Economics

[tussin]

Reagan didn't invent the concept of personal responsibility. There was, in fact, a much stronger emphasis on it pre-FDR when the social safety net was non-existent and our courts were more libertarian in their outlook. Had our elites not voluntarily moved off that position, we likely would have had some sort of revolution.

If your read of the current situation is "We need to allow corporations to shit on their employees even harder than they currently do," then there's probably no common ground to find. But if your objection is that any policy shift that seeks to materially improve the lives of wage earners will be self-defeating in its long-term effects on our markets, I'd argue two things: (1) first, that theory benefits those who are earning the most under the status quo, so it keeps getting parroted by market fundamentalist think tanks with very little evidence to support it; and (2) second, what evidence there is suggests the opposite. Our economy is driven primarily by consumer spending. The white space under the black line shows the disappearance of disposable income for most wage earners over the last 25 years:

It's simply unsustainable. If you are not actively working yourself out of a job by teaching your children how to support themselves, you're a shitty parent. If your political-economy extracts every last ounce from its working class and leaves nothing for most of them to build/ better themselves on, then you've got a shitty government.

Why is that graph the way it is? That graph suggests that strain on the middle class isn't due to companies "shitting on their employees." It's clear that it's because of particular buckets of increased costs, specifically health care and education.

Rising healthcare costs are a separate discussion that I'm not particularly well-equipped to give comprehensive recommendations on. But I'd argue that education costs can be lowered by actually decreasing government influence. If you privatize all student loans then enrollments in non-value add degrees will decrease as will tuition expenses.

 

[tussin]

American women are having fewer children than they want, and spending less time with their children than they want. Dual income households are obviously great for employers/ capitalists, because it doubles the size of the work force and suppresses labor costs, but it's clearly not in the best interests of wage earners and children. Waving it off due "women's choices" is just as disingenuous as citing "lack of personal responsibility" for why wage earners are under increasing pressure. Someone's preferences are getting consistently enshrined by policy makers, and it ain't the working class.

What are you suggesting with this point? That middle-class families actually don't want to have dual careers and women want to primarily stay-at-home? Perhaps that's true -- but it's certainly not the case with any of the women that are in my social circles.

I just don't see what you are practically getting at with this critique. Not to be flippant, but the 50s are gone and aren't coming back. Work = religion for our generation and we need to find a way to ensure societal stability given that reality.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It's not complicated. Americans in their 20s and 30s can't afford basic stuff today that their parents bought quite easily around the same age. That's how they know things are getting worse, and an army of bow-tied and white-paper toting shills from Mercatus aren't going to convince them that ACKSHUALLY they've got it so much better than they realize.

I just do not accept that it's that simple.

Compared to their parents, millennials are more educated and are entering the work force later (on average). Yes, they do have higher student loan debt, but those households that do have graduates, are making the same or better than their parents (location neutral).

Transportation is more expense. But how many people are going out their and buying that used car with 100K miles and fixing it up themselves? How many know how to do basic maintenance and do it at home with their friends or kids? Instead, people opt for a lease of a new car and cycle through every few years. The average life of someone holding onto a car is 7 years. According to the EPA, the average car is designed to last for 200K miles (double of that from 1980 BTW) and is driven ~15K per year. So, in effect, people are only getting half the value out of their purchase.

Housing is more expensive, for a variety of reasons. But how many local governments are in a rush to cap local prices when they rely on property taxes (and their increase) to fund ever mounting pension costs?

Yes women are working more, some willingly and some begrudgingly. Women are now more educated then men and Mill. women are 2X more likely to be the bigger breadwinner in a relationship.

There is just so much to this that I just think it's impossible to accurately paint with a broad brush. I also think given the circumstance of timing and life choices, it's far too early to wave our hands and say the system has failed my generation.

 

[Wild Bill]

Why is it the government’s responsibility to remedy the poor financial decisions of its citizens through regulation that causes adverse effects to the broader economy? Why not put more emphasis on (1)?

A sane nation would protect its citizens from usurers who have a knack for adversely effecting the broader economy wherever they're allowed to operate freely.

What are you suggesting with this point? That middle-class families actually don't want to have dual careers and women want to primarily stay-at-home? Perhaps that's true -- but it's certainly not the case with any of the women that are in my social circles.

I just don't see what you are practically getting at with this critique. Not to be flippant, but the 50s are gone and aren't coming back. Work = religion for our generation and we need to find a way to ensure societal stability given that reality.

