Another thread with some rightwing guys pissing on teachers (and some good, nuanced posts as well). I made a deal with myself I'd stay off the next one. I'm sure everybody is hoping I do. ;-

"There may be situations where the umpires will have to leave the field in shifts so that everyone can view the video while leaving the requisite number of umpires on the field," McMorris said. "This could create a `Laurel and Hardy' effect, and may cause delay-of-game problems."

If the league doesn't care about such "delay-of-game problems," why should the umpires?

Though I would argue that even wrt these moments in history, most of the credit to these institutions is undeserved.)

Who else should get it? The tooth fairy? Mike Crudale?

Well, in the case of the New Deal, the Democratic Party should get full 'credit'. And, thus, nobody should ever vote for them again. But as for better working conditions, Adam Smith ought to get the credit.

History has demonstrated time and time again that the only time working people gain meaningful improvements in their lives is after they've been fought for. It was workers, both inside and outside of unions who fought for and won these rights. Period.

Now you're in fantasyland. We don't have better working conditions because the union fairy waved its magic wand and created those conditions. We have better working conditions because we're wealthier and can afford those conditions. (You do realize, for instance, that hundreds of millions of non-unionized Americans get more than the legal minimum wage, even though they don't belong to unions, right? They don't need to "fight" in the union sense for a higher wage; they get it because they earn it, and since there are few employer monopsonies except when government creates them, they can change jobs if their employers don't give it to them.)

Unions go to far? In a country with, what? 12% union density? A country which has seen a transfer of wealth to the top 5% unprecedented in history? Where millions of workers lack health care, and are an unexpected job loss or illness away from bankruptcy and foreclosure? Where the country's industrial base has been sold overseas, replaced my low-paying, insecure service sector jobs? Give me a ####### break.

There has been no "transfer of wealth." Seriously, I know socialists can't do math, but innumeracy can only get one so far as an excuse. How exactly could one transfer wealth from the poor to others to make them rich? The nature of being poor leaves one without wealth to transfer. The fact that the wealth of the rich grows faster than that of the poor does not mean that money is being "transferred" from the poor to the rich. It's not a zero-sum game. (If the left would just learn one thing about the economy, it should be that five word phrase: "it's not a zero-sum game.")

Most of the above is just random ranting on your part, but as a simple factual matter, there has been no loss of the country's industrial base. Manufacturing output in the U.S. is higher than it has ever been. And the "service sector" is not "low-paying, insecure." I know the left wants people to think of McDonalds whenever they hear the phrase "service sector," but the "service sector" includes all non-manufacturing, non-agriculture jobs -- IOW, most of the economy. Programmers, engineers, lawyers, doctors, plumbers, auto mechanics, janitors, insurance adjustors, i-bankers, airline pilots, and yes, fast food cashiers.

I mean in the UK although unions lost the majority of their influnce and militancy through the 80s they are still somewhat respected/accepted by the majority of people but in the US there seems to be real deep-rooted anti-union feeling.

The difference is that there are a large number of restrictions on union activities that were brought in during the 1980s. The closed shop is illegal, secondary strikes are illegal, compulsory secret ballots before a whole range of actions can be taken, strict rules about when and how a union can call a strike, etc. So because the unions have been tamed, they're easier to accept. Whereas in the US this union regulation has largely not taken place, which is why there is more hostility to them.

We have better working conditions because we're wealthier and can afford those conditions.


Oh, so we didn't have all those violent bitter strikes in the 30s? I guess workers could have just saved some effort and waited for the beneficient invisible hand to rain down good wages and safer conditions. Please.

Manufacturing output in the U.S. is higher than it has ever been.

This is a terrible way to measure whether industrial jobs remain in the US and you know it.

Seriously, I know socialists can't do math, but innumeracy can only get one so far as an excuse. How exactly could one transfer wealth from the poor to others to make them rich? The nature of being poor leaves one without wealth to transfer. The fact that the wealth of the rich grows faster than that of the poor does not mean that money is being "transferred" from the poor to the rich.

Wealth is generated by workers, who are keeping a smaller and smaller point of it. It's not rocket surgery.

BTW, please explain why real wages are dropping for most Americans while CEO compensation has skyrocketed. Thanks!

Seriously, why libertarians seems to treasure the liberty to get ###### by the rich above almost any other is a mystery I may never understand.

Whereas in the US this union regulation has largely not taken place, which is why there is more hostility to them.

Alou, I would be very surprised if there were not more anti-union legislation in the US than the UK, unless there are a bunch of Right-To-Work-Shires I don't know about.

Wealth is generated by workers.

Just simply not true. If it were, China, Russia, and India would all be paradises.

While workers are obviously a critical part of any economic system, the true wealth is generated by entrepreneurs and investors.

