America 1950 vs. America 2012

[onlyrp]

I had to respond to a few of these great points.


I can't believe the author of the list just added goddamn fashion to the argument.

basically exactly what I said, LOL. Glad I'm not completely nuts.

 

[tttppp]

That you don't know what you're talking about, and barely make your complaint based on selective facts, which is why it's so easy for me to correct you and get you to admit either what you don't know, or what you ignore.

You don't know what you are talking about. You clearly don't know how this country works. You obviously don't support Ron Paul. You are clearly in favor of the establishment. Enjoy voting for Romney.

 

[tttppp]

Less regulation means high competition, agreed. How how can higher wages and better working conditions mean high competition?
Am I missing something that makes higher wages and better working conditions "lower cost"? If they are "higher cost", they're going to be lower competition, lower appeal, and most likely due to higher regulation. (Employers have no reason or incentive to improve work conditions or pay more, unless they were forced to).



Who is the manufacturer by then? Who is going to be the new China? Who lets them consume if there isn't a replacement sweatshop country?


If so, then at least it'll mean we'll consume less (if consumption is a good thing, you can't say we're bad now, is consumption is a bad thing, it'll be better later, make up your mind already)

Companies have to compete for labor too. Higher competition creates higher wages and better working conditions. They didn't teach you that in economics?

 

[Stupified]

basically exactly what I said, LOL. Glad I'm not completely nuts.

Well the list sounds like a piece of neocon propaganda (seriously, that SK military intervention one, what the hell). I'm surprised to see so many here agreeing with it.

 

[onlyrp]

Companies have to compete for labor too. Higher competition creates higher wages and better working conditions. They didn't teach you that in economics?

So now we're talking about two different things, looking for workers vs looking for buyers. Which is going to be funny if it ever happens to China, because they have no shortage of poor people to replace their own sweatshop workers.

 

[onlyrp]

Well the list sounds like a piece of neocon propaganda (seriously, that SK military intervention one, what the hell). I'm surprised to see so many here agreeing with it.

I bet most didn't even read it and just jump for joy when they hear the numbers that relate to economy. One thing you can ALWAYS count on being ignored when people say "the past was better" whether in 1950, 1900 or 1800, are race, technology, immigration and gay rights. In general, people who think the past was better will always conveniently leave out that minorities were worse off, and technology has decreased the value of labor (either that, or they think it's a bad thing for labor to be devalued, making them communists, materialists and labor theorists of value).

This is why you NEVER EVER hear anarchists aspire to live like Amish. Or anybody telling you a fact : Amish living conditions have been largely immune to the growth of technology, consumer culture, and government regulations.

Occasionally you'll hear free market libertarians use Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan as models for their capitalist ideal. Forgetting their zero tolerance to drugs and culture acceptance of death penalty.

 

[Stupified]

Hey, but at least in 1950 we had AYN goddamn RAND, the champion of capitalism.

 

[anaconda]

Skill labor wages increase, unskilled decrease, that's GOOD for capitalism, right?

I'm not enough of an economist to answer that. But I would like to know why, in the 1950's, that the real wages for both skilled and unskilled labor were simultaneously increasing (I am talking about the real wage here, not the nominal wage). I suspect this has to do with the rate of productivity increases vs. GDP growth (a fierce increasing demand for all types of labor?), and also perhaps offshore outsourcing. Whether it's good for capitalism I suppose has something to do with the economic success of said system, however you want to evaluate it and what your personal judgements are. I would want to look at the social welfare of producers, consumers, and labor. Also per capita GDP, growth, and full employment concerns. Maybe toss in the existence and survivability of civil liberties when evaluating an economic system, too. I do wonder a bit when politicians like Rick Santorum talk about bringing manufacturing jobs to the U.S. I wonder if we should, as a country, be trying to evolve ourselves into higher and higher productivity levels, and leave the manufacturing to the third world countries. Manufacturing was good for England in the 19th century and good for the U.S. in the first half of the 20th. But, as you may be alluding to, the time to move on has come, and is manifested in the plummeting real wage for relatively unskilled labor. Soldering a circuit board was a good skill in the U.S. in 1972, but not in 2012. Electronics technology programs in the community colleges have all closed down and the work is done by the Chinese. Why does Rick Santorum want to bring crummy jobs back to America? Hint: He doesn't. He just wants the votes from the people that are in this unfortunate demographic. Maybe Santorum also wants to bring back more steam locomotive jobs as well? I think that the U.S. should be forging ahead with more evolutions in science and technology from a research and development perspective. Biomedical. Information processing. Energy alternatives. etc.

