America - The Official Thread

[TenEightyOne]

Could even be the arrival of machines, Who knows there isn't much information in a few lines.

In 1990? Isn't that 200 years too late?

 

[Dennisch]

Joking or was he involved too?

 

[mustafur]

In 1990? Isn't that 200 years too late?

Sure if you want to be vague, but alot of the car industry was getting automated around that time,

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sure if you want to be vague, but alot of the car industry was getting automated around that time,

You said "arrival of machines" - that's pretty vague. And I think you'd find that human-replacing technologies (and other streamlining systems) cover a lot of that period in one industry or another. In auto manufacturing robot deployment dipped in the 90s.

 

[mustafur]

You said "arrival of machines" - that's pretty vague. And I think you'd find that human-replacing technologies (and other streamlining systems) cover a lot of that period in one industry or another. In auto manufacturing robot deployment dipped in the 90s.

Looks like your right in that regard, although not as bad, the same thing is happening in other Western countries.

Wage growth has been a major issue since the GFC, all though it goes even further then that it's gotten worse.

 

[Rallywagon]

That was a serious question though. In theory I am intruiged in a fee based system, but isnt that essentially what exists as "tax". However there will always be people who need more help then others and to be honest I have no faith in rich people being generous philantrpist. I prefer taxing them. Because the country provides them the resources to earn that money. In my opinion it is reasonable to give back a portion of it. For a healthy society there is just no way around it.

Ive got some hang ups with the idea. Ok, so first off, is police. Would that not defacto be charged like a tax? Since a police presence in a community helps lower crime, everyone is benefiting. Further, they already operate with a fee based system, in a manner of speaking. If you are stopped in a vehicle and cited. If you are picked up and jailed for whatever reason, etc. there is a very high chance you are going to have fees and fines associated. There is also the problem with fee based service, in that the poorer communities, which better benefit from a police presence, would in all likelihood see less of a presence, since the affluent areas have all the money and thats what would be needed to fund the PD.
Further, fire coverage is again, something everyone benefits from. This is especially true in apartments or neighborhoods where the houses are stacked close to each other. If someone starts a fire and the fire department (FD) is successful at putting it out, not just the individual who called emergency service benefited, but the whole building or block.
Ultimately, i think, at least in the US, the gov is about as fee based as it can be, and still be accessible by all people rather than just those that can afford it.

 

[McLaren]

Half of the wealth in the world is possesed by 1%. The top 30% holds 97%. leaving 70% of the people only have 3% to be distributed (or earned). I do not believe that large philantropy in the USA is enough. There are many billionaires out there that themselves want higher taxes for the highest brackets. (Buffet/gates etc).

edit: in the US 20% owns 88% and 1% almost 40%.

How would that endowment work in the practical sense?

Nothing is stopping anyone that believes they should pay more in taxes from doing so; pay your due and then make a donation to the govt. However, seeing as Buffet, Gates, and a couple others actually do so, I don't believe there are "many" billionaires actually inclined to believe that. It may just sound good to the others.

The dilemma is trying to make others do the same. If 1 billionaire wants to pay taxes and then donate $10-20+ million to the govt., they can do that. Another billionaire may not, and it'll be difficult in trying to get them to. They'll just leave bc they can afford to.

As far as not believing philantropy is not large enough, there isn't really a way to know how large it may already be. Most wealthy folks give anonymously, or they set up their own charities/donations, some because they don't trust the govt. or certain organizations to use the money properly. 1 example would be Michael Fux, a Cuban immigrant who made his fortune off mattresses &, has a net worth of $75m and is infamous for his 150 or so exotics. However, Fux created his own foundation and has personally funded over 200,000 surgeries for children in addition to donating to 3-4 other child medical-based charities. To him, that's where he feels his money is better spent.

 

[Mr Tree]

A fee-based system doesn't eliminate the possibility of government handouts though. The fee just has to be collected for the handout at a different point. Finding that point can be tricky if your fee-based government collects fees only on official government transactions

What with people with disabilities?

I'm sorry but ideas like this rub me the wrong way having multiple young friends with chronicle disseases for which they wouldn't be able to pay the medication in this economy.

I don't know how you would work around this issue. Therefor it to me implies you look at them as waste we can do without. Handouts is also a very dubious way of framing 'the government keeping people alive'. Wouldn't that be party of ensuring the saftey of the inhabitants of a nation?

