Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by dales »

Here's the obligatory rubato graph:

Image


One of the biggest factors in the destruction of real wages was the remedy for the inflation of the 70's. Paul Volker's hyper interest rates that shuttered many manufacturers taking good paying skilled labor jobs with them. The weakened US worker was no match for the Voodoo economic model of Reagan which was based on a supply side theory that said everyone benefits when the rich get richer. The rising tide floats all boats theory. Unfortunately the majority of people were never given or put into a boat.

It was great for Wall Street because the rising gap in wages fed profits on one side and debt on the other. Companies used the stagnant wages to fuel productivity and the increase in debt fueled the credit industry. The share prices grew faster than the GDP. Fueling another debt orgy when investors snapped up shares on credit.

Nobody questioned the sanity of a consumer economy (the US GDP is 70% consumer spending) where the consumers were not paid enough to actually buy the products they sold. They didn't manufacture them anymore the manufacturing was outsourced by the demands of the Wall Street analysts to trim labor expenses to fuel profits. Too bad they didn't outsource the CEO's or their own jobs.

People were now working in the new service industry and couldn't buy the products they sold without using credit, i.e. sinking deeper into debt. The economy grew because the new financial services industry made credit easy. People augmented their stagnant wages with debt. They were even told to go buy, remember Bush after 9/11? The entire consumer industry was constructed to enable people to continue to buy the products they wanted and needed using easy credit. What would have happened if they didn't? Many would be homeless today. That's what happens when wages don't keep up with the cost of living. Workers were not willing to see their living standards drop year by year in the name of corporate profits and outrageous CEO pay.

Workers were given only one option, acquire debt just to maintain the standard of living you had last year. Everyone knows that this is unsustainable. Everyone outside of the Federal Reserve, the banking industry, Wall Street, and the government it seems. When profits grow faster than real productivity gains, when real wages trail productivity, when debt is used to augment wages a bubble is generated and all bubbles burst. This should once and for all drive a stake in the heart of the Voodoo model of 'trickle down' supply side economics.

To be honest the current implosion of the banking sector isn't entirely due to the debt used to augment wages. At some point the banks, hedge funds and other financial industries decided that that debt bubble was growing too slowly to satisfy the demand for Wall Street quarterly profit growth. They tuned to derivatives to increase profits. They packed up the workers debts and sold those overseas then gave workers more credit. Wrapped the entire package in even more derivatives.

When the bubble finally burst the financial industry didn't do what it requires it's customers to do, pay up. It held a gun to the government's head and required the taxpayers to fill the void left by the bubble with cash. The taxpayers are now paying off their debt in the form of a financial industry bailout. The problem is the workers debts are not disappearing, just their houses in foreclosure proceedings.

The money trail is too long and torturous for people to see the con. This was their money that they never received in wages, their debt that they had to take on that they are now paying off with their tax dollars with wages that are still the same or lower than when they started working. Yet their debts remain and the CEOs walk away with hundreds of millions.

History has a way of repeating itself. This was part of Nikolai Kondratieff's long wave theory. The Kondratieff wave cycle is about the length of a human life span because the next generation of people would repeat the same mistakes the previous generation made. The mistakes maybe updated for the times with new technologies but the results would be the same, the 'Kondratieff winter' i.e. a Great Depression.

Mark Twain was quite correct when he said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."


[ 1 ] Chart constructed with data from http://numbrary.com/sources/aba5f80eff- ... ly-earning


_________________________________________________________________________




Image



The Uncomfortable Truth About American Wages

By MICHAEL GREENSTONE and ADAM LOONEY


Michael Greenstone is director of the Hamilton Project and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is also the 3M Professor of Environmental Economics at M.I.T. Adam Looney is policy director of the Hamilton Project and a senior fellow at Brookings.


Job creation has rightly been the central economic issue of the last three years as the United States continues its recovery. But the problems with the job market are not entirely recent. The downturn also exacerbated longer-term challenges in the labor market that are driven by a variety of factors, including technological change, international trade and the decline of unions. Many of these forces have been around since the 19th century, but today, for what may be the first time in American history, we are failing to invest enough in our skills and productivity to stay ahead of these trends, and the impacts of this failure are reflected in the declining wages of many American workers.