My only union job was stocking shelves at Jewel-Osco. I was hired at 25 cents above minimum wage. When I showed up on my first day, I was told I had to join the union or I couldn't be hired, and the union took about 40 cents an hour out of my paycheck. Good times.

Just simply not true. If it were, China, Russia, and India would all be paradises.

This makes no sense. You have to take capital accumulation into account here, which allows he owner more sophisticated means of production, etc. It's not just More workers = more wealth.

Wealth is generated by investors? That's a good one. Investors don't actually generate anything.

Just simply not true. If it were, China, Russia, and India would all be paradises.

Workers generate wealth. The wealth doesn't necessarily end up in the workers' pockets, though.

Manufacturing output in the U.S. is higher than it has ever been.

This is a terrible way to measure whether industrial jobs remain in the US and you know it.

I do know it, but the comment I was responding to wasn't about manufacturing jobs, but about our manufacturing "base," and the reasons for its alleged decline. The fact that our output is at record levels says that our "manufacturing base" is intact; if output is high and employment is declining (*), that means that it's not "offshoring" that's the "problem," but productivity.



(*) And there's actually reason to be suspicious of that last point, too. Historically, measures of sector employment have been crude; they look at the employer rather than the actual job. So a janitor who swept the floors of the GM cafeteria would be classified as "manufacturing employment." But if GM hires Janitorial Service Co., Inc., to sweep all its floors, that same janitor doing the same duties gets classified as a service sector employee.

Wealth is generated by workers, who are keeping a smaller and smaller point of it. It's not rocket surgery.

True. It's just Marx's long-discredited labor theory of value.

Seriously, why libertarians seems to treasure the liberty to get ###### by the rich above almost any other is a mystery I may never understand.

I reiterate the lesson I tried to impart earlier: it's not a zero-sum game. Bill Gates getting wealthy does not #### me. Sam Walton getting wealthy does not #### me. George Soros getting wealthy does not #### me.

The only way it does is if they get wealthy through the government rather than through the marketplace -- but that's a feature of big government, not something solved by big government.

f output is high and employment is declining (*), that means that it's not "offshoring" that's the "problem," but productivity.

I would think it would mean the opposite - that despite three decades of meeting capital's demand that workers increase productivity while accepting lower wages and benefits to save their jobs, their jobs are still being shipped to other countries. This is called "getting hosed" where I come from.

Leaving aside your thoughts on Marxism (which no way will we agree on), let's touch on this a bit more:

Bill Gates getting wealthy does not #### me. Sam Walton getting wealthy does not #### me. George Soros getting wealthy does not #### me.


I think it does. Aside from the economic arguments, which we'll leave for now, a scoiety of vast wealth disparities is significantly more likely to go through violent instability. It is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Is the Phillipines really the model you want the US to shoot for?

Alou, I would be very surprised if there were not more anti-union legislation in the US than the UK, unless there are a bunch of Right-To-Work-Shires I don't know about.

The entire UK is "right-to-work shire." It is illegal to make union membership or payment of union dues a condition of employment at any stage. And it's been like that for over 20 years. HTH.

Btw most people here consider outlawing the closed shop (and variants) a pro-worker law not an anti-union law, but YMMV.

What are the rules governing union organization like?

Also, what does 'HTH' mean?

EDITED: Thanks, it was informative.

I reiterate the lesson I tried to impart earlier: it's not a zero-sum game. Bill Gates getting wealthy does not #### me. Sam Walton getting wealthy does not #### me. George Soros getting wealthy does not #### me.

Actually, it does. Going back one post:

But if GM hires Janitorial Service Co., Inc., to sweep all its floors, that same janitor doing the same duties gets classified as a service sector employee.

And frequently it is the same janitor, at lower wages and benefits. And where does the savings go? More and more of it ends up in the pockets of the CEO's and other top managers.

I'm not advocting any sort of ridiculous salary control like the Dems seem to want. I just recognize that it is becoming more and more of a zero sum game.

The pilots at American Airlines are making 50% of what they did in 1992 (adjusted for inflation), while the CEO and other top managers are making 2-3 times what they did 16 years ago. At the same time, the company stock is near an all time low and yearly losses number in the hundreds of millions.

Also, what does 'HTH' mean?

Could it be Hart to Hart, which went off the air a little more than 20 years ago?

Wealth is generated by investors? That's a good one. Investors don't actually generate anything.

Almost every highly successful business I know of was made possible because of investors. Frequently it's a banking establishment loaning someone money, but it can be as simple as a group of friends pooling their life savings together.

Do you have any concept whatsoever of just how much wealth Warren Buffett has generated for people?

Almost every highly successful business I know of was made possible because of investors. Frequently it's a banking establishment loaning someone money, but it can be as simple as a group of friends pooling their life savings together.

Do you have any concept whatsoever of just how much wealth Warren Buffett has generated for people?

That's a pretty broad definition of generating wealth.

Also, what does 'HTH' mean?