If marxism is not realistic the fee based system should be consideren just as ludacris as it makes sure services are only provided based on wealth. Within a system that moves itself towards less mobility on the social ladder. Effectively turning the system into someting rather close the feudal system.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

 

[Dotini]

What with people with disabilities?

I'm sorry but ideas like this rub me the wrong way having multiple young friends with chronicle disseases for which they wouldn't be able to pay the medication in this economy.

I don't know how you would work around this issue. Therefor it to me implies you look at them as waste we can do without. Handouts is also a very dubious way of framing the government keeping people alive. Wouldn't that be party of ensuring the saftey of the inhabitants of a nation?

If marxism is not realistic the fee based system should be consideren just as ludacris as it makes sure services are only provided based on wealth. Within a system that moves itself towards less mobility on the social ladder. Effectively turning the system into someting rather close the feudal system.

The main health care problem in the feudal system was really atrocious general sanitation and lack of medical knowledge. But back then population was considered a vital need; the wealth of the local lord usually depending upon it. Today a handful of elites can run a nation in which Techno-Capitalism renders population as much a burden as an asset.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The main health care problem in the feudal system was really atrocious general sanitation and lack of medical knowledge. But back then population was considered a vital need; the wealth of the local lord usually depending upon it.

That's true but you have to balance it against the fact that most fecund couples over 13-or-so could produce 10 or more offspring if the mother survived. Around half of these would be likely to reach sexual maturity themselves.

 

[Dotini]

That's true but you have to balance it against the fact that most fecund couples over 13-or-so could produce 10 or more offspring if the mother survived. Around half of these would be likely to reach sexual maturity themselves.

Johann Sebastian Bach fathered 20 children; his organ had no stops.

 

[Danoff]

Half of the wealth in the world is possesed by 1%. The top 30% holds 97%. leaving 70% of the people only have 3% to be distributed (or earned). I do not believe that large philantropy in the USA is enough. There are many billionaires out there that themselves want higher taxes for the highest brackets. (Buffet/gates etc).

edit: in the US 20% owns 88% and 1% almost 40%.

It's not a pie. If one group "holds" a 97% portion of the pie, that doesn't leave the rest with a 3% fixed portion. They can grow their own portion, independently of anything else. It's not a question of "you have this much, that only leaves this much left". Wealth is created and destroyed, at the micro level, at the level of a single person.

How would that endowment work in the practical sense?

There are quite a lot of ways actually. But one very simple way is for the government to be given public property, and for that property to turn a profit, such as through usage fees or the sale of resources (including renewable resources).

This stat is very much representative.

It's kinda funny what happens to that right after they cut it off. Anyway, what do you think happened in 2000 that caused such a long trend to bifurcate? Did we suddenly change a big welfare program? Do you think there's any way that welfare can affect this chart? It can't of course, because no amount of wealth redistribution changes family income numbers. So you want to "fix" this chart by... how exactly?

What with people with disabilities?

I'm sorry but ideas like this rub me the wrong way having multiple young friends with chronicle disseases for which they wouldn't be able to pay the medication in this economy.

So of course you're talking to someone who donates every year to multiple charities to handle people born with disabilities. And who adopted a child with a disability.

If someone is disabled to the point of not being able to function in society, and has no voluntary caregivers, that person can easily end up in the same position of needing to be institutionalized as others who need to be. Folks who are a danger to those around them, such as people who are schizophrenic and will not medicate, and even criminals or psychopaths. Each group may have a different institutionalization fit. Essentially you're talking about people who do not have rights. People who cannot observe the rights of others.

Charity is all these people have. It's all any of us are arguing for to help them. It's just that some people think they can use a gun to get it.

I don't know how you would work around this issue. Therefor it to me implies you look at them as waste we can do without. Handouts is also a very dubious way of framing 'the government keeping people alive'. Wouldn't that be party of ensuring the saftey of the inhabitants of a nation?

Safety from others. Not safety from yourself.

If marxism is not realistic the fee based system should be consideren just as ludacris as it makes sure services are only provided based on wealth. Within a system that moves itself towards less mobility on the social ladder. Effectively turning the system into someting rather close the feudal system.

I don't know what "mobility on the social ladder" means. I assume it means some kind of "what you have relative to what that person has", which is, of course, not important. What matters is standard of living for each individual, not what that standard of living is relative to others.

Cc: @Dotini, @Rallywagon

Edit:

@PocketZeven

I spent a few minutes researching why your chart shows a bifurcation of median income from overall productivity, and the answer appears to be globalization. In particular, right at about that time was a digital revolution occurring via computers. And that digital revolution decentralized the structures of various corporations. Think outsourcing.

