2020 Dems embrace Green New Deal, as GOP sees campaign gold

[midnightpulp]

It's a simple fact that technological advances and globalization in the last 50 years has killed menial, repe ive jobs in the US and they are never coming back. That is the cause. You can't legislate or class warfare your way to the return of these jobs.

So wholesale globalization and technological advancement "just happened" over Reagan's first term? We see the top earners really start to separate themselves over that small time frame. And you're correct to a point. But since those jobs "are never coming back," what's the solution to bring all income levels back in line vis a vis growth and income equality?

"Education!"

Guess what that requires? Tax dollars. And university education is also prohibitively more expensive today than it was in the 50s, 60s. https://www.cbpp.org/tuition-growth-...d-income-gains.

You're also assuming talent distribution is equal, and that all it takes is "bootstraps" to propel yourself into the American dream. Cruel fact of life is that there are people, through no fault of their own, are limited cognitively or physically. The average IQ is 100, where the average IQ of an engineer is 117. This fact sucks, but it's reality. So because of this fact, the working people who weren't gifted with above average talents are just supposed to slave away for minimum wage the rest of their lives? Yes, this person would make a nice living as a factory worker in the 60s, but as you said, jobs not coming back. The only solution is to raise wages of unskilled menial workers or impose more taxes on the fortunate so the menial worker has more free services to use and less of a tax burden. How does this not make moral sense?

[midnightpulp]

Uhhh gee. What followed right after the New Deal? WWII. The rest of the modern world was blown to while the US was safe in North America. We came out of WWII as the global economic superpower by default. Unemployment was low and GDP growth was off the charts. Yeah there were some ups and downs but the trend was sharply up into the mid 70's. Gee. What technology really took hold in the mid 70's?. I bought my first IBM PC then.

Yeah, all the other countries in the world magically built up their manufacturing infrastructure to compe ive levels over Reagan's first couple of years in office. But again, if it's supposed to "trickle down," why didn't these new technologies and business strategies that allowed the top earners to become wealthier proverbially "lift all boats?"

You can say it. "I got mine. it." It's cool. I don't judge. Everyone is selfish, and it often does take work to battle those innate instincts and do what's morally right.

[boutons_deux]

Notice a jump in Carter's years, then St Ronnie's gang got the ball rolling in the '80s.

This financial history is strictly due to govt policies as purchased by the wealthy.

NOT being smarter, hard work, etc, etc all the other bull the wealthy dump on the poor for being lazy

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, all the other countries in the world magically built up their manufacturing infrastructure to compe ive levels over Reagan's first couple of years in office. But again, if it's supposed to "trickle down," why didn't these new technologies and business strategies that allowed the top earners to become wealthier proverbially "lift all boats?"

You can say it. "I got mine. it." It's cool. I don't judge. Everyone is selfish, and it often does take work to battle those innate instincts and do what's morally right.

The American car industry got it's ass kicked by Toyota and Nissan in the seventies.
The American TV/radio industry got it's ass kicked by Sony and Panasonic in the seventies
The American tool industry got it's ass kicked by the Germans in the seventies.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

Yeah, that's when it all started to change.

The only thing the US really was leading in was computers and software and that was a job killer in itself. , accounting software alone eliminated millions of "good" jobs.

[midnightpulp]

The American car industry got it's ass kicked by Toyota and Nissan in the seventies.
The American TV/radio industry got it's ass kicked by Sony and Panasonic in the seventies
The American tool industry got it's ass kicked by the Germans in the seventies.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

Yeah, that's when it all started to change.

The only thing the US really was leading in was computers and software and that was a job killer in itself. , accounting software alone eliminated millions of "good" jobs.

But why did it significantly change for the better for the top earners? If we, collectively, got our asses kicked by the Japanese, why didn't we all get our asses kicked, top earners included. Seems the bottom 90% are the ones who took the brunt, while the top earners increased their bottom lines.