Hope This Helps

HTH = happy to help/hope this helps.

What are the rules governing union organization like?

You can organise a union at any time, and as it is illegal for the employer to discriminate for or against a person on basis of union membership, you can't treat people badly for trying to set up a union. When you set up the union you have to register it properly with the government. That does not mean though that the employer has to recognise the union. The rules on when a union can force the employer to recognise it are complicated and way beyond my competence (I am not an employment lawyer).

How does a organizing drive work? Secret ballot? Open? What type of access are union/company reps allowed to have towards workers during one?

Bill Gates getting wealthy does not #### me. Sam Walton getting wealthy does not #### me. George Soros getting wealthy does not #### me.


I think it does.

With regard to specific examples- I can see an argument that Sam Walton getting wealthy did **** people, because he didn't enlarge the pie so to speak, but rather redistributed it to his advantage- and to the disadvantage of others.

To be more specific when Oil Industry profits are rising at the same time that Oil Consumption is not- that means everyone else is getting the shaft.

The economy as a whole is not a zero sum game, the economy over time is not a zero sum game, but some elements of the economy might as well be a zero sum game, and at certain points in time the economy as a whole may act like a zero sum game.

a society of vast wealth disparities is significantly more likely to go through violent instability. It is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Is the Phillipines really the model you want the US to shoot for?

a while back one of BBTF's resident libertarians (it may have been DMN or not, I don't recall) asserted that income and wealth inequality did not concern or interest or affect him in the least.
The next rebuttal was precisely your argument (the given example wasn't the Phillipines- I think it was a Latin American Country)- the Libertarian had no response on that thread.

I've also met people whose philosophy I would sum up thusly, "I want to get rich, I want to live in a society where it is possible to get rich, I don't care if that society is otherwise disfunctional or 10 people are desperately poor for every one who is rich".

Not if you come from a massive of pool of people who can do the same job.

Oh, well if you're one of those people, do you really deserve to live?

How does a organizing drive work? Secret ballot? Open? What type of access are union/company reps allowed to have towards workers during one?

You don't need a ballot to form a union. Just form it. Whoever wants to join can join, whoever doesn't want to doesn't have to.

EDIT: Unless you mean something else by an organising drive? I don't really understand.

To be more specific when Oil Industry profits are rising at the same time that Oil Consumption is not- that means everyone else is getting the shaft.

Since when? They've been in the same 7%/8% of net that they've been since at least 2004, IIRC.

That's a pretty broad definition of generating wealth.

I suppose next you're going to tell me that you understand wealth and know more about generating it than Buffett does.

It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game to screw the typical citizen. One man making an extra $2,000,000 while a thousand others losing $1,000 is a positive sum. However, that certainly looks like the average joe getting the shaft to me--and to the people whose anger is fueled.

Marx's labor theory may be discreted, but the typical worker seems himself bust his rear end to make something useful, and get paid less for that the CEO who was snorting coke off of a hooker's chest all day. One thing conservative/libertarian economists have to remember is that the perception of fairness matters, too.

One man making an extra $2,000,000 while a thousand others losing $1,000 is a positive sum. However, that certainly looks like the average joe getting the shaft to me--

and indeed they are, but not to certain posters, who, unless the man making the extra $2mm did so by literally holding a gun on the average Joes, profess not to care, or who would even applaud the result- since the net is positive after all.

That's a pretty broad definition of generating wealth.

I suppose next you're going to tell me that you understand wealth and know more about generating it than Buffett does.

Of course I don't. Working capital is necessary for wealth creation, but then so is an infrastructure that allows the free flow of goods, services, and information, a judicial system to enforce contracts, an education system to provide educated workers, etc. It takes a hell of a lot more than Warren Buffett writing a check to a guy with a business plan to generate wealth, and nothing whatsoever gets done without the labor to produce the raw materials, transport them to the assembly point, assemble them, transport them to market, and sell them to the public.

I think it does. Aside from the economic arguments, which we'll leave for now, a scoiety of vast wealth disparities is significantly more likely to go through violent instability. It is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Is the Phillipines really the model you want the US to shoot for?

I think Brazil is generally the go-to example for this fallacious argument, but no matter, because neither is a model of what I want to shoot for. The Philippines does not have a particularly high GINI coefficient (it's where the U.S. is now); its problem is poverty, not wealth disparity. (Brazil does have a lot of inequality, but ditto.) In fact, a look at world GINI coefficients shows a weak correlation between stability and equality. Scandanavia's at the top, sure -- but Ethopia, Kyrgystan, and Pakistan all rank as highly as the EU.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that inequality, as distinct from poverty, causes social instability.

The Philippines does not have a particularly high GINI coefficient (it's where the U.S. is now); its problem is poverty, not wealth disparity.

Take a quick look into why people are so poor there. I would say the US is way too far in terms of inequality as is, also.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that inequality, as distinct from poverty, causes social instability

Look at history.