In my experience, women prefer staying at home with children if it's financially feasible and doesn't decrease their standard of living much. I don't know too many women married to wealthy men grinding it out forty hours a week.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Why is that graph the way it is? That graph suggests that strain on the middle class isn't due to companies "shitting on their employees." It's clear that it's because of particular buckets of increased costs, specifically health care and education.

Rising healthcare costs are a separate discussion that I'm not particularly well-equipped to give comprehensive recommendations on. But I'd argue that education costs can be lowered by actually decreasing government influence. If you privatize all student loans then enrollments in non-value add degrees will decrease as will tuition expenses.

Not just that, but recognition of funding from the states and what is prohibiting funding in 2020 versus 40 years ago. Fact is, the cost education (like everything else) depends on where you live. If you live in Wyoming, sending your kid to the instate flagship will cost you $5K per year. If you live in Calif and send your get to instate flagship (Berkeley) it will cost $14K per year. Live in Illinois? Going to UofI in Champaign will set you back $15K per year. Going to University of Florida will cost you less than $7K per year.

Moreover, with the lack of state funding, universities are trying to attract students from out of state or internationally, which is expensive. Last I saw, the average public university now spends more on support staff (admissions, marketing, etc) than on actual professors. I believe the US is the only developed country where that is the case, with the exception of Luxembourg.

 

[Ndaccountant]

A sane nation would protect its citizens from usurers who have a knack for adversely effecting the broader economy wherever they're allowed to operate freely.




In my experience, women prefer staying at home with children if it's financially feasible and doesn't decrease their standard of living much. I don't know too many women married to wealthy men grinding it out forty hours a week.

My experience is that people would like to have one parent home, period, male or female. Ignoring the fact that women are now 40% of the time the major breadwinner is a problem. We need to get past the archaic view that it's women who stay home. That's why it's dumb to measure costs versus a males salary.

 

[Legacy]

The economic impact of birth control on education with its attendant costs and on career opportunities is significant. For the first time, women now outnumber men in medical school, for instance.

 

[Wild Bill]

My experience is that people would like to have one parent home, period, male or female. Ignoring the fact that women are now 40% of the time the major breadwinner is a problem. We need to get past the archaic view that it's women who stay home. That's why it's dumb to measure costs versus a males salary.

If we're only looking at it from the perspective of who can make more money, maybe you have a point. What about what's best for the child? I understand there are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking men and women are not equally equipped to be a full time parent to a child. Women have the advantage of thousands of years of evolution, and a slight increase in household income won't be enough to overcome nature. That's just one man's opinion.

 

[NorthDakota]

The economic impact of birth control on education with its attendant costs and on career opportunities is significant. For the first time, women now outnumber men in medical school, for instance.

...looking forward to all the bitter women who are upset they cant find a successful man to have children with.

But hey at least they'll have their diploma up on the wall.

 

[Irish#1]

Regardless of the numbers quoted there are so many variables one can use that there is no right answer.

The cost of a college education is spiraling out of control because colleges are in an arms race with each other to attract more students. They build more facilities and incorporate more technology to make them attractive to the potential student. People blame those who provide the student loans and not the schools (Loan practices are another story). Enrollment has declined for a seven years in a row. That doesn't reflect kids are staying home and going to the local school, so they don't incur anymore expense than they need to. You're already in a hole before you start your career which cuts into disposable income right away. Having said that, I was a products of the 50's and 60's. My dad worked a union factory job at RCA and my mom worked part time until she passed in '71. We didn't have disposable income.

Yet, I'm still a believer that a lot of what we have today is because many don't have the patience to save and put off major purchases until they could afford it or have a decent down payment to make payments reasonable. Our area is going through a housing boom and I would guess better than 80% of the houses are two story. Why so many big houses? Because there is a demand for larger houses, not a need for larger houses.

 

[Irish#1]

My experience is that people would like to have one parent home, period, male or female. Ignoring the fact that women are now 40% of the time the major breadwinner is a problem. We need to get past the archaic view that it's women who stay home. That's why it's dumb to measure costs versus a males salary.

If we're only looking at it from the perspective of who can make more money, maybe you have a point. What about what's best for the child? I understand there are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking men and women are not equally equipped to be a full time parent to a child. Women have the advantage of thousands of years of evolution, and a slight increase in household income won't be enough to overcome nature. That's just one man's opinion.

There is an inherent trait called the maternal instinct. Much of that is developed during the bond a woman and a baby develop during that nine months of pregnancy and is typically reinforced the first couple of months after birth while the mother is home. Especially if the mother breast feeds. I'm all for woman working and earning as much as the next person if they want to, but I think as a society we would be better off if it was the mother staying home and not the father.

 

[NDBoiler]

Regardless of the numbers quoted there are so many variables one can use that there is no right answer.