[CosmicCowboy]

But why did it significantly change for the better for the top earners? If we, collectively, got our asses kicked by the Japanese, why didn't we all get our asses kicked, top earners included. Seems the bottom 90% are the ones who took the brunt, while the top earners increased their bottom lines.

The ones that evolved survived and profited. We don't have to worry about getting eaten by a Tyrannosaurus Rex anymore, either. I'm not saying Les Moonves was really worth 70 million a year, but CBS obviously thought he was. Who am I to begrudge him making a lot of money if they thought he was worth it?

[midnightpulp]

The ones that evolved survived and profited. We don't have to worry about getting eaten by a Tyrannosaurus Rex anymore, either. I'm not saying Les Moonves was really worth 70 million a year, but CBS obviously thought he was. Who am I to begrudge him making a lot of money if they thought he was worth it?

You should begrudge the fact that there are people working their asses off for comparatively low wages and benefits. That said, my question was rhetorical. We're exploring the efficacy of the trickle down theory, which you support and believe "lifts all boats." Boiled down, the wealthy enjoyed significant growth over the 80s along with tax cuts, while the bottom 90% stalled. If trickle down does what you claim it does, why didn't (hasn't it) done so? Maybe it actually doesn't work?

Or are you simply a dog-eat-dog social Darwinist?

[CosmicCowboy]

You should begrudge the fact that there are people working their asses off for comparatively low wages and benefits. That said, my question was rhetorical. We're exploring the efficacy of the trickle down theory, which you support and believe "lifts all boats." Boiled down, the wealthy enjoyed significant growth over the 80s along with tax cuts, while the bottom 90% stalled. If trickle down does what you claim it does, why didn't (hasn't it) done so? Maybe it actually doesn't work?

Or are you simply a dog-eat-dog social Darwinist?

I do what I can. My employees all make good money, have all their health insurance premiums paid by me for them and their families and get 5% matching on their 401K's. Do I make more than they do? Yeah. Do I deserve it? I dunno. I assume financial risk every day to keep my small business running and work 60 hours a week. Is what it is.

[midnightpulp]

Also, no one really begrudges or is "bitter" that someone can make 70 million per year greenlighting bad television shows. The bitterness is toward the system that allows people to make 70 million per year greenlighting bad television while at the same time you have fast food workers busting their asses for paycheck-to-paycheck wages. If everyone lived very comfortably above the poverty line (i.e. upper class), no one would really care if Jeff Bezos became a trillionaire.

The point of contention and why Cortez's et al message resonates is when we look at our socioeconomic system and see these wealth discrepancies, asking ourselves, "How can a person worth 120 billion and a working person who can't afford a home or afford to raise a family exist in the same system?" But yeah, the former just "worked harder."

[CosmicCowboy]

Meh. You can hate Bezos all you want but would you have had the balls to quit your Wall Street job, pack the family up in the car and move to Seattle and start an internet book sale business out of your garage?

[midnightpulp]

I do what I can. My employees all make good money, have all their health insurance premiums paid by me for them and their families and get 5% matching on their 401K's. Do I make more than they do? Yeah. Do I deserve it? I dunno. I assume financial risk every day to keep my small business running and work 60 hours a week. Is what it is.

I have said that I agree that trickle down works on the small business micro level, but corporations are becoming bigger and bigger employers as they swallow everything up. And I don't see any evidence that trickle down generally works at that macro level. I'm sure some big corps allow it to, but it doesn't seem to be the rule.

On a sociological point, I think the gradual erosion of small businesses is also disintegrating social cohesion and might be a hidden factor to the depression epidemic we've seen over the last 20/30 years. As a employee, you simply feel more valued and less like a "cog" working for a small business where the owner often times becomes a friend. On the retail side, a main street lined with small businesses is a more personal and intimate consumer experience than going to Walmart or clicking a mouse. A primary reason I'm against this rise of online shopping. I don't think life mediated through the Internet is healthy.

[midnightpulp]

Meh. You can hate Bezos all you want but would you have had the balls to quit your Wall Street job, pack the family up in the car and move to Seattle and start an internet book sale business out of your garage?