What David is saying that I'm sympathetic to is that wealth inequality is not intrinsically a bad thing.

On the whole, living standards for the lower and middle classes, controlling for immigration, have improved over the last generation. "Regular" people are living longer, enjoying better healthcare, eating out more, living in larger dwellings, traveling more, consuming more and doing better by almost any objective measure you could care to name.

I don't see why the fact that some people's living standards have improved even more quickly is a problem, per se. One could argue that low/middle income people's QoL could be improving more quickly, and is a valid area of debate, but I find the argument that non-weathy people's lives have actually gotten worse while those of the wealthy have gotten better ludicrous on its face.

There's also what I like to think of as "Appeal to Happiness," which is also valid. Because of the increased visibility of rich people nowadays, "regular" people are less happy even as their material standard of living increases. This might be a problem for society and is probably also a non-optimal outcome.

sardonic,

Coincidentally, I was just reading this in the NYT:

For the first time on record, an economic expansion seems to have ended without family income having risen substantially. Most families are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000. For these workers, roughly the bottom 60 percent of the income ladder, economic growth has become a theoretical concept rather than the wellspring of better medical care, a new car, a nicer house — a better life than their parents had.

Americans have still been buying such things, but they have been doing so with debt. A big chunk of that debt will never be repaid, which is the most basic explanation for the financial crisis.

Things aren't getting better for most people anymore. The rising tight is lifting the yachts and sinking the dinghies.

"...but Ethopia, Kyrgystan, and Pakistan all rank as highly as the EU."

Dead people's vital signs are very stable, too.

For the first time on record, an economic expansion seems to have ended without family income having risen substantially. Most families are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000. For these workers, roughly the bottom 60 percent of the income ladder, economic growth has become a theoretical concept rather than the wellspring of better medical care, a new car, a nicer house — a better life than their parents had.

Americans have still been buying such things, but they have been doing so with debt. A big chunk of that debt will never be repaid, which is the most basic explanation for the financial crisis.

My argument was not income based, it was quality of life based. There are many products and services that did not exist a generation ago that are within the reach of average Americans. For example, let's talk healthcare.

If you look on page 4 of this CDC report, life expectancy at birth has risen in every year from 1900 to 2003. That trend has not reversed as of 2005 according to this CDC report.

I'm not going to spend more time digging up more recent numbers, but I would stipulate that that trend has not changed in the last 3 years.

So, if the objective of health care is to keep people from dying (simplistic, but something we can measure easily), and people from different socioeconomic groups are all living longer, I would contend that in that area of quality of life, it is improving for both rich people and poor people, though somewhat faster for rich people.

In "The Progress Paradox," the tastefully named Gregg Easterbrook cites many similar statistics, off the top of my head, including median # of rooms per person, number of times eating out per month, number of airplane flights taken, etc. that show continued improvement in material living conditions for the middle and lower classes. It's possible that that trend has changed in the past few years since the book was published, but if you would like to argue that, I would like to see data.

I should clarify that in those CDC reports, it shows that life expectancy is rising for both whites and blacks, which is a crude way of addressing some concerns that it's only the improving health of the wealthy that is driving those numbers.

In "The Progress Paradox," the tastefully named Gregg Easterbrook cites many similar statistics, off the top of my head, including median # of rooms per person, number of times eating out per month, number of airplane flights taken, etc. that show continued improvement in material living conditions for the middle and lower classes. It's possible that that trend has changed in the past few years since the book was published, but if you would like to argue that, I would like to see data.

No data here, but if you are making more airplane flights, I'd say your QoL is lower, not higher. Have you been to an airport lately?

As was discussed here recently, just cause I have access to things - IPods, cable, laptops, etc., that Rockefeller didn't doesn't mean I have a higher quality of life than he did.

And quality of life, not life expectancy, should be the baseline. I would submit that your measurement of public health is so general as to be largely useless. Furthermore, I believe it to be immoral that so many things that would improve people's quality of life, in areas like health and education, are inaccessible to them because of lack of income. That is the point. Some benefits trickling down to the poor is not proof the system is working.

Speaking of libertarianism, the airlines should be (and should have been) allowed to fail. No offense, misirlou. But, you're right. Flying is amazingly unpleasant in the airport and on the plane.

Flying is amazingly unpleasant in the airport and on the plane.

I hate it, and I travel for free*. I cannot imagine paying for such a miserable experience.

*Well, not really for free. I have to pay for that $4 bottle of water on the other side of security. And when I get to my destination, I have to buy new shampoo, shaving cream, toothpaste, sunscreen, etc, that I will have to throw away before I head home.

similar statistics, off the top of my head, including median # of rooms per person, number of times eating out per month, number of airplane flights taken, etc. that show continued improvement in material living conditions for the middle and lower classes.