 

[onlyrp]

I'm not enough of an economist to answer that. But I would like to know why, in the 1950's, that the real wages for both skilled and unskilled labor were simultaneously increasing (I am talking about the real wage here, not the nominal wage). I suspect this has to do with the rate of productivity increases vs. GDP growth (a fierce increasing demand for all types of labor?), and also perhaps offshore outsourcing. Whether it's good for capitalism I suppose has something to do with the economic success of said system, however you want to evaluate it and what your personal judgements are. I would want to look at the social welfare of producers, consumers, and labor. Also per capita GDP, growth, and full employment concerns. Maybe toss in the existence and survivability of civil liberties when evaluating an economic system, too.

It's probably a moral question as to whether we should reward skill, or whether a good economy would/should take care of people the ones without skill. Overall I think it's fallacious to think that a good economy or free economy would have anything OTHER than freedom of choice and rewarding those which are in most demand of the market. The rest of your post I can agree, that it's a little more complicated than just numbers, details matter. I tried digging about the claim that in 1950 households only spent 22% on housing vs 43% today, and turns out, the source itself admits, houses on average double in size. Meaning, even nominally, cost per sq ft hasn't really increased if it's mere doubling (22% vs 43% isn't simply doubling, but close).

 

[anaconda]

Overall I think it's fallacious to think that a good economy or free economy would have anything OTHER than freedom of choice and rewarding those which are in most demand of the market. The rest of your post I can agree

I don't see anything in my post that suggested anything different. What is it that made you think I was advocating something other than freedom of choice and free markets? Just curious. I probably was ambiguous or misspoke somewhere. From what I understand the greatest amount of consumer and producer surplus occur in completely free markets. Which probably don't exist for a variety of reasons, such as imperfect information. But the freer the market, the greater the per capita social welfare.

 

[Revolution9]

I'm not rich, I'm just cheap.

You probably are cheap. I just can't see you as being frugal which is a different headspace than yours definitively.

Rev9

 

[onlyrp]

You probably are cheap. I just can't see you as being frugal which is a different headspace than yours definitively.

Rev9

I was willing to be called cheap, even if it's inaccurate. The difference between cheap and frugal, is that frugal is saving to conserve, to spend somewhere else which one believes is better, or to prolong the ability to spend. Whereas cheap is simply saving for no reason, whenever possible, with little goal or purpose.

 

[onlyrp]

I don't see anything in my post that suggested anything different. What is it that made you think I was advocating something other than freedom of choice and free markets? Just curious. I probably was ambiguous or misspoke somewhere. From what I understand the greatest amount of consumer and producer surplus occur in completely free markets. Which probably don't exist for a variety of reasons, such as imperfect information. But the freer the market, the greater the per capita social welfare.

Chill, I totally wasn't saying you were disagreeing with me. Sorry if I came off that way. Although I don't think freer market means greater per capita social welfare (unless you measured welfare by choices, not by dollars).

 

[Revolution9]

I believe you and I admire that. I really do, it flies right in the face of people who claim
1. I make $100,000 and people who make $20,000 live better
2. I make $50,000, or "a good job" and I still "just have the basics"
3. Life in 1950 was better

Life ain't all about money pal. Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available. Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel. You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9

 

[onlyrp]

Life ain't all about money pal.

Amen, but the people I quoted sure sound like they disagree.

Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available.

work still is readily available, just not as the price most are willing to take it.

Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel.

maybe the lack of seatbelt laws had to do with the fact cars were only accessible to people who were above well to do, and they naturally took responsibility to preserve their wealth and lives. I bet if you didn't require private jet planes to wear seat belts, they'd still wear them automatically, but if private jet planes were sold and owned by every other American, I think you can expect there be a mandatory law about it.

You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9

 

[Danke]

Life ain't all about money pal. Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available. Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel. You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9

And it only looks like we are headed for worse.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Oh hell yeah, that.

I'd rather be poor and free if it came right down to it.

Economic prosperity comes from freedom, not the other way around.

Plenty of places around the world are economically prosperous while remaining relatively unfree.

And we are heading the same way.

Life ain't all about money pal. Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available. Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel. You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9

 

[otherone]

Oh hell yeah, that.

I'd rather be poor and free if it came right down to it.

As we don't actually have Property Rights, none of us are 'really' wealthy unless the State allows it.

 

[onlyrp]

Oh hell yeah, that.

I'd rather be poor and free if it came right down to it.

Economic prosperity comes from freedom, not the other way around.

Plenty of places around the world are economically prosperous while remaining relatively unfree.

And we are heading the same way.

I ask this question in all sincerity. What do you mean by economic prosperity? is it GDP, work to leisure time ratio? quality of life? employment? personal space? And can you give an example of a free country that is without economic prosperity?

 

[Zippyjuan]

The unemployed have tons of leisure time. They just don't have any money to spend on doing anything with the time. Having robots and labor saving devices was supposed to free us to have fun and persue other things- unfortunately it meant that fewer workers were needed.

Freedom is a state of mind.