The cost of a college education is spiraling out of control because colleges are in an arms race with each other to attract more students. They build more facilities and incorporate more technology to make them attractive to the potential student. People blame those who provide the student loans and not the schools (Loan practices are another story). Enrollment has declined for a seven years in a row. That doesn't reflect kids are staying home and going to the local school, so they don't incur anymore expense than they need to. You're already in a hole before you start your career which cuts into disposable income right away. Having said that, I was a products of the 50's and 60's. My dad worked a union factory job at RCA and my mom worked part time until she passed in '71. We didn't have disposable income.

Yet, I'm still a believer that a lot of what we have today is because many don't have the patience to save and put off major purchases until they could afford it or have a decent down payment to make payments reasonable. Our area is going through a housing boom and I would guess better than 80% of the houses are two story. Why so many big houses? Because there is a demand for larger houses, not a need for larger houses.

You said what I was trying to say much better than I did in regards to the cultural attitude towards saving (still love ya Whiskey, even though we don’t see eye to eye on this )

I would like add to the discussion about college tuition costs. Yes they are out of control (I think there’s something like an average tuition increase of 7% a year, which obviously outpaces inflation). I do think the a major cause for these runaway costs is that there is a lack of incentive to control them while there are federally-insured student loans available (I think I mentioned this a while back in this thread, sorry for the repeat). If you took that safety net away from the lenders, it would be reasonable to expect that lending scrutiny would increase, as the lenders would actually be carrying the risk, not the taxpayers. Currently, colleges see that they are virtually guaranteed students via the virtually guaranteed loans. If their customer base is reduced, prices should come down as well.

It is also important to remember that you can get a great education by going to a more affordable (I.e. in state public) school. A lot of people seem to get more concerned with the degree on the wall as opposed to what they do with the knowledge they have gained. Nearly half of the Fortune 500 CEOs went to in state public universities. It’s really up to you to determine what you are willing to do to succeed.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I saw a thought provoking tweet that was trying to gauge the country's view of billionaires, taking their money, and what the salary cap would be on said people. Where do we draw the line on who's "too rich?" Because this was Twitter, the comments were laughable, at best. But premise of the Tweet is what I found interesting.

I personally struggle with the idea that people are "too rich." Money, as an object, has always been amoral. What those with money do (or don't do) is what leave them open to judgement.

One or largest studies done on the wealthy and ultra-wealthy show that almost all of those individuals are self-made. It also showed that even those who inherited at least portion of wealth fell into the category or 1) widowed spouse 2) children who took over parent's company 3) children to took their inheritance and grew that money to new levels.

I'm aware of the injustice that our current system allows; few of those who can have so much versus so many who can possess so little. It doesn't make sense. I'm just not sure vilifying those at the top is worthwhile. It seems counterproductive to me.

Thoughts on this?

 

[koonja]

I saw a thought provoking tweet that was trying to gauge the country's view of billionaires, taking their money, and what the salary cap would be on said people. Where do we draw the line on who's "too rich?" Because this was Twitter, the comments were laughable, at best. But premise of the Tweet is what I found interesting.

I personally struggle with the idea that people are "too rich." Money, as an object, has always been amoral. What those with money do (or don't do) is what leave them open to judgement.

One or largest studies done on the wealthy and ultra-wealthy show that almost all of those individuals are self-made. It also showed that even those who inherited at least portion of wealth fell into the category or 1) widowed spouse 2) children who took over parent's company 3) children to took their inheritance and grew that money to new levels.

I'm aware of the injustice that our current system allows; few of those who can have so much versus so many who can possess so little. It doesn't make sense. I'm just not sure vilifying those at the top is worthwhile. It seems counterproductive to me.

Thoughts on this?

If we're a "free" country, let people be free to create their own money. That money comes back around anyway in the form of other goods/services that get purchased, and allow others to make money. Billionaires spend hundreds of millions on the rest of the US market. This is GOOD.

And this applies to companies, too. Why should a company only be allowed to do "so well"?

A company can only succeed when people choose to value their products/services and pay money for them.

Inherently, every company is good for US consumers, because it gives them choices they can either value (buy) or not value (ignore).

Leave the market alone. It sorts itself out at an individual level, and company level.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

No thoughts on multi-billionaires having enough disposable income to literally buy an election? Pay off politicians for political gain? etc

 

[koonja]

No thoughts on multi-billionaires having enough disposable income to literally buy an election? Pay off politicians for political gain? etc

Buying an election/having a cap on campaign spending I could get behind. That's a unique situation where you can literally hide another candidate by outspending and that's not fair given the design of how America campaings these days.