And with a decline in real wages, we now have a debt crisis. And don't try to make this all about 'personal responisbility' in a nation where shopping in construed as the noblest form of patriotism.

As was discussed here recently, just cause I have access to things - IPods, cable, laptops, etc., that Rockefeller didn't doesn't mean I have a higher quality of life than he did.

And quality of life, not life expectancy, should be the baseline. I would submit that your measurement of public health is so general as to be largely useless. Furthermore, I believe it to be immoral that so many things that would improve people's quality of life, in areas like health and education, are inaccessible to them because of lack of income. That is the point. Some benefits trickling down to the poor is not proof the system is working.

The point is not that your life should be better than Rockefeller's. You can't reasonably argue that our society is broken because not everybody has a life better than one of the richest people in the previous generation. The point is that at, say, the 10th and 50th percentiles of wealth, the quality of life is much higher now than before.

Especially controlling for immigration (surely US society should not be responsible for lifting the qualities of life of people who weren't even in the US).

And I agree that life expectancy is not the be all end all of quality of life. I only used it because hard data was readily available.

In what measurable, material way has the life of someone at the 50th income percentile of US society been made worse? I submit that this hypothetical Joe Average in 2008 now lives in a bigger house, eats better, has traveled more, lives longer, is more educated and suffers from fewer/less severe health ailments than Joe Average from 2003, 1993, 1983, etc. So how has his life not improved?

For the first time on record, an economic expansion seems to have ended without family income having risen substantially. Most families are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000. For these workers, roughly the bottom 60 percent of the income ladder, economic growth has become a theoretical concept rather than the wellspring of better medical care, a new car, a nicer house — a better life than their parents had.

It's somewhat disingenuous to compare real wages at (what is currently) a local min to the peak of the dot com bubble, a local max.

"Speaking of libertarianism, the airlines should be (and should have been) allowed to fail."

Abso-frickin'-lutely.

The point is not that your life should be better than Rockefeller's.

No, that wasn't my point at all.

I submit that the average American life isn't any better in these regards. The amount of Americans living in poverty is higher, even when you correct for the constant downgrading of the poverty line. The amount of Americans in prison has skyrocketed. Child poverty rates are up. In terms of meaningful benchmarks, American lives were better in the 1970s than they are now. I also think that the quality of life of the vast majority of Americans has never been good enough given the amount of wealth they produce. These disagreements come down to fundamental disagreements in how society should be organized and it's benefits shared, however.

I've gotten liquid through. F' em.


Seriously, I'm torn and the tear is analogous to the larger discussion here that I've skimmed but don't really feel like diving into (raging ear infection). I hate the experience of air travel. But, on the other hand, for relatively little money I have travelled to places that my grandparents, who seriously loved to travel, didn't even really dream of going to. I mean, in their later years commercial air travel was fairly common, but routine flying was well outside their price range.

So, yes, it's a lousy experience and if I can drive it, I will. But it provides a number of opportunities that fairly recently were fairy tales. The key is balance. No system is perfect. Yin and Yang. No, not that Yang, the other one.

Okay, I'm off to mainline some amoxicillin.

Why? Real wages didn't rise at all during that boom, which is one of the author's main arguments to support the assertion that something in the American system is broken.

Speaking of libertarianism, the airlines should be (and should have been) allowed to fail. No offense, misirlou.

None taken, and I agree with you. Not to sound elitist or anything, but the concept of airline travel access to everyone is killing the industry. It would be much healthier if there were far fewer seats available, and the the prices much higher. Screen out the price sensitive masses who cannot be bothered to pay what the service actually costs, and then ##### to the media that they didn't get a free meal. Save the air travel for those who can afford it. We all (including those that can't afford it) will be better off.

I submit that this hypothetical Joe Average in 2008 now lives in a bigger house, eats better, has traveled more, lives longer, is more educated and suffers from fewer/less severe health ailments than Joe Average from 2003, 1993, 1983, etc. So how has his life not improved?

And has to work 2 or more jobs (I'm talking about both spouses here) to achieve that, while at the same time saving less for retirement (and forget about pensions), so he will have to work longer in life. I think the current generation of retirees will have the highest SoL of any future ones for some time to come.

It's somewhat disingenuous to compare real wages at (what is currently) a local min to the peak of the dot com bubble, a local max.

Real Wages from 1964 to 2004:

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)

Overall, it shows a 7% decrease since 1964. Is that a long enough horizon by which we can judge?

And has to work 2 or more jobs (I'm talking about both spouses here) to achieve that, while at the same time saving less for retirement (and forget about pensions), so he will have to work longer in life. I think the current generation of retirees will have the highest SoL of any future ones for some time to come.

To support, here's a decent lecture: The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class. Be warned - it's about 45 minutes in length.

And has to work 2 or more jobs (I'm talking about both spouses here) to achieve that, while at the same time saving less for retirement (and forget about pensions), so he will have to work longer in life. I think the current generation of retirees will have the highest SoL of any future ones for some time to come.

