America 1950 vs. America 2012

[onlyrp]

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.

are you saying freedom is subjective? Why is it "unfortunate" that fewer workers are needed?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Because now they can't find work.

Yes, I guess I am saying that freedom is subjective. You lose freedom when you allow others to get you to do things you don't want to do. You can be in a prison but free in your thoughts. Your captor cannot control your mind unless you allow them to. You may not have the physical freedom to move around but that does not mean you cannot be free. There are different kinds of freedom and to me the ultimate freedom is the freedom of your own spirit. Emotional and mental freedom. There are many different ways to look at freedom. Nobody can get to do whatever they want to whenever they want so seeking that as true freedom will take you nowhere. If your mind is free you can enjoy that any time and any place.

Just one perspective.

 

[SL89]

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

Amen brother and welcome back. We all missed you over the silly ban.
To onlyrp. Sorry I was gone for a few, while we were debating. I'll just say this. You can try and justify buying from child labor all you want, claiming free market ideals. I'll just say that we do not have a free market and you know it. Life, Liberty and the pursuit..... remember that?? When a kid is forced into slavery, that ideal is mute, and when you openly support it through your words and actions, and openly proclaim you will buy from anyone, no matter the source, you lose. Because my friend you lose the founding principles of humanity. Just because you are inherently free in your mind and therefore can make purchasing decisions based on the way things are now; does not mean you can feed the monster, that is child labor, without serious repercussions. Not only will you lose in the long run, we ALL lose. The American consumer, industry and most importantly, the child.

respectfully Shawn.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The U.S. will not lower regulations. 99% of the time, when there is a downturn in the economy, they place tons of bs regulations then say they solved the problem. If you think the U.S. will lower regulations, you are really lost.

China doesn't need low wages to be successful. They have far less regulation and government involvement, as long as they continue that they will be successful.

I would rather be here than in China. You can get sick simply going for a swim in one third of it. Air pollution is also a significant problem. That is one side effect of no regulations.

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/

90 percent of wastewater produced in underdeveloped countries is discharged untreated into local waters
80 of China‚ major rivers are so degraded that they no longer support aquatic life
90 percent of all groundwater systems under major cities in China are contaminated
75 percent of India‚ rivers and lakes are so polluted that they should not be used for drinking or bathing

And if you think we are communist you should try visiting Russia where things are so bad life expectancies are declining and the population is going down.

Sure some things were better in the 1950's. We have had better times in some ways in our past, in other ways things are much better today. We have certainly had worse times in our past as well.

 

[onlyrp]

Because now they can't find work.

I think the problem here isn't they can't find work, it's the assumption that only work can feed a person or that replaced labor doesn't benefit ex-workers. If replacing workers is absolutely bad, then technology is absolutely bad and laborous jobs is always good. But that's absurd, not a strawman for you, just saying nobody subscribes to that. It's more accurate to say replacing labor is ONLY a bad thing when the savings and efficiency doesn't pass on to the replaced. Unemployment is not bad, not unless a person doesn't have welfare and free food. That's why "unemployed" tells you nothing about a person's lifestyle, until you know his age, where he lives, what he's allowed to collect as social benefits.

I might be willing to say poverty is always bad and always worth avoiding, but I wouldn't say unemployment equates to poverty.

Yes, I guess I am saying that freedom is subjective. You lose freedom when you allow others to get you to do things you don't want to do. You can be in a prison but free in your thoughts. Your captor cannot control your mind unless you allow them to. You may not have the physical freedom to move around but that does not mean you cannot be free. There are different kinds of freedom and to me the ultimate freedom is the freedom of your own spirit. Emotional and mental freedom. There are many different ways to look at freedom. Nobody can get to do whatever they want to whenever they want so seeking that as true freedom will take you nowhere. If your mind is free you can enjoy that any time and any place.

Just one perspective.

I can see that.

 

[onlyrp]

Sure some things were better in the 1950's. We have had better times in some ways in our past, in other ways things are much better today. We have certainly had worse times in our past as well.

