The mindset behind trickle down economics in the US

Post Reply New Topic

Well good for them I suppose, probably does make life easier for an employer if they can treat their emplyees like expendable easily replaceable objects.

There's a lot of evidence that happy workers are more productive. However, there's an increase cost to providing to increasing wages, benefits etc. Merely mandating wage increases doesn't give workers extra buying power.

Not all employers treat their employees in an optimal fashion, however in general market competition tends to optimize these things.

For example if McDonalds is hurting their productivity by not paying their workers more, then Burger King could pay their workers more and gain a competitive edge.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Not every job needs to be a family of four supporting job, in fact it is detrimental to the economy to force all jobs to being family of four supporting jobs.

Libertarian economists are fond of saying "the real minimum wage is 0." This is because if companies can't support workers at a certain minimum wage they cut workers and people who used to have jobs become unemployed. Unemployed people make 0.

Yet plenty of people working Mcjobs do have families. It's a matter of empathy that too many businesses seems to have a deficiency with.

A 100 Dave Ramsey videos are not going to help people who are truly poor. I'm sure you don't mean it, but your direction for sacrifice more is so disrespectful to people truly in poverty and those people who work in the field. As far as I can tell, the only people who can maintain this attitude are those who have no idea what it is like, on the ground. More information on your point of few will not help anyone at the bottom. What you don't understand is that what ever wealth and rights you have, are an accident of birth. Put someone with this attitude down somewhere else and that person would be scrambling.

Antrax, I am really interested in your numbers and how they do (or don't) describe the state of the economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. I can't quarrel with your numbers, because I don't have the background for that. But I don't understand how it explains what I see happening right how.

My maternal grandparents: My grandfather worked a single job, as a bank teller. From this salary, he was able to buy a house, support my grandmother and my mother in a decent respectable lifestyle. Not rich, but comfortable.

My parents, both my parents had degrees from University of Chicago. And my mother never worked outside the home until after the divorce. But we never had enough money, even when my father was working in a professional job. They had only one car. He took the train into work when my mother needed it to shop.

In my generation, one worker cannot support a family. I realize you said not everyone will support a family, but most people do. Two professionals can barely support a family. Yes, some could do better if they used Dave Ramsey or Susie whatever to manage their money better. But the fact is that two generations ago, one worker in a regular job, could buy a house and support a family.

Now many young couples can't even dream of owning their own home.

What changed? How do your statistics explain this phenomenon? If everything financial is "the same" or even improved, why aren't we (the middle and lower classes) doing better than we are?

Numbers rarely tell the full story.

Blazingstar, what it is people are looking at certain metrics for quality of life, whereas as the statisticians who do this for a living are looking at everything. The other thing is when looking at the population as a whole a particular job might not be better, but the economy has created new jobs that are better. That is a bank teller today might not be better off than a bank teller 40 years ago, but more people have jobs that are equal to or better than a bank teller job. Lastly while on average everyone is better off, that does not mean that individually everyone is better. Some people have seen their fortunes take a turn for the worse, but more people have seen their fortunes take a turn for the better.

I'm going to estimate your grandfather's day as 100 years ago (40 years before your birth). He couldn't afford a car, only the very wealthy could afford cars. If one of his kids got sick with a serious bacterial infection he didn't have to pay for expensive medical care, instead his kid died. I don't know what the cost of a carton of milk was 100 years ago, but it was probably a lot more than a carton of milk today (adjusted for inflation). Statisticians take all of these things into account, whereas people just look at did he own a home and raise a family.

You can live like a person 100 years ago on less than a person 100 years ago did. People don't want to live like that today. Sink all your money into buying a home and paying for food. No car. No health care. No cell phone. No computers. No television. Throw away all the modern commodities of life, and you'll live plenty cheaply.

I appreciate your explanation. I can understand the main points, that statisticians are just looking at numbers and that there can be movement between populations within a country. But there are still some problems.

My grandfather owned a car. I have seen photos. By 1920 cost of cars had gone down to $260, according to wikipedia and the equivalent in today's money would be around $22,000. Can't buy a new car these days for $22,000. Penicillin had not even been discovered at the time my mother was born. All people, rich or poor, died from infections. Milk cost 26c/gallon in 1930, which would be about 3.78 now, which is roughly similar. BUT, grocery stores typically sell milk very cheaply in order to get people into the store. I also think there are price supports for milk. A quick check in google indicates that without price supports, milk would cost $6/gallon today.

It is true that my grandparents did not have to purchase a TV, nor a cell phone, or a second car, etc. But they did send my mother to college at the University of College which could not have been cheap.

In the developed world, if one is going to be working, a phone is pretty much required, as is a second car, or at least one per working adult in the home. Although some major cities, such as New York, have good enough public transportation not to need cars, that is not true of most of the rest of the USA. You also pretty much have to have internet, or at least a smart phone. It isn't an option, if one is going to be working at a job. Even at McD, they want to be able to call you in to work a shift someone else did not show up for.

I agree that medical care and medical expenses in general are way out of control and the level of care provided is in excess of what is needed, but that is a different discussion.

So, you are basically saying, that because people today want to buy two cars, cell phones, health insurance and so forth, they require a second job? That still seems out of kilter.

If the statistics show (as I have heard) that the middle class is shrinking (or stable), then how, statistically, can the majority of people (as used to be the middle class) are experiencing financial improvement? I'm pretty sure there are statistics demonstrating that the percentage of people living at or below the poverty line is also increasing. So how does that fit in with people's financial lot improving?

More people have moved from middle class to upper class than middle class to lower class.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -families/

Notable quote:


Minor quibble but a new compact sedan will run you ~$14,000 today, about a 3rd less than $22,000.

I agree the expectations have shifted, and I think that's where people find it hard to believe in economic progress. College used to be seen as a luxury not a necessity. Cars didn't used to be so necessary. Hell, 25 years ago if you had a cell phone you were a very important person.

I think another reason people think the middle class isn't doing well is because we just came out of a brutal recession:

While people are much richer than they were 40 years ago or 8 years ago, they're only mildly richer than 20 years ago.

Here's a slightly longer timeline real income graph going to the mid-80s. It's interactive so I can't embed it in WP:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Still ignoring labor hours of the household and also relying on a flawed inflation number which doesn't account for cost of food or energy... Statistics that are supported by our government generally are all manipulated to make government look good.

Here, the guy at Innuendo Studios shows his work on the OP video:



But basically, a long line of conservative thinking going back to Edmund Burke supports his view of conservatives. In addition, he notes what conservatives have tended to do when they got into power, which belies their statement that they are simply "slow" and "stodgy" when it comes to changing things; conservatives can actually be quite radical. He also argues that the alt-right is simply an extension of these particular values of the conservative movement that conservatives are at best ambivalent about.

Has anyone ever successfully ever implemented "bottom up economics"?

Seems like whenever a far left government gets in power, the currency will get crushed, they will take on huge debts, high unemployment, strikes, many people have an entitlement attitude so there is lots of anger ...

Most “far left” governments are, in practice, far right,

Well, a lot of the countries in Europe, Canada, Japan, and others, and they tend to have better economic mobility as a result:

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lag ... -mobility/

Scandinavia seems to have the best mobility.

Support some of the basic needs of non-wealthy people like health care, and you empower them to make choices in their lives. No longer do they have to stay in a dead-end job just for the health care, and they won't have to choose between health care and staking out a path on their own. Our health care system in the US locks people into their current jobs and discourages them from striking out on their own, because otherwise they lose their coverage. The way our health care system is set up in the US is actually a system of control.

Of course, there are more factors than just health care, which is just one example, but it's important.