Paying off politicians shouldn't be allowed. To me that sounds like somewhere between shady and outright illegal.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Buying an election/having a cap on campaign spending I could get behind. That's a unique situation where you can literally hide another candidate by outspending and that's not fair given the design of how America campaings these days.

Paying off politicians shouldn't be allowed. To me that sounds like somewhere between shady and outright illegal.

Thought you were all about freedom. Now you're going to tell a billionaire what they can and can't spend their money on?

 

[Irish#1]

I saw a thought provoking tweet that was trying to gauge the country's view of billionaires, taking their money, and what the salary cap would be on said people. Where do we draw the line on who's "too rich?" Because this was Twitter, the comments were laughable, at best. But premise of the Tweet is what I found interesting.

I personally struggle with the idea that people are "too rich." Money, as an object, has always been amoral. What those with money do (or don't do) is what leave them open to judgement.

One or largest studies done on the wealthy and ultra-wealthy show that almost all of those individuals are self-made. It also showed that even those who inherited at least portion of wealth fell into the category or 1) widowed spouse 2) children who took over parent's company 3) children to took their inheritance and grew that money to new levels.

I'm aware of the injustice that our current system allows; few of those who can have so much versus so many who can possess so little. It doesn't make sense. I'm just not sure vilifying those at the top is worthwhile. It seems counterproductive to me.

Thoughts on this?

I really don't have an axe to grind with those that are filthy rich. There are some companies where executive level compensation seems to be exoberbent, but most of them are working seven days a week and more than 8-5.

No thoughts on multi-billionaires having enough disposable income to literally buy an election? Pay off politicians for political gain? etc

Jump over to the Democratic primary thread.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Why is that graph the way it is? That graph suggests that strain on the middle class isn't due to companies "shitting on their employees." It's clear that it's because of particular buckets of increased costs, specifically health care and education.

Rising healthcare costs are a separate discussion that I'm not particularly well-equipped to give comprehensive recommendations on. But I'd argue that education costs can be lowered by actually decreasing government influence. If you privatize all student loans then enrollments in non-value add degrees will decrease as will tuition expenses.

Do you agree it's a problem that the costs of basics have increased to the point that the average American family can no longer cover them on a single salary? Assuming so, who do you support politically that might be able to do something about it?

What are you suggesting with this point? That middle-class families actually don't want to have dual careers and women want to primarily stay-at-home? Perhaps that's true -- but it's certainly not the case with any of the women that are in my social circles.

I'm suggesting that, for both moral and existential reasons, our politics ought to be centered on what's best for babies, women and the elderly; but ours is pretty close to the opposite right now. Only 28% of married mothers want to be working full-time, but more than double that actually are:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NB: Only 28% of married moms wish to work full-time: <a href="https://t.co/DEe7gFwpTU">https://t.co/DEe7gFwpTU</a> <a href="https://t.co/W3zD0E6u8y">https://t.co/W3zD0E6u8y</a> <a href="https://t.co/14EH5EJETI">pic.twitter.com/14EH5EJETI</a></p>— Brad Wilcox (@WilcoxNMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/WilcoxNMP/status/1230716257084665857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Policies designed to prop up single earner households, to restrict the labor supply, to discourage corporations from treating labor like just another commodity, to increase the availability of flexible part-time jobs, etc. would all be helpful. But they have no political representation in Washington because the 1% opposes them.

I just don't see what you are practically getting at with this critique. Not to be flippant, but the 50s are gone and aren't coming back. Work = religion for our generation and we need to find a way to ensure societal stability given that reality.

It's not about going back to the social structures of the 50s, which had their own problems. But that was a golden age for American labor, which laid the foundation for a broad-based prosperity which has since been largely eroded by McKinseyite management consultants and neoliberal economic policies. Our politics will continue to polarize and become more extreme until we figure out a way for the average American to feel like he's building something for his family instead of just running a rat race and using credit cards just to keep himself afloat sometimes.

Compared to their parents, millennials are more educated and are entering the work force later (on average). Yes, they do have higher student loan debt, but those households that do have graduates, are making the same or better than their parents (location neutral).

Much of that is illusory because: (1) tons of jobs that didn't require 4y degree 10-20 years ago are now demanding one, simply because they can; and (2) if you compare the average millennial's buying power versus his parents, he's definitely worse off. Where his parents were getting married, buying their first home and having their first child in their mid-20s, most millennials can't afford for to do that until their early 30s now (if they're lucky). Some of this is caused by cultural factors as well, so it's not purely economic, but it's all connected. Atomized individuals who are accustomed to defining their identities by what they consume are easy to market to, easy to control as dependent wage-earners, and easy to manipulate politically.

