.

The Chinese worker is still even today, paid pennies, while we are by any measure, are filthy rich compared to the world.

Where do you see this "at the expense of the American worker" in our society? Where?

I knew a married couple, that both worked at Wendy's. Together, flipping burgers, they made over $32,000 a year. They were the 1% of the world.

.............. Now you can think about that... I have a question for you regarding your claim:
"Free trade never benefitted the American economy"

Really? Then why when they stamped out free trade in the 1930s Smoot Hawley tariff, did the entire economy crash?

Let me ask you... name one country anywhere in the world, that banned or limited trade, that ended up more wealthy?

Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea?
Every country I can think of, anywhere in the world, including the United States, when they engaged in protectionism, resulted in economic decline.

Go look at all the countries that have the highest tariffs, or the most controls on trade. They are all the poorest and worst places to live.

Which Countries Have the Highest Tariffs?

Find out which countries have the most restrictive import tariffs on international products, based on data collected by the World Bank and WTO.

www.investopedia.com

Alternatively, look at the places with the lowest tariffs and trade restrictions. Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, Canada, the US, and Japan.

And finally, let me ask you one last thing. If protectionism is so great for the economy, and if free-trade is so terrible and horrible for the economy, then let me ask you just this....

Why when Russia invaded Crimea and Ukraine.... did we put restrictions on trade with Russia?

By your logic, wouldn't restrictions on trade cause their economy to improve?

 

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

Bullshit. Starting with the GI bill, social security, labor laws and unions, liberalism created a middle class the world had never seen before. But the rich fought back and if we dared fight back you cried class warfare. Not realizing the war had already been waged against you starting with Reagan and jack Walsh

No. Not true. Not even close. The middle class of today, lives a dream life compared to the middle class of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. You are just fooling yourself if you deny that, because there isn't a single statistical measure you can look at, that suggests otherwise.

And no, Social Security is horrible. If you had control of the money flushed down social security, and put it in the worst possible investment, you would be better off than under social security as it is.

In fact, that's not even theory. It's fact. In the 1980s, they allowed a county in Texas to put the money that would have gone to social security, into a private investment fund, and every single person, who put their money into even the worst investment, did better than social security.

So no, I'm not going to believe some mythical wage war, and nonsense.

Omg where to begin on how wrong you are. Do I have to even explain this?

My parents and grandparents worked for the big three in the 60s-90s. They had really cheap healthcare and higher union wages with pensions and good social security and Medicare. The people during this era were the thriving booming middle class. Back then a GM was America’s largest employer. Today it’s Walmart,

Back then a high school dropout could go find a factory job and raise a family and buy a home on those wages. Today?

So this class warfare you so ignorantly deny. Step 1. Send union jobs overseas. Step two, buy Chinese buy at Walmart. And the 3rd way they attacked the middle class. Illegal employers started hiring illegal workers rather than pay American wages. This still happens today.

Republican policies have put more money in rich peoples pockets by cutting social programs that help the poor or programs that ar3 social safety nets for the middle class.

Andy, you’re just an idiot.

Hold hold hold....

Health Care was really cheap in the 60s and 70s? Yeah, and you know why? Compare the level of care available in the 60s and 70s, to today. That's like saying getting transportation was cheaper in the 1880s. Yeah, Wagons are cheaper than Modern automobiles. Shocking. Go get yourself an Amish Wagon for a $1,000. Much cheaper than a Honda Accord.

There is no comparison between the health care of the 60s and 70s, and the health care today. In Congressional testimony, a Doctor from Canada pointed out that in the 1840s if someone had a heart attack, they gave you alcohol, and told you to get some bed rest. In the 1940s (if I remember right), Winston Churchill was in the US and had a heart attack. They gave him Aspirin, and put him on bed rest.

100 years of medical advancement resulting in giving someone Aspirin for a heart attack. You think health care is was cheaper when that was the advancement of care? Sure.

Advancement in medical technology exploded in 1970s to 1980s. Today we have endless treatments and procedures, and medicines, and computers, and equipment, and MRIs, and CATs, and on and on and on.

You complaining that health care was cheap in the 60s and 70s, and is expensive today, is like saying "When health care practically didn't exist, it was cheaper". Yeah, when doctors can't recommend a CAT scan in the 1960s, because CAT scans don't exist...... then you don't have pay for it. And when you don't have to pay for it... it's cheap.

Is it logical that if you work for me for an entire month, instead of a few hours, that I have to pay you more money for your time and labor?

Yes.

So when you are getting more and more health care services and products today than in the past, is it logical that you have to pay more for those greater services and products you are getting? Yes.

Back then a high school dropout could go find a factory job and raise a family and buy a home on those wages. Today?

That depends. You can be very successful as a high school dropout. Extremely successful.

Richard Branson
David Karp
Mike Hudack
And many many more.

And I could list hundreds of immigrants who never went to high school at all, and became very successful.

Now I *DO* agree with you that people who don't want to be self employed, or work a trade skill... are pretty much screwed, unless they can get into a factory somewhere.

However, even that is debatable. You can work your way up. I know guy that worked at the Advance Auto Parts store I was at. He started minimum wage, and today he's a store manager of his own store.

The Barber I go to, his wife didn't go to college, and just worked at the bank, as a bank teller. Fast forward 20 years, she's now manager over the mortgage department of the bank, and has a 6-figure income.

But even Honda is still hiring production workers, and the pay is not bad. A full time, hired on as a permanent employees, will yield you $26/hour, which is solidly middle class.

Now I get it, you'd like to have those 1950s Union Pensions. That's over with. The 1950s style defined benefit pensions failed because they were Ponzi schemes. The current workers, were working to pay for the retired workers. Which that system only worked as long as the number of working people, far exceeded the number of retired workers.

Well... that didn't last. As Europe recovered, and the United States was no longer the sole provider of manufactured goods in a World War wrecked planet, we no longer had this clean 'lock' on manufacturing. International demand subsided, and at the same time, the number of retired people was piling up.

Pensions died under that system. The company hits some troubled spots, and suddenly that pension is a boat anchor wrapped around a sinking ship, that they can't cut off.

Which by the way, will happen with Social Security too.

This is why pensions are having trouble around the world. Again, it isn't just an American thing, or a Republican thing, or a Reagan thing. It's happening everywhere. Ponzi scheme will always fail eventually. Soviet Union lasted 70 years, and it still failed. Ponzi Schemes fail. All of them.

However, to say people can't possibly make it after dropping out of high school, depends entirely on their willingness to put in the effort and work hard.

1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school drop out. He was working fast-food joint, and purchased a pickup for just $700, and started hauling trash. Now he's got a multi-national billion dollar company.

So the world has changed, for sure. You can't just walk to the factory, and get a middle class job. I agree, those days are over. (I mean you can... provided there is a job opening, but the number of those jobs, verses the number of people, is not in your favor)

But you can with effort, easily achieve a middle class life in this country, that people in 1960s and 70s, could only dream of.

Just down the road from me, we have a company called Eco-Plumbers. This guy learned how to install hot water tanks. That's all he did. Dropped out of high school, installed hot water tanks.

He got an order to install a tank-less water heater. He thought that was the coolest thing. So he decided to start a business that focused exclusively on installing tank-less water heaters. He now has a small fleet of trucks, and a dozen plus people working for him.

Eco® Plumbers, Electricians & HVAC Technicians in Columbus, OH

Premier Home Services Company Serving the Greater Columbus Area. Trusted by Over 10,000+ Homeowners with Our 100% Satisfaction Guarantee

www.ecoplumbers.com

You can succeed, and become very wealthy in this country, doing almost.... almost anything.

Alright touché