What It Takes to Be in the 1% Around the World

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Proximity to water is a major factor in boat ownership.

Absolutely, but IF this data is accurate, there are other factors at play. Could be cultural, could be economic, could be a host of interconnected factors. Clearly it's not fully explained by proximity to water.

[AKA-None]

Most of the world revolves around people buying stuff. Place to live, food, clothes, etc.
If they don’t have much money then they can’t buy stuff
If I’m not mistaken more than a few wealthy people get their money by making money not by producing stuff

Just some random thoughts that may exist only in my mind

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I'm always trying to learn something. And I'm not afraid.

We should all have better things to do than to try and diminish other people on an internet forum.

If most just did what they accuse or recommend the other do.
We wouldn't worry so much about who does what.

A lot of input here is maligned and Childish, not worthy of a "social" forum.
I do not agree with all said here and take what I can use and disregard the rest at the moment.

There are those that try to genuinely try to be helpful, and that's what I like.
Most folks realize their a lot of Different ways to approach all subjects.

It's only an Egotist that cannot see this.
And judges others according to their own doctrines, of right and wrong.
This is what polarizing is.

Anyone that sails solo, knows this, "it's YOUR journey, this thing called life"
Chart your own course and "HOLD FAST" in your own beliefs.

Adapt with the changes has always been true to me!
Boatyarddog

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You know what else the middle-class peak lines up with? The Cold War. One of the most interesting analyses I've read (source forgotten, sorry) puts forward the case that the West needed to keep their "proletariat" full and happy so that there was little internal discontent. When the Cold War was won, then it didn't matter, globalization became all the rage, and business had all the levers.

Cold war likely was a factor as the military industrial complex generated lots of jobs but I doubt private companies were paying extra to keep the proletariat happy. How exactly were the western govts funding private companies to increase wages without anyone noticing?

Occam's razor would suggest, it was simple competition as other industrial bases built up and companies saw that it was cheaper to produce in other areas.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

You lost me after the oxymoronic statement "fair progressive system". A fair system is neither progressive or regressive.

There is no perfect system but progressive systems by nature are not fair. They punish success and reward sloth.

The flaw is you are discouraging people with capital from investing it and generating economic benefits for the larger economy.
- If you fail, you lose your investment.
- If you win, the govt punishes you with higher tax rates negating much of your win (doubly so with a progressive system because a big win draws bigger taxes).

If capital sits on the sidelines, the economy slows down and there are fewer hourly wage jobs which reinforces the slow down which causes more capital to sit on the sidelines...and the spiral continues downward.

However, this is not "trickle down" economics.
That doesn't work.
Why, because the wages never get higher.
The expenditures vastly outweigh the ability to make ends meet.

Thus the Capitalists stay Wealthy, and don't want to pay or Meet their obligations toward a better society, i.e. TAXES
They'll Hord it, or hide it, hell or high water.
Boatyarddog

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

However, this is not "trickle down" economics.
That doesn't work.
Why, because the wages never get higher.
The expenditures vastly outweigh the ability to make ends meet.

Thus the Capitalists stay Wealthy, and don't want to pay or Meet their obligations toward a better society, i.e. TAXES
They'll Hord it, or hide it, hell or high water.
Boatyarddog

Except the data says wages have gone up (see link below).

In principal, if you adjust for inflation, wages should hold steady. You are putting in the same level of effort and generating the same value, so why would you expect to make more? Looking at the following link, other than a small peak in the early 1970's (ie: a distortion post WWII/Cold War), it has held pretty steady since around 1980 which is actually a good sign as competition from lower cost countries has exploded over the last 40-50yrs.

Keep in mind generic productivity numbers can be misleading and really aren't a basis for setting wages.
- In the old days, a farmer would carry farm goods to market in a horse and wagon that maxed out around 2000lb (1 ton) at an average speed of 4mph.
- Now the farmer has a semi truck that can move 30tons at 60mph.
Productivity is many times higher but it's the vehicle not the driver that changed the productivity. This is a common pattern since the start of the industrial revolution.

US Earnings Inflation Adjusted (age 16+) Historical - About Inflation

Going on about the 1% is mostly looking at outliers who gain or lose much more so based on the current state of the market rather than based on hourly wages. Again, the idea they don't pay taxes is mostly a myth. Already talked about up thread.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Cold war likely was a factor as the military industrial complex generated lots of jobs but I doubt private companies were paying extra to keep the proletariat happy. How exactly were the western govts funding private companies to increase wages without anyone noticing?

Occam's razor would suggest, it was simple competition as other industrial bases built up and companies saw that it was cheaper to produce in other areas.

Occam's razor won't explain union-busting, right-to-work legislation, an absurdly low minimum wage, and the proliferation of insecure gig-jobs either... unless you recognize that government and business do wash each others' backs when it suits them.

We're miles away from pure market conditions.

Going on about the 1% is mostly looking at outliers who gain or lose much more so based on the current state of the market rather than based on hourly wages. Again, the idea they don't pay taxes is mostly a myth. Already talked about up thread.