Is rate of employment and number of jobs, or lack of inflation the only things that were better in 1950?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Our standard of living is a lot higher. In 1950 few in the neighborhood would have had a television. Now most houses have multiple ones. Choices for goods in the market place.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ratrace.html

In 1950 some 35 percent of dwellings lacked full indoor plumbing. Many families still did not have telephones or cars. And of course very few people had televisions. A modern American family at the 12th percentile (that is, right at the poverty line) surely has a flushing toilet, a working shower, and a telephone with direct-dial long-distance service; probably has a color television; and may well even have a car. Take into account improvements in the quality of many other products, and it does not seem at all absurd to say that the material standard of living of that poverty-level family in 1996 is as good as or better than that of the median family in 1950.

What do we mean by this? We mean that if you could choose between the two material standards of living, other things being the same, you might well prefer the 12th percentile standard of 1996 to the 50th percentile standard of 1950. But does that mean that most people were poor in 1950? No--because man does not live by bread, cars, televisions, or even plumbing alone.


Imagine that a mad scientist went back to 1950 and offered to transport the median family to the wondrous world of the 1990s, and to place them at, say, the 25th percentile level. The 25th percentile of 1996 is a clear material improvement over the median of 1950. Would they accept his offer? Almost surely not--because in 1950 they were middle class, while in 1996 they would be poor, even if they lived better in material terms. People don't just care about their absolute material level--they care about their level compared with others'.

 

[Revolution9]

Is rate of employment and number of jobs, or lack of inflation the only things that were better in 1950?

Much much easier to become a small businessman. That is why more jobs were available. Now there is cubicle jobs, paper shuffling jobs and service jobs for the most part, all feeding the corporate giants. The 50's business landscape was much more diverse with more competition.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Our standard of living is a lot higher. In 1950 few in the neighborhood would have had a television. Now most houses have multiple ones. Choices for goods in the market place.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ratrace.html

My standard of living was raised when I threw the goddamned TV in the dumpster when Jim MacNeil was softballing Cheney on The McNeil Lehrer Report. Quite a satisfyingly smashing act. Try it. It is quite liberating and your lifestyle will be enhanced if for no other reason than you now get to choose the time and place of your programming..

Rev9

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Much much easier to become a small businessman. That is why more jobs were available. Now there is cubicle jobs, paper shuffling jobs and service jobs for the most part, all feeding the corporate giants. The 50's business landscape was much more diverse with more competition.

Rev9

Fewer barriers to entry back then, too IIRC. Nobody ever got their lemonade stand shut down back then.

 

[anaconda]

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).

No worries. I just wanted to clarify if I misspoke or misled.

Free markets provide the largest amount of producer & consumer surplus. Government intervention reduces these and no one benefits. It is called "social deadweight loss." It's usually introduced in beginning microeconomics. Producer surplus is the difference between the market price of a good and what the producer would otherwise be willing to sell it for. So, if I examine my costs of production and decide I am willing to sell my product for no less than $120, but find that the free market has determined an equilibrium price of $150, then I experience $30 of "producer surplus." Similarly, "consumer surplus" is the difference between what what I am willing to pay for a product and it's actual, market-determined price. So, if I'm willing to pay 79 cents for a Snickers bar but find that it only costs 50 cents, I experience 29 cents of "consumer surplus." Things like price supports and quotas by the government mess this up and reduce some amount this consumer & producer surplus. And it vanishes into thin air-the loss is no ones' gain. It's a great argument for free markets. If I recall, it's a monetary measure. Number of units X price I believe.

 

[tttppp]

I would rather be here than in China. You can get sick simply going for a swim in one third of it. Air pollution is also a significant problem. That is one side effect of no regulations.

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/


And if you think we are communist you should try visiting Russia where things are so bad life expectancies are declining and the population is going down.

Sure some things were better in the 1950's. We have had better times in some ways in our past, in other ways things are much better today. We have certainly had worse times in our past as well.

China has Chinese traditional medicine. They can easily clean out the effects of pollution on your body.

We are not completely communist yet, but we are getting there. Every time the economy goes down, they add new bs regulations, and they almost never remove old ones. As long as we continue this process, we'll get to where Russia is.

 

[onlyrp]

Much much easier to become a small businessman. That is why more jobs were available. Now there is cubicle jobs, paper shuffling jobs and service jobs for the most part, all feeding the corporate giants. The 50's business landscape was much more diverse with more competition.