Because the role of women in the labor force has changed strikingly over the last 40 years, the problem is most evident in trends in male earnings. And, in fact, there has been a lot of talk about the stagnating wages of American male workers. Using conventional methods of analysis, the data show that the median earnings for prime-age (25-64) working men have declined slightly from 1970 to 2010, falling by 4 percent after adjusting for inflation.

This finding of stagnant wages is unsettling, but also quite misleading. For one thing, this statistic includes only men who have jobs. In 1970, 94 percent of prime-age men worked, but by 2010, that number was only 81 percent. The decline in employment has been accompanied by increases in incarceration rates, higher rates of enrollment in the Social Security Disability Insurance program and more Americans struggling to find work. Because those without jobs are excluded from conventional analyses of Americans’ earnings, the statistics we most commonly see — those that illustrate a trend of wage stagnation — present an overly optimistic picture of the middle class.

When we consider all working-age men, including those who are not working, the real earnings of the median male have actually declined by 19 percent since 1970. This means that the median man in 2010 earned as much as the median man did in 1964 — nearly a half century ago. Men with less education face an even bleaker picture; earnings for the median man with a high school diploma and no further schooling fell by 41 percent from 1970 to 2010.



Women have fared much better over these 40 years, but they started from a lower level, and the same problems faced by their male counterparts are beginning to have an effect. Since 1970, the earnings of the median female worker have increased by 71 percent, and the share of women 25 to 64 who are employed has risen to 71 percent, from 54 percent. But after making significant wage gains over several decades, that progress has slowed and even reversed recently. Since 2000, the earnings of the median woman have fallen by 6 percent.

Though these trends in earnings for American workers — men and women alike — are troubling and have many causes, the data do present some clear guidance for policy makers. Among the most robust findings in economics is that education reduces unemployment and increases earnings. But even with the remarkable capacity for education to produce growth, the rate of educational attainment in the United States has slowed, especially for men. The share of men 25 to 34 with a college degree, for example, has barely increased over the last 30 years. (The trends are much better for women.) The United States, once the world leader in educational attainment, has been surpassed by many countries.

Image


Strengthening our K-12 education system and increasing college-completion rates are, therefore, imperative to improving living standards for future generations. It is also clear that changes in the global economy that generate vast opportunities for the American economy have created difficulties for many Americans; the continued pursuit of pro-growth policies will require the identification of policies that help these workers to remain active participants in the economy. These are difficult tasks, but the last four decades demonstrate that the stakes are high. Our children’s living standards are at risk, and with them the American Dream that each generation can do better than the previous one.


Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

No wonder I feel like I am not even treading water anymore. :shrug
increasing college-completion rates are, therefore, imperative to improving living standards for future generations.
And the cost of college continues to sky rocket almost guaranteeing those who do graduate (AND those who don't) start out with a sh!& load of debt. That hinders their ability to buy anything from cars to houses to even food. So even if one lands a "good" job after college, it's years before they can settle in and buy a new car and/or a house and start a family.

And I see more and more that a masters degree is needed. It's the new "ticket" that a bachelores degree once was.

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by dales »

As I've said before and I'll say it again...........

THE ONCE GREAT AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS IS BEING HOLLOWED OUT AT THE BEHEST OF THOSE WHO MATTER.

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

And it's still true.

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by rubato »

It's your kids future and you are electing the people who are destroying it:

Image

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

And throwing more money that we/they don't have is the solution. :shrug

ETA
Maybe trying to control the out of control higher education costs would be a better place to start.

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by dgs49 »

What the charts don't tell ya:

In 1960, a typical household had one wage-earner and one housewife, plus 2.3 children. For that one fact alone, comparing "household" income over the charted period is queer.

The number of unmarried-mother-heads-of household has increased by many hundreds of percent (at least 5-fold) since 1970, and is now at pandemic proportions. This is in largest part the reason why "household income" has taken such a dive over the measured period. Ironically, this catastrophic deterioration of the fabric of society has taken place simultaneously with the invention and proliferation of countless, medically safe means of preventing conception, and the free availability of abortion in the areas most plagued by single-motherhood/bastardy - none of which were legally obtainable in, say, 1960.