It's possible that people are working more, but to me that only means that there is more stuff out there to buy (whether it's better healthcare, vacations, better food or a handbag), which makes working more valuable.

I don't see how people working more and getting more equates to a broken system to you.

I also don't see how the second part of your statement (the current generation of retirees will enjoy a higher SoL than future generations) follows from the first.

Furthermore, I believe it to be immoral that so many things that would improve people's quality of life, in areas like health and education, are inaccessible to them because of lack of income. That is the point. Some benefits trickling down to the poor is not proof the system is working.

What exactly should be the "goal"? I submit that the goal should be that everyone's lives should get better over time, not necessarily at equal rates. I would argue that the REASON anybody's life gets better is because we have a system which rewards people for good ideas and good execution. As such, there will always be inequality, but everyone's life will be better off.

To me, and this is a more fundamental argument, the choice is not:

Some rich and some poor

vs.

Rich a little less rich, poor a little less poor.

The choice is more like:

Some rich, but poor better off than before

vs.

Everybody poor and not better off than before.

While those are two extreme examples, that is probably where we fundamentally disagree.

I have to jump into a meeting now, but to sum up my thoughts:

- I agree with DMN that inequality is not fundamentally bad, particularly when the quality of life is increasing for everyone.

- I believe that the measurable, material quality of life is improved for pretty much everyone when looking at macro trends. (5, 10, 15, 25 etc. year time frames).

- It's important to control for immigration and selection bias when doing calculations like "the richest 5% controls x% of wealth."

- It's also important to take into account that people have access to a lot of things that didn't exist before (not just iPods, but better, cheaper antibiotics, for example).

- It's possible that the increase in material, measurable quality of life has not made people happier, which is something I'd be very interested in discussing, and would agree is a problem if true.

Introduce school choice, and parents will unfailingly gravitate towards schools with good teachers.

They will unfailingly gravitate towards schools with good students, because it's easier to evaluate students than it is to evaluate teachers, and parents want easy, non-nuanced decisions.

Dialing back, this is unquestionably true. My family's hunt for a different place to live died the moment my daughter began going to preschool -- the local area schools are among the best in California, and the local high school is ranked in the top 5% of national schools. Doubtless, this is because these schools have excellent teachers, but I'm guessing that the fact that the the Cerritos area is predominantly upper-middle class and heavily Asian/immigrant (with the accompanying healthy cultural respect for education)* probably helps.

*I add this because I've found that nothing resembling the Asian reverence for teachers exists in this country. Sadly.

I also don't see how the second part of your statement (the current generation of retirees will enjoy a higher SoL than future generations) follows from the first.

Well you're the only one.

"I've gotten liquid through. F' em. "

In which case, you'll love this.

Vlad, I'm an organic chemist. If I wanted to blow up a plane I could, and the current rules wouldn't hurt me a bit (I mean, they allow stick deoderant, come on). Of course, it'd be far easier to just blow up the packed security line.

misirlou, I agree completely with 153.

As for current retirees, that generation really missed their goals, didn't they?

If I wanted to blow up a plane I could, and the current rules wouldn't hurt me a bit (I mean, they allow stick deoderant, come on). Of course, it'd be far easier to just blow up the packed security line.

You just made the list buddy.

Maybe you could just wound some TSA guys.

Great link Ryan. I loved this (paraphrasing here):

"In 2002, more than twice as many Americans thought that the moon landing was faked than thought that a child could enter the middle class as an adult with merely a HS education."

So, yes, it's a lousy experience

*So's your mom.

So, yes, it's a lousy experience and if I can drive it, I will. But it provides a number of opportunities that fairly recently were fairy tales. The key is balance. No system is perfect. Yin and Yang. No, not that Yang, the other one.

I work far too much to travel a lot, but I have flown a few times recently, and it was, in fact, much less pleasant than it used to be in a number of ways. But I was sitting next to a couple of older working-class people who were talking about how they had a chance to travel now and couldn't have afforded it until recently. And I did note there was still a first-class section in the front of the plane. And, one thing I always try to keep in mind in political disccusions is the distinction betwen my personal beeedingheart worldview and cost/benefit reality of actual political legislation and economic activity in a complex world.

As far as how it is affecting the industry in a business sense and making it "unhealthy", I don't know (if that is what the "health" ref meant). But I am ready to listen.












* I know, I know. But my mom was great, right?

vlad, that is a great link. thanks.

Yeah, misirlou, I'm on the list. now i can't fly. sob.

drugs are great, man.

Umps seem to blow another HR call in the Boston-Baltimore game.