Suddenly people who were holding labor as their value generator were competing against labor that could be provided anywhere in the world. And people holding capital as their value generator (and this is a simplification, people hold mixes of those), were competing with capital anywhere in the world just as they were in the 1940s.

So basically people in the US holding capital did what they always did, while people holding labor had to contend with India. There's no amount of redistribution that will change that chart. You could tax the rich at 100% and give all of it to the poor and that chart would not appear improved.

 

[PocketZeven]

Edit:

@PocketZeven

I spent a few minutes researching why your chart shows a bifurcation of median income from overall productivity, and the answer appears to be globalization. In particular, right at about that time was a digital revolution occurring via computers. And that digital revolution decentralized the structures of various corporations. Think outsourcing.

Suddenly people who were holding labor as their value generator were competing against labor that could be provided anywhere in the world. And people holding capital as their value generator (and this is a simplification, people hold mixes of those), were competing with capital anywhere in the world just as they were in the 1940s.

So basically people in the US holding capital did what they always did, while people holding labor had to contend with India. There's no amount of redistribution that will change that chart. You could tax the rich at 100% and give all of it to the poor and that chart would not appear improved.

Actually you can. The reason for outsourcing to other countries is that exact wealthgap. redistribution is important globally not just on a national level. If asian workers earned as much as american workers, manufacturing wouldnt be outsourced.
Redistribution raises the median, so yes it would improve that chart.

 

[Danoff]

Actually you can. The reason for outsourcing to other countries is that exact wealthgap. If asian workers earned as much as american workers, manufacturing wouldnt be outsourced.
Redistribution raises the median, so yes it would improve that chart.

What?

Redistribution doesn't raise the median. It's not "income". Unless you're thinking of literal cash handouts like the earned income tax credit, in which case whether or not it gets reported as "income" gets to be beyond my current knowledge of US tax law.

I don't understand how you think that international standard of living has something to do with a wealth gap in the US. But I'd invite you to consider how on earth workers in Malaysia might increase their standard of living and earn as much as everywhere else. One answer I'd like you to consider is "outsourcing" from the US.

Edit:

The jump at the moment to go from qualifying for an earned income tax credit to paying income tax on that would require quite a bit, because you'd have to jump from like the bottom quarter of income filers to the 2nd quarter in one year.

 

[PocketZeven]

What?

Redistribution doesn't raise the median. It's not "income". Unless you're thinking of literal cash handouts like the earned income tax credit, in which case whether or not it gets reported as "income" gets to be beyond my current knowledge of US tax law.

I don't understand how you think that international standard of living has something to do with a wealth gap in the US. But I'd invite you to consider how on earth workers in Malaysia might increase their standard of living and earn as much as everywhere else. One answer I'd like you to consider is "outsourcing" from the US.

Edit:

The jump at the moment to go from qualifying for an earned income tax credit to paying income tax on that would require quite a bit, because you'd have to jump from like the bottom quarter of income filers to the 2nd quarter in one year.

Redistribution is not exlusively higher taxes. Higher wages is also something that is important. perhaps this chart is somewhat clearer then median income:

edit: I wasnt exclusively referring to the wealthgap in the US. But that said the international standard has a lot to do with the wealthgap. Outsourcing like you correctly addressed is a big reason for the wealthgap with manufacturing jobs (and income) going to foreign countries instead of nationally. International standards of living also influence "tax haven" policies.

 

[Danoff]

Redistribution is not exlusively higher taxes. Higher wages is also something that is important. perhaps this chart is somewhat clearer then median income:

Please explain how you think you can get higher wages from redistributive policies (and just to shorten the conversation, minimum wage is not a redistributive policy).

 

[PocketZeven]

Please explain how you think you can get higher wages from redistributive policies (and just to shorten the conversation, minimum wage is not a redistributive policy).

For one, minimum wage is a redistributive policy. Why wouldnt it be. Higher taxes will enable governments to improve the quality of live (housing, food, healthcare etc.) and potentially incentivise industries that need it. Investing in renewables and retraining workers to work in upcoming industries etc.

 

[Danoff]

For one, minimum wage is a redistributive policy. Why wouldnt it be.

Minimum wage doesn't redistribute anything. It simply bars employment below a certain wage. That does not require employment at a higher wage.