DO they pay their fair share of taxes? If their wealth continues to rocket up, while the social fabric and infrastructure of the country unravels, then not enough tax is being collected, period, and the needed money's gotta come from somewhere. Why not from those who have benefited most from the way things are?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Occam's razor won't explain union-busting, right-to-work legislation, an absurdly low minimum wage, and the proliferation of insecure gig-jobs either... unless you recognize that government and business do wash each others' backs when it suits them.


We're miles away from pure market conditions.

If you do a little digging, other than a jump up from the 1930's to 1940's when minimum wage started in the USA, it's held fairly steady when accounting for inflation (since it's only updated every few years, it's more of a sawtooth pattern and doesn't account for the relative number of people actually making minimum wage)

Union-busting/Right-to-Work: To quote a knowledgeable person: I see we've veered off into religious creed as opposed to an evidence-based discussion of how different economic systems actually perform, alone or together, and I promised myself that I would not intentionally mess with anyone's religious beliefs. So I respectfully decline to rebut this.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Union-busting/Right-to-Work: To quote a knowledgeable person: I see we've veered off into religious creed as opposed to an evidence-based discussion of how different economic systems actually perform, alone or together, and I promised myself that I would not intentionally mess with anyone's religious beliefs. So I respectfully decline to rebut this.

So there's no such thing as union busting? No active measures and legislation that make it harder for workers to organize? No right-to-work legislation?

I always thought religion refers to things that can't be proven but are accepted as true, as a matter of faith... not things that are shown to be happening.

Your faith in the unachievable "free market" is touching, however.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Occam's razor won't explain union-busting, right-to-work legislation, an absurdly low minimum wage, and the proliferation of insecure gig-jobs either... unless you recognize that government and business do wash each others' backs when it suits them.

We're miles away from pure market conditions.

I have often had this argument and am prepared to be enlightened for sure.

Can you elaborate on how employers being able to set wages outside a collective agreement and employees being able to move to jobs they prefer is 'miles away from pure market conditions'? What would a free market look like in these terms?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So there's no such thing as union busting? No active measures and legislation that make it harder for workers to organize? No right-to-work legislation?

I always thought religion refers to things that can't be proven but are accepted as true, as a matter of faith... not things that are shown to be happening.

Your faith in the unachievable "free market" is touching, however.

There are rules that make forming and joining unions more a choice (yeah or nay) of workers and less the choice of certain political persuasions and union bosses.

So yes, your religion quote does hit the nail on the head.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Can you elaborate on how employers being able to set wages outside a collective agreement and employees being able to move to jobs they prefer is 'miles away from pure market conditions'? What would a free market look like in these terms?

Well, first of all, this discussion has nothing to do with labour mobility, so let's push that out of consideration. (but if you like we could discuss employer-provided health insurance in the US, and how it shackles workers to jobs they don't like, but can't leave for fear of losing benefits. Not a problem that workers have in Canada and many other places)

If government enacts measures that intentionally limit employees' ability to bargain collectively (the way in which workers "sell" their labour to business) how is that a pure market? Suppressing this right is divide and conquer; it's each individual worker on their own against employers.

We so easily forget how many of today's employment standards and workers' rights came directly from long hard fights between employers and unions.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

There are rules that make forming and joining unions more a choice (yeah or nay) of workers and less the choice of certain political persuasions and union bosses.

We are absolutely looking at the choice of political persuasions, it's simply that the persuasion that's the most indebted to big business has been in control of legislation.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, first of all, this discussion has nothing to do with labour mobility, so let's push that out of consideration. (but if you like we could discuss employer-provided health insurance in the US, and how it shackles workers to jobs they don't like, but can't leave for fear of losing benefits. Not a problem that workers have in Canada and many other places)

If government enacts measures that intentionally limit employees' ability to bargain collectively (the way in which workers "sell" their labour to business) how is that a pure market? Suppressing this right is divide and conquer; it's each individual worker on their own against employers.

We so easily forget how many of today's employment standards and workers' rights came directly from long hard fights between employers and unions.

I wasn't referring to workers moving geographically.

This sounds like you are advocating against employer provided health insurance. Are you perhaps lamenting the lack of socialized health care instead? I can tell you I have at least two employees who would probably not be working here if it weren't for the drug coverage they have for very expensive drugs.

I don't wish to minimize the progress unions have made over the years for workers and perhaps companies. We have had several circumstances here that I know of where the rates and benefits paid at non-union employers was sufficient to either vote against the certification or to remove unions from the relationships and for sure the union shops have over the years driven those remuneration packages.

I still fail to see a more free market element to the process of collective bargaining compared to non-union situations, particularly if you are the cream of the crop!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

This sounds like you are advocating against employer provided health insurance. Are you perhaps lamenting the lack of socialized health care instead? I can tell you I have at least two employees who would probably not be working here if it weren't for the drug coverage they have for very expensive drugs.

I was referring more to the US situation. Workplace benefits in Canada are attractive too (eg my glasses, fixed my teeth), but do not bind the employee to the job like they often do in the States.

I still fail to see a more free market element to the process of collective bargaining compared to non-union situations, particularly if you are the cream of the crop!

The cream ALWAYS rises to the top. Talented people seldom do poorly. Should employment regulations be aimed at benefiting just the gifted, or the whole workforce?