From the Chicago Fed ("Trends in real wage growth," 1997):

The real hourly compensation series shown in figure 1 largely avoids the methodological problems with real hourly earnings. This series replaces average hourly earnings and the CPIU with more appropriate measures of nominal wages and prices. The nominal wage measure underlying real hourly, compensation is derived from total business sector compensation figures from the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) and the BLS's series on hours worked by all persons in the business sector. The total compensation data are not limited to production and nonsupervisory workers and they cover wages and salaries paid to private workers as well as the cost of fringe benefits and contributions for social insurance. They are also based on much more complete data than the CES. The deflator for the real hourly compensation series shown in figure 1 is the CPIU-X1 which, as noted above, eliminates upward bias in the CPIU by applying current methodology to the period before 1983.5 Clearly, these methodological corrections make a large difference to the measured trend in average real wages. Average real wages now appear to be 18% higher than in 1972, not 16% lower. They are 53% higher than in 1964, not the same. Moreover, if the findings of the Boskin Commission on the overstatement of inflation by the current CPIU methodology are correct, then real hourly compensation has grown even faster than shown in figure 1-approximately 57% since 1972 and 120% since 1964. Given the great technological advances and investment in new physical capital over the last 25 years, the trend in real hourly compensation is much more in line with neoclassical economic expectations and should serve to dispel some of the most radical critiques of the economy's performance.

As far as how it is affecting the industry in a business sense and making it "unhealthy", I don't know (if that is what the "health" ref meant). But I am ready to listen.

Well, in a nutshell, the airline industry is extremely heavily capitalized. A airliner costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Airport terminal are very expensive to build, maintain, and upgrade. In the past 20 or so years, the airlines have attracted millions of lower income travelers with low fares. They were able to do that because operating costs were low. Now those costs are skyrocketing, and the airlines have a choice of flying at a loss, or raising prices and losing customers. In the latter, they are stuck with billions of dollars of assets making them no money. Neither choice is attractive.

Now, one could argue that they never should have expanded in the first place, but the one thing travelers crave most after price is choice. A carrier which offered only two flights a day between Chicago and Dallas would lose market share to one which offered 5. One which offered only stopover flights between Detroit and Miami would lose to one which offered nonstops. But to make the extra flights profitable, they needed the lower end consumer. he has proven that bottom line price is his first the priorities, and so the airlines have to meet him there or lose revenue, because losing thousands of $ on a flight is preferable to losing millions on an unused and depreciating asset.

* I know, I know. But my mom was great, right?

You have no idea how great she was.

Inflation is actually understated consistently. Look at the cover story of the May or June Harper's for details.

robinred, i feel so crappy i'd gladly take either of our mom's if she can make a good bowl of soup.

I actually can't make heads or tails of the conversations above, so I know I'm loopy. I'm even imagining that there are these girls on my tv jumping of a 10m platform. Must be the drugs.

I'm even imagining that there are these girls on my tv jumping of a 10m platform. Must be the drugs.

I'll bet if you had watched last night there would have girls on trampolines.

Sounds cool.

"girls on trampolines"

Zicke zacke, zicke zacke, hoi hoi hoi!

Now there is a guy kissing a pommel horse. I picked a bad night to stop drinking scotch.

Oh, and Al Trautwig is an idiot.

Umpires agree with MLB to use instant reply this season

"We reached an agreement. Final decision with respect to moving ahead has not been made yet, but we have an agreement with the umpires," said Rob Manfred, baseball's executive vice president of labor relations.

Finalization of the agreement was first reported by murraychass.com.

"We're going to move forward with the understanding the sides will come to the table later and iron out some of the remaining issues," said WUA spokesman Lamell McMorris, who criticized management on Tuesday. "Instant replay will be a work in progress."

so, nevermind.

Inflation is actually understated consistently.

Many people like to claim that, and I've read many articles for and against, and none of them have made me believe either way.

Coincidentally, I was just reading this in the NYT:

For the first time on record, an economic expansion seems to have ended without family income having risen substantially. Most families are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000. For these workers, roughly the bottom 60 percent of the income ladder, economic growth has become a theoretical concept rather than the wellspring of better medical care, a new car, a nicer house — a better life than their parents had.

The problem is that the statement is an abuse of the presented statistics, which do not show what "most families" are making now compared to what they were making in 2000. It shows the median household income, but they're not the same set of households.

As was discussed here recently, just cause I have access to things - IPods, cable, laptops, etc., that Rockefeller didn't doesn't mean I have a higher quality of life than he did.

I think it does. Rockefeller lived much better relative to his peers than you do relative to yours, but in absolute terms, you're better off in many ways. Maybe you have to worry about paying your medical bills -- a worry Rockefeller obviously never had -- but that's mitigated by the fact that all Rockefeller's money couldn't buy him even simple penicillin.

Inflation is actually understated consistently. Look at the cover story of the May or June Harper's for details.

If that's the Kevin Phillips piece you're talking about (checking... yes, I think it is) it's complete crap. You might as well ask Jay Mariotti about sabermetrics as ask Phillips about economics. That was a painful article to read.