Higher taxes will enable governments to improve the quality of live (housing, food, healthcare etc.) and potentially incentivise industries that need it. Investing in renewables and retraining workers to work in upcoming industries etc.

I'm not seeing how this raises wages. If you create a tax incentive to build electric cars, existing employees with existing wages will be reallocated toward building electric cars. If higher profits are gained as a result, those profits can be used in a variety of ways - including bonuses to CEOs (which would be increased wages but not how you were hoping), or reinvestment into the company. If you're saying that the overall influx of tax money into the economy is a wage boost, I'd counter that by saying that you sucked it out of the economy in the first place in the form of taxes. And so it's really just a reallocation (with some frictional value destruction added in).

 

[PocketZeven]

Minimum wage doesn't redistribute anything. It simply bars employment below a certain wage. That does not require employment at a higher wage.



I'm not seeing how this raises wages. If you create a tax incentive to build electric cars, existing employees with existing wages will be reallocated toward building electric cars. If higher profits are gained as a result, those profits can be used in a variety of ways - including bonuses to CEOs (which would be increased wages but not how you were hoping), or reinvestment into the company. If you're saying that the overall influx of tax money into the economy is a wage boost, I'd counter that by saying that you sucked it out of the economy in the first place in the form of taxes. And so it's really just a reallocation (with some frictional value destruction added in).

Minimum wages are also required in a plan to redistribute wealth. shareholders and corporations only have 1 goal and that is profit. You cant rely them on being philantropists and donating a large portion of that profit to good causes. Taxing is required. That said donating to a good cause is a 100% deductable in the USA right?

 

[Keef]

Hmm, that's weird. Productivity and compensation split apart right about the time when the number of tax brackets were reduced and the top tax brackets began lowering. Since the mid 80s the top tax bracket has remained low, and the split between productivity and compensation has accelerated ever since.

Kinda seems like increased revenue has been focused on increasing productivity to satisfy stockholders - the majority of whom are already very wealthy - instead of paying employees.

 

[Joey D]

That said donating to a good cause is a 100% deductable in the USA right?

It's complicated, but the short answer is no they aren't 100% deductible. The slightly longer answer is made up of how much your gross income is, how much you donate, who you donate too, and whether or not you itemize your taxes or not. If you donate goods instead of money, it gets a little more complex since you need to determine a fair market value.

I take a standard deduction so I'm not able to claim charitable contributions, although that doesn't stop me from giving to organizations I believe in.

 

[Danoff]

Minimum wages are also required in a plan to redistribute wealth. shareholders and corporations only have 1 goal and that is profit. You cant rely them on being philantropists and donating a large portion of that profit to good causes.

You seem to have skipped my response and just doubled-down on the original assumption that minimum wage forces employers to pay their employees more. It doesn't. Minimum wage simply invalidates employment below a certain wage threshold. The employer has TWO options. Employ people at a higher wage (and possibly restructure their job to make that worthwhile), or eliminate the position. If they can't make it a profitable position, they'll eliminate it.

Minimum wage is not redistributive.

Hmm, that's weird. Productivity and compensation split apart right about the time when the number of tax brackets were reduced and the top tax brackets began lowering. Since the mid 80s the top tax bracket has remained low, and the split between productivity and compensation has accelerated ever since.

Kinda seems like increased revenue has been focused on increasing productivity to satisfy stockholders - the majority of whom are already very wealthy - instead of paying employees.

The difference is due to a change in the value of labor over time vs. the value of capital (according to the sources that made the graph). And that is linked with outsourcing, which got going in a big way with computers. I'm not actually seeing how taxes influence that graph.

If you want to interpret the graph that way, you need to show that taxes influence it in the way that you suggest.

 

[PocketZeven]

You seem to have skipped my response and just doubled-down on the original assumption that minimum wage forces employers to pay their employees more. It doesn't. Minimum wage simply invalidates employment below a certain wage threshold. The employer has TWO options. Employ people at a higher wage (and possibly restructure their job to make that worthwhile), or eliminate the position. If they can't make it a profitable position, they'll eliminate it.

Minimum wage is not redistributive.



The difference is due to a change in the value of labor over time vs. the value of capital (according to the sources that made the graph). And that is linked with outsourcing, which got going in a big way with computers. I'm not actually seeing how taxes influence that graph.

If you want to interpret the graph that way, you need to show that taxes influence it in the way that you suggest.