Had I sufficient interest, I would look VERY CLOSELY at data that purports to "prove" that education spending in Arizona has been reduced by 50% in 5 years. My Bullshit Meter is about to explode. Further, one can easily find examples that laughably destroy the myth that "more money = better education." One thinks immediately of Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago, and other major cities where spending is at Ivy League cost, but bush league value.

Lots of people with college degrees does not equal "educational attainment," in any meaningful sense. To quote my personal favorite Fine Arts grad, "Wouldja like fries with that?"

None of which is to deny the fact that this country has transitioned from (A) a place where any loser with a high school diploma could get a job at the mill and make $40-50 thousand a year (in today's dollars), and be set for life, to (B) a place where such persons are lucky to get a job making more than MW.

And no one is to blame, at least as far as I can see. Joining the Global Economy was not a choice, but a necessity, and there's no going back.

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Andrew D »

dgs49 wrote:Joining the Global Economy was not a choice, but a necessity, and there's no going back.
There may be no going back, but there certainly is a different way to go forward.

Goods may be shipped on our oceans pursuant to such conditions as we see fit to impose and for such fees as we see fit to charge.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Gob »

Which are "your oceans" Andrew?

Image
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11657
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Crackpot »

Hey don't question Andrew for he is chief officer of expectoration for the founding fathers!
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Image

“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.”
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by rubato »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZDBXm11WXY

Pissin' in the wind, bettin' on a losing friend
Makin' the same mistakes, we swear we'll never make again
Pissin' in the wind, but it's blowing on all our friends
We're gonna sit and grin and tell our grandchildren

About the time I called this Guy it was four in the morning
Teach me the words to the song I was humming

(hum along)

He just laughed and he said that the ole grey cat is sneakin' down
the hall
But all he wants to know is who in the hell is paying for this call

Oh Pissin' in the wind, bettin' on a losing friend
Makin' the same mistakes, we swear we'll never make again
And we're pissin' in the wind, but it's blowing on all our friends
We're gonna sit and grin and tell our grandchildren

Now this Nunn called me up, it was eight in the morning
Wanted to know how in the world am I doin'
Ohhhh ohh, mmmm mmmm
He just laughed and he said get it together boy, and fall on by the house
Some Gonzo buddies would like to play anything your picking now

Oh pissin' in the wind, bettin' on a losing friend
Makin' the same mistakes, we swear we'll never make again
And we're pissin' in the wind, but it's blowing on all our friends
We're gonna sit and grin and tell our grandchildren

Now we worked and we suffered and struggled
Makin' our record till we got it right
Now we're waiting on the check to come sneaking down the hall
Like that old time feeling
That we never should have ever put the record out at all

Yes pissin' in the wind, bettin' on a losing friend
Makin' the same mistakes, we swear we'll never make again
And we're pissin' in the wind, and it's blowing on all our frien

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/w/walkerj ... yrics.html


Jerry Jeff Walker, he's like the Leonard Cohen of drunk hippie rednecks. Except he can sing. And he's funny. And when you hear him you're a better person and want to get out and do stuff like see if you really can lean a brick on the gas pedal to make a "redneck cruise control" instead of all self-pitying and moaning around so everyone just wants you to hurry up and go home so they can air the house out and change their phone numbers and last names and move to another town so you don't come back ever again.

Like that. Nice fella. Considerate type. Throws up IN the trash can not ON the floor when the occasion requires it.

yrs,
rubato

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Andrew D »

Gob wrote:Which are "your oceans" Andrew?
The ones which we keep safe -- at least, a hell of a lot safer than they would be otherwise -- for everyone else.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Gob »

Ah, so not actually "your" oceans then, just the ones you voluntarily patrol. So how do you intend to enforce this idea;

"Goods may be shipped on our oceans pursuant to such conditions as we see fit to impose and for such fees as we see fit to charge."
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by dales »

Pax Americana

Image

Image


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Andrew D »

Thanks, Gob for acknowledging that the U.S. patrols the world's shipping lanes voluntarily. Yet another example of the U.S.'s historically unprecedented magnanimity -- still more proof that the U.S. is the most benign superpower the world has ever seen.

We own the world's oceans in the most literal sense: We can do with them what we please.