Rev9

What it easier to become a small businessman? Was it easier to get business loans? Or was there a higher demand for labor than today?
You seem to conveniently lump all "jobs" together when you want a big number, and downplay it when you want a small one.
Is "more jobs" necessarily better? Yes, today there's more white collar jobs, meaning more jobs which require less labor, how is that a bad thing?
What diversity is lost from today compared to 1950? You lose some jobs which are replaced by technology, that's typically related to computers and internet, which could be TV sales, electronics repair, printing, newspaper delivery, book publishing, editing, film production, advertising, long distance phone service, customer service for all the above, auto repair....these jobs didn't completely go away, they're just less, and with less labor, more efficiency.

 

[onlyrp]

China has Chinese traditional medicine. They can easily clean out the effects of pollution on your body.

We are not completely communist yet, but we are getting there. Every time the economy goes down, they add new bs regulations, and they almost never remove old ones. As long as we continue this process, we'll get to where Russia is.

Can Chinese herbal medicine cure myopia? No, western medicine has surgery for that, how much cheaper is it today compared to 1990, was it even possible in 1950?

 

[onlyrp]

No worries. I just wanted to clarify if I misspoke or misled.

So, if I examine my costs of production and decide I am willing to sell my product for no less than $120, but find that the free market has determined an equilibrium price of $150, then I experience $30 of "producer surplus."

So producer surplus is a profit that rewards the producer, and can be created by reducing production and supply, or increasing demand.

Similarly, "consumer surplus" is the difference between what what I am willing to pay for a product and it's actual, market-determined price. So, if I'm willing to pay 79 cents for a Snickers bar but find that it only costs 50 cents, I experience 29 cents of "consumer surplus."

Don't we just call that a "rip off"? Or is your point, the consumer will "save" because he's discovered that he's overpaying?

Things like price supports and quotas by the government mess this up and reduce some amount this consumer & producer surplus. And it vanishes into thin air-the loss is no ones' gain. It's a great argument for free markets. If I recall, it's a monetary measure. Number of units X price I believe.

When you say "government intervention reduces these surpluses and nobody benefits" aren't you assuming that wealth and surpluses can only be measured by dollars?
For example, does it matter if a society as cashless because it's computerized, cashless because they barter, or full of cash everywhere because they've printed too much money? It shouldn't, because each person needs roughly the same amount of food and water per day consistently, regardless of how much dollars it'll cost him. But if you measured social welfare by dollars, then a hyperinflated economy would give the illusion of wealth. Is a person who has a car worth $10,000 poor compared to a person who has no car but $10,000 in cash?

This is why I am making the point, that free market and capitalism at best ensures people have maximum choices, but has no expectation people will be house rich, cash poor or a fat savings account.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Our standard of living is a lot higher. In 1950 few in the neighborhood would have had a television. Now most houses have multiple ones. Choices for goods in the market place.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ratrace.html

I don't know that you're doing your point much good quoting Krugman, but I will agree with this:

People don't just care about their absolute material level--they care about their level compared with others'.

There is wisdom there, and the core of why, in spite of all this material prosperity, people are still unhappy, ill at ease, and on prescription happy pills by the millions.

An endless rat race to acquire more and more.

 

[seraphson]

even the poor today are better off than the high middle class of 1950. capitalism has improved millions of lives to spite the government. imagine if we had a truly free market

My thoughts exactly. Imagine our nation as it was before the Fed Reserve but with all the modern advances of today's technology. Amazing it would be.

 

[onlyrp]

I don't know that you're doing your point much good quoting Krugman, but I will agree with this:



There is wisdom there, and the core of why, in spite of all this material prosperity, people are still unhappy, ill at ease, and on prescription happy pills by the millions.

An endless rat race to acquire more and more.

I agree, which is why life is ONLY worse today compared to 1950 if we compared how hard it is to keep up with the Joneses, or frankly socialism, equality would be the best definition of material level wealth.

 

[onlyrp]

My thoughts exactly. Imagine our nation as it was before the Fed Reserve but with all the modern advances of today's technology. Amazing it would be.

That's the problem, it probably couldn't happen. Do you consider how wasteful and unprofitable scientific research is? What profit or quality of life did we gain by going to the moon or Mars (or staging that we did)? What incentive would there have been to go to the moon or Mars, or do you admit it's a complete waste of money, unless you consider that an exploration for relocation if we destroy our living space?

 

[Zippyjuan]

A perfect world is an illusion- never has and never will happen. The "good old days" sometimes seem that way becaue over time we have forgotten some of the other problems which were also going on. And "better times" are often only recognized as such after the fact. Economically, the 1980's were actually a pretty darn good time for most people.