This should be celebrated why? Many people quit high paying jobs to start like microbreweries or hot sauce companies, industries that have zero chance at making their owners billionaires. And if Amazon failed, I doubt Bezos would've been on the streets or forced to take up a menial service job. He would've just returned to Wall Street, so his risk factor wasn't as high as perceived.

[CosmicCowboy]

The politics of envy as promoted by AOC and others is still going down an extremely dangerous path.

[Will Hunting]

I have said that I agree that trickle down works on the small business micro level, but corporations are becoming bigger and bigger employers as they swallow everything up. And I don't see any evidence that trickle down generally works at that macro level. I'm sure some big corps allow it to, but it doesn't seem to be the rule.

On a sociological point, I think the gradual erosion of small businesses is also disintegrating social cohesion and might be a hidden factor to the depression epidemic we've seen over the last 20/30 years. As a employee, you simply feel more valued and less like a "cog" working for a small business where the owner often times becomes a friend. On the retail side, a main street lined with small businesses is a more personal and intimate consumer experience than going to Walmart or clicking a mouse. A primary reason I'm against this rise of online shopping. I don't think life mediated through the Internet is healthy.

The small business doesn't have shareholders or a board of directors to answer to either. The owner knows most of the employees on a personal level and treats them better. The shareholder system alone is proof that trickle down doesn't work at the macro level - there's a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth, which means paying employees as little as you possibly can and giving them as little benefits as you possibly can to get the job done.

[midnightpulp]

The politics of envy as promoted by AOC and others is still going down an extremely dangerous path.

Why do you always believe it to be out of envy? For me, it's more about insuring a healthy, flourishing, financially stable life for all our citizens in the richest country in human history than "punishing the rich." The simple fact is the rich have more power to make that happen.

[midnightpulp]

The small business doesn't have shareholders or a board of directors to answer to either. The owner knows most of the employees on a personal level and treats them better. The shareholder system alone is proof that trickle down doesn't work at the macro level - there's a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth, which means paying employees as little as you possibly can and giving them as little benefits as you possibly can to get the job done.

Indeed. Shareholder primacy.

[CosmicCowboy]

The small business doesn't have shareholders or a board of directors to answer to either. The owner knows most of the employees on a personal level and treats them better. The shareholder system alone is proof that trickle down doesn't work at the macro level - there's a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth, which means paying employees as little as you possibly can and giving them as little benefits as you possibly can to get the job done.

You act like this is a bad thing. Where do you think pension fund and retirement funds are invested in? they account for 40% of the stock owned in the US. Only 24.2% are owned by taxable accounts. The balance is made up by foreign investment, insurance companies, non-profits, etc.

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-...-market-2016-5

[Will Hunting]

This should be celebrated why? Many people quit high paying jobs to start like microbreweries or hot sauce companies, industries that have zero chance at making their owners billionaires. And if Amazon failed, I doubt Bezos would've been on the streets or forced to take up a menial service job. He would've just returned to Wall Street, so his risk factor wasn't as high as perceived.

I do think Bezos has certainly earned his billions in wealth more so than say the Walton family heirs have. Your point about living life through the internet being unhealthy is valid, but Amazon has created a convenience factor for people that's undeniable. He built a business from scratch that's now worth $800 billion and still has a load of room for growth.

Regarding whether or not I think there should be an rust laws that stop Amazon from becoming a monopoly or whether or not Bezos should be paying more in taxes, yes and yes, I'm basically saying he's a bad example of a billionaire to be pissed off about.

The wealth that I find really offensive is wealth that's inherited and not earned. If this country had an estate tax with serious teeth then I'd be a lot more OK with regular income taxes being lower.