I think it does. Rockefeller lived much better relative to his peers than you do relative to yours, but in absolute terms, you're better off in many ways. Maybe you have to worry about paying your medical bills -- a worry Rockefeller obviously never had -- but that's mitigated by the fact that all Rockefeller's money couldn't buy him even simple penicillin.

I can't remember the Novel, perhaps Player Piano, but this POV has been skewered pretty convincingly...

What POV? That Rocky couldn't buy penicillin? That the lower middle class can travel just as well as Rocky could have?

I've never read the Player Piano, but wikipedia seems to say the plot is that people lose their dignity by not having fulfilling jobs. There is some validity in that in today's world, but a lot of people's lower esteem today comes from believing they don't have a big enough house or a shiny enough car.

Look there are two things being discussed here. One is standard of living/quality of life, the other is happiness/dignity. There is no doubt, no doubt at all that standard of living is improving and has improved dramatically. You can say the poor are getting poorer but it's just not true. Maybe we don't have as much dignity/etc as Rockefeller but that's a separate issue.

The problem with arguing about happiness and dignity is that it's so subjective and it's basically impossible to do much about it. I love Vonnegut but you can't take him seriously when he claims that a fulfilling job and a loving circle of friends are a basic human right. People are always going to be envious and cruel and angry and so on and there will always be lots of unhappiness and dissatisfaction it's got nothing to do with society and everything to do with people.

I love Vonnegut but you can't take him seriously when he claims that a fulfilling job and a loving circle of friends are a basic human right.

I wouldn't limit it to that, you can NEVER take Vonnegut seriously. However, Player Piano was one of the better anti-utopias that came out in that mid-20th century wave of anti-utopias.

UTOPIA 14

The poor may (or may not) be getting poorer in an absolute sense, but there is no doubt they are getting poorer relative to the rest of society, which is just as tragic and dangerous.

The poor may (or may not) be getting poorer in an absolute sense, but there is no doubt they are getting poorer relative to the rest of society, which is just as tragic and dangerous.

Even assuming the above, the probem is that being "poor" is not an immutable characteristic. At least not in this country. It can be changed.

Even assuming the above, the probem is that being "poor" is not an immutable characteristic. At least not in this country. It can be changed.

Don't something like 90-95% of Americans die in the same socio-economic class as they are born into?

The problem with arguing about happiness and dignity is that it's so subjective and it's basically impossible to do much about it. I love Vonnegut but you can't take him seriously when he claims that a fulfilling job and a loving circle of friends are a basic human right. People are always going to be envious and cruel and angry and so on and there will always be lots of unhappiness and dissatisfaction it's got nothing to do with society and everything to do with people.

I can't remember precisely who did the study, but I remember not that long ago some researcher discovering that the happiest societies in the world tend to be the ones that have the lowest expectations for themselves and their futures. Or, if that sounds harsh, the ones who do the best job of managing their expectations to within realistic confines.

I think his study found that Denmark was the happiest country in the world, but I don't know how extensive this research truly was.

Happiness is the difference between your reality and your expectations.

The poor may (or may not) be getting poorer in an absolute sense, but there is no doubt they are getting poorer relative to the rest of society, which is just as tragic and dangerous.

Yes, that's the assertion being made; it's not a reasonable one, IMO. It's neither "tragic" nor "dangerous." Where is there any evidence that inequality, rather than poverty itself, is a problem?

Happiness is the difference between your reality and your expectations.

Others, like Martin Seligman, might argue that ultimately, happiness knowing what your highest strengths are and deploying those in the service of something you believe is larger than you are. Sure, there's an amount of expectation management, but it seems like it's more about how confident you are that you can make a change in your life, financial or otherwise.

Happiness is a warm puppy.

The poor may (or may not) be getting poorer in an absolute sense, but there is no doubt they are getting poorer relative to the rest of society, which is just as tragic and dangerous.

But THERE WILL ALWAYS BE "POOR" if you measure against the rest of society. If their quality of life is increasing and length of life is increasing, I think society is doing a fine job. You will never eliminate people who are "poor".

So you believe wealthy people have some moral right to maintain their position high at the top of the societal period forever? That it's fine that people have vastly different opportunities based on the vagaries of birth? That's not liberty, that's serfdom.

So you believe wealthy people have some moral right to maintain their position high at the top of the societal period forever?

Which post are you responding to?

But THERE WILL ALWAYS BE "POOR" if you measure against the rest of society. If their quality of life is increasing and length of life is increasing, I think society is doing a fine job. You will never eliminate people who are "poor".

Maybe so. But I think everyone could agree that people deserve a fairly equal opportunity to fulfill their human potential. A society of vast wealth inequality makes that impossible.

Sorry, should have been more clear. David in 192.

A society of vast wealth inequality makes that impossible.

How?