I am an employer and agree with you. But raising the minium wage will also allow me to charge higher prices (option 3) and receive higher revenue, if the average income rises as a result. It is a vicious cycle. A chicken and egg situation. If certain billionaires stop hoarding their wealth there would be more cashflow in the economy. But I do admit I make the presumption that the middle class will not hoard wealth or try to expand their wealth like billionaires do and consume.

 

[Danoff]

I am an employer and agree with you. But raising the minium wage will also allow me to charge higher prices (option 3) and receive higher revenue, if the average income rises as a result.

That's going to be very specific to the industry and the current state of technology. Ok, if you know that your competitor is going to do exactly the same thing you are, and that once the competitor does that thing, that demand will continue to be there, because you have semi-cartel'd your way to a higher price together, then you might get away with just raising prices to cover the increase cost for a little while. But alternatives creep in, and technology creeps in, and it doesn't last.

So your theory is that minimum wage is redistributive from customers to minimum wage earners? If you can arrive in this short-term cartel situation, that might be the case for a little while. Although I'd argue that the customers are voluntarily making that exchange, so I'm not sure you can really call it redistributive. But you have to ask yourself too who the customers are. Because my guess is that if you have a industry that operates like this, where employees are making minimum wage, and employers hike prices together to compensate, that you're probably selling to people that are also making minimum wage. You're probably selling to your employees. So you're just redistributing this money right back to them. Zero net gain.

Super rich people, on the other hand, tend to interact in places where nobody is making minimum wage. Keep in mind that minimum wage or below minimum wage jobs (which presumably rely on tips) are quite infrequent in the economy as a whole, and dominate the low end of prices. Rich people tend to shop at places where the guy mopping the floor is in a suit and speaks 6 languages.

 

[Biggles]

Hmm, that's weird. Productivity and compensation split apart right about the time when the number of tax brackets were reduced and the top tax brackets began lowering. Since the mid 80s the top tax bracket has remained low, and the split between productivity and compensation has accelerated ever since.

Kinda seems like increased revenue has been focused on increasing productivity to satisfy stockholders - the majority of whom are already very wealthy - instead of paying employees.

Bingo! (I like the new keef!)

There are a number of things that happened in the 1980's, one of which was the lowering of higher marginal tax rates. It was also the start of accelerated globalization, which undermined the collective bargaining position of workers in the West. It is this latter development which Trumpism has been focused on, by messing around with international trade and ... giving a big tax break to the ultra wealthy & large corporations - money which is supposed to "trickle-down" to the middle class/working class. I would rather see a more expansive, global approach which seeks to improve the working situation of ALL workers in the world through international cooperation.

The role of the government in promoting peace & prosperity shouldn't simply be through redistribution of wealth. The important thing is what is done with that money. The proper goal of progressives is not to punish the rich, or provide charity to the poor, but to attempt to provide increased equality of opportunity.

 

[Danoff]

There are a number of things that happened in the 1980's, one of which was the lowering of higher marginal tax rates.

I'm still missing the tie in on what tax brackets have to do with that chart... you and @Keef (and to the extent that @PocketZeven might agree with you) have yet to explain that.

 

[ryzno]

Some girl is at it again! Say what you want about Trump but I'm still trying to figure out how this idiot got voted in.

“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should — is it okay to still have children?”

 

[Liquid]

But she's right. We young adults do think, and have thought, about that question.

I don't want children myself but I have often wondered what sort of state the global climate will be in if I do have any, accident or not.

And it's not the only thing I have wondered too; how the labour market and employability will be in 20-30 years time due to globalisation and automation.

You ought to raise a child knowing you can provide for them and it's sensible to acknowledge external factors beyond your own four walls when analysing whether you can provide or not.

 

[Danoff]

But she's right. We young adults do think, and have thought, about that question.

I don't want children myself but I have often wondered what sort of state the global climate will be in if I do have any, accident or not.

And it's not the only thing I have wondered too; how the labour market and employability will be in 20-30 years time due to globalisation and automation.

People in the past of course have never had to worry about this. Their lives were way easier, what with The Black Death/The Third Pandemic and Smallpox. And of course, just widespread famines at various times in human history. We live in the safest time in history. Apparently the time to consider this question was 536 CE.

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-was-the-worst-time-to-be-alive-in-human-history/

Perspective people!!

Edit:

You know... it turns out that Black people, who were enslaved in various nations including the US, when living as slaves in a society that nearly completely embraced their status as second class citizens and deserving of a complete lack of rights and dignity, even then... even when there was no real hope for their children to have rights, and no hope of their own freedom, even then they had kids.