[Will Hunting]

You act like this is a bad thing. Where do you think pension fund and retirement funds are invested in? they account for 40% of the stock owned in the US. Only 24.2% are owned by taxable accounts. The balance is made up by foreign investment, insurance companies, non-profits, etc.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying it's why "trickle down" doesn't work. I have no issues with the shareholder system as currently constructed, my point is the idea that lower taxes will somehow make it so shareholders are willing to take less money so the employees can be paid more than what's required to get the job done is ridiculous.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying it's why "trickle down" doesn't work. I have no issues with the shareholder system as currently constructed, my point is the idea that lower taxes will somehow make it so shareholders are willing to take less money so the employees can be paid more than what's required to get the job done is ridiculous.

Interesting.

Think about what you just wrote.

[midnightpulp]

I do think Bezos has certainly earned his billions in wealth more so than say the Walton family heirs have. Your point about living life through the internet being unhealthy is valid, but Amazon has created a convenience factor for people that's undeniable. He built a business from scratch that's now worth $800 billion and still has a load of room for growth.

Regarding whether or not I think there should be an rust laws that stop Amazon from becoming a monopoly or whether or not Bezos should be paying more in taxes, yes and yes, I'm basically saying he's a bad example of a billionaire to be pissed off about.

The wealth that I find really offensive is wealth that's inherited and not earned. If this country had an estate tax with serious teeth then I'd be a lot more OK with regular income taxes being lower.

Yeah, I'm not necessarily pissed off about him, just using as an example of how our system can allow a 120 billionaire while at the same time IronMexican, making 100k per year, can't even afford to buy a house. It's why AOC, Warren, etc message resonates. And as I said in a prior post, you can't always easily bootstrap or "responsible" your way to a comfortable living. There's factors at play (like the proverbial bad hand dealt at birth) that can prevent that.

[Will Hunting]

Interesting.

Think about what you just wrote.

I understand what I just wrote, I’m not sure I’m getting the point across though. What is it you want me to think about?

[rmt]

I do what I can. My employees all make good money, have all their health insurance premiums paid by me for them and their families and get 5% matching on their 401K's. Do I make more than they do? Yeah. Do I deserve it? I dunno. I assume financial risk every day to keep my small business running and work 60 hours a week. Is what it is.

You definitely deserve it. Don't fall for this rubbish that's being spewed on this board that tries to GUILT you into not feeling proud of or not enjoying the fruits of your labor and risk. This whole topic/conversation infuriates me. This ENVY for what others have is DANGEROUS. The same envy and disdain for Bezos that some have can so easily be the envy for what an average American has - food to eat, a phone, etc. compared to the billions of others in this world living in REAL poverty. Do I sit here envying Lebron James for his fantastic body or Roger Federer for his talent - expecting that the fruits of their labor be virtually STOLEN from them to make my life better. It seems that some would like us all to be equal forgetting the progress mankind has gained from people who think differently, who are smarter, who are more charismatic, who are more resourceful, who are inventive, who are blessed with whatever talent/characteristic that is valued - than we are. What's missing is an appreciation of our differences and an at ude of gra ude for what it is we do have.

And what galls me is that these ideas of THEFT are all in the name of MORALITY - give me a break. Flame away.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, I'm not necessarily pissed off about him, just using as an example of how our system can allow a 120 billionaire while at the same time IronMexican, making 100k per year, can't even afford to buy a house. It's why AOC, Warren, etc message resonates. And as I said in a prior post, you can't always easily bootstrap or "responsible" your way to a comfortable living. There's factors at play (like the proverbial bad hand dealt at birth) that can prevent that.

By that theory there are literally billions in the world that we should be taking care of that got dealt a ty hand.

Still, if we are really concerned about the American poor and working class, why are we opening our southern border to compe ion from millions more impoverished immigrants when we can't take care of our own?

[midnightpulp]

Interesting.

Think about what you just wrote.

He's implying paying them above their utilitarian value to the company's overall bottom line. It seems the rank-and-file are paid the bare minimum in this sense while the pencil pushing CEO is paid exorbitant amounts above "what's required to get the job done." And it's not always about talent retention, etc. These are very much cronyism old boy networks.