Enforcement? There is an entire thread in which a serious discussion of that topic was attempted but repeatedly derailed.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Gob »

Andrew D wrote:Thanks, Gob for acknowledging that the U.S. patrols the world's shipping lanes voluntarily. Yet another example of the U.S.'s historically unprecedented magnanimity -- still more proof that the U.S. is the most benign superpower the world has ever seen.
And a fact which no one here has disputed. Marmite on toast is a lovely meal.
We own the world's oceans in the most literal sense: We can do with them what we please.
Now you're just being silly again. Either that or you've ditched your liberal/democrat pretences and have gone over to these.
Enforcement? There is an entire thread in which a serious discussion of that topic was attempted but repeatedly derailed.
It was only attempted by you, as most rational people saw it as a piece of lunacy.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Andrew D »

Gob wrote:
We own the world's oceans in the most literal sense: We can do with them what we please.
Now you're just being silly again.
Yes, you are.

The U.S. could obliterate the naval forces of any other nation. That does not mean that the U.S. should run around the world obliterating other nations' navies.

Of course no other nation wants to pay the U.S. for the protection which that nation receives from the U.S. Why pay for what you are getting for free?

But if the U.S. were to withdraw its protection from nations which could afford a modest fee (say, 2% of the gross value of the goods shipped under U.S. protection) -- which would amount to announcing to the world: "you want to pirate their ships? not our problem" -- those nations would soon be begging the U.S. to resume protecting their shipping.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Gob »

Andrew D wrote:
Gob wrote:
We own the world's oceans in the most literal sense: We can do with them what we please.
Now you're just being silly again.
Yes, you are.

The U.S. could obliterate the naval forces of any other nation. That does not mean that the U.S. should run around the world obliterating other nations' navies.

Of course no other nation wants to pay the U.S. for the protection which that nation receives from the U.S. Why pay for what you are getting for free?
So what is your point?
But if the U.S. were to withdraw its protection from nations which could afford a modest fee (say, 2% of the gross value of the goods shipped under U.S. protection) -- which would amount to announcing to the world: "you want to pirate their ships? not our problem" -- those nations would soon be begging the U.S. to resume protecting their shipping.
Bollocks. Do you not think the worlds navies could agree a protection treaty from (?) which would ensure they could continue trading?

Who are we being protected from Andrew?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

Post by Andrew D »

For what feels like the billionth time:

If other nations would rather do without U.S. naval protection than pay a modest fee for it, FINE. I am advocating a modest fee ONLY for nations which CHOOSE to be protected by the U.S. Navy.

If other nations believe that they, alone or in combination, can protect their shipping lanes without U.S. help, great. Have at it.

Anywhere between 20% and 40% of the world's traded oil comes through the Strait of Hormuz. The next time that Iran threatens shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, maybe China, India, Japan, and South Korea -- the largest consumers of oil shipped through the Strait -- will be able to stand down the Iranian missile threat.

And we can't forget Australia, a net energy importer which gets about 1/6 of its oil via the Strait of Hormuz. Maybe Australia can hook up with China, India, Japan, South Korea, and who knows who else to protect vital oil shipments through the Strait.

If so, dandy. After all, the point of a user fee is to reimburse the U.S. for the money it expends protecting other nations' shipping. If the U.S. no longer spends money protecting other nations' shipping, then that's the end of that.

Maybe you are right. Maybe "the worlds navies could agree a protection treaty," and they would be able to protect their oil shipments from disruption -- anything from blockage to destruction -- by Iran or any of the other non-Western-friendly nations in the region.

Oh, wait. Protect their oil shipments with what?

Their overwhelming naval power? All told, Australia, China, Indian, Japan, and South Korea possess a whopping two -- count them, two -- aircraft carriers. And the only two countries that have even one aircraft carrier are China and India.

Australia, Japan, and South Korea want to leave the protection of their vital oil imports to China and India? OK, go right ahead.

And what happens when Australian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and South Korean shipping is threatened on the high seas nowhere near the Strait of Hormuz? Oh, crap, both of our aircraft carriers are in the Middle East.

If that's what other countries want, that's what other countries can have. Good luck with that.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

Post Reply