Transportation is more expense. But how many people are going out their and buying that used car with 100K miles and fixing it up themselves? How many know how to do basic maintenance and do it at home with their friends or kids? Instead, people opt for a lease of a new car and cycle through every few years. The average life of someone holding onto a car is 7 years. According to the EPA, the average car is designed to last for 200K miles (double of that from 1980 BTW) and is driven ~15K per year. So, in effect, people are only getting half the value out of their purchase.

That's all by design, to profit car dealers and manufacturers at the expense of consumers. Not long ago most men learned basic automotive maintenance from their dads, and could do the most common repairs in their own garages. Now every car requires a special proprietary tool to interface with the onboard computers and diagnose the issue. It's not like Americans woke up one day and thought, "You know what? I'm tired of saving money by being self-sufficient. I'd rather buy a car that's a black f*cking box and can only be repaired by a highly paid expert. I'll just have to hope he doesn't try to rip me off!" That was all done by greedy corporations, and our government let them do it.

Housing is more expensive, for a variety of reasons. But how many local governments are in a rush to cap local prices when they rely on property taxes (and their increase) to fund ever mounting pension costs?

Figure it out? A government that can't even provide affordable housing for its people because there's no solution that the plutocrats find appealing deserves to be burned to the ground.

Yes women are working more, some willingly and some begrudgingly. Women are now more educated then men and Mill. women are 2X more likely to be the bigger breadwinner in a relationship.

That's not a good thing! The vast majority of women want to marry and have children. In an economy where men are less educated and have worse employment prospects across the board, there are far too few eligible bachelors to go around, marriage rates drop and everyone suffers (especially women who have to struggle as single moms, and children who have to grow up without a dad).

There is just so much to this that I just think it's impossible to accurately paint with a broad brush. I also think given the circumstance of timing and life choices, it's far too early to wave our hands and say the system has failed my generation.

A society that can't be bothered to reproduce itself reliably is signing its own death warrant. I'm just sick to death of people parroting Mercatus talking points about how ours is the best of all possible political-economies (despite mounting evidence to the contrary), and that reforms are simply impossible because a few people are making disgusting amounts of money off the status quo. You secure stable family formation first via widespread access to affordable basics, and then you can allow the oligarchs to chase the profit motive within certain boundaries. But we've allowed ourselves to become governed by a ruthlessly self-interested merchant class that recognizes no form of noblesse oblige (and has absolutely garbage fucking taste, but that's another topic); that's got to change.

 

[Bluto]

Do you agree it's a problem that the costs of basics have increased to the point that the average American family can no longer cover them on a single salary? Assuming so, who do you support politically that might be able to do something about it?



I'm suggesting that, for both moral and existential reasons, our politics ought to be centered on what's best for babies, women and the elderly; but ours is pretty close to the opposite right now. Only 28% of married mothers want to be working full-time, but more than double that actually are:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NB: Only 28% of married moms wish to work full-time: <a href="https://t.co/DEe7gFwpTU">https://t.co/DEe7gFwpTU</a> <a href="https://t.co/W3zD0E6u8y">https://t.co/W3zD0E6u8y</a> <a href="https://t.co/14EH5EJETI">pic.twitter.com/14EH5EJETI</a></p>— Brad Wilcox (@WilcoxNMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/WilcoxNMP/status/1230716257084665857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Policies designed to prop up single earner households, to restrict the labor supply, to discourage corporations from treating labor like just another commodity, to increase the availability of flexible part-time jobs, etc. would all be helpful. But they have no political representation in Washington because the 1% opposes them.



It's not about going back to the social structures of the 50s, which had their own problems. But that was a golden age for American labor, which laid the foundation for a broad-based prosperity which has since been largely eroded by McKinseyite management consultants and neoliberal economic policies. Our politics will continue to polarize and become more extreme until we figure out a way for the average American to feel like he's building something for his family instead of just running a rat race and using credit cards just to keep himself afloat sometimes.



Much of that is illusory because: (1) tons of jobs that didn't require 4y degree 10-20 years ago are now demanding one, simply because they can; and (2) if you compare the average millennial's buying power versus his parents, he's definitely worse off. Where his parents were getting married, buying their first home and having their first child in their mid-20s, most millennials can't afford for to do that until their early 30s now (if they're lucky). Some of this is caused by cultural factors as well, so it's not purely economic, but it's all connected. Atomized individuals who are accustomed to defining their identities by what they consume are easy to market to, easy to control as dependent wage-earners, and easy to manipulate politically.



That's all by design, to profit car dealers and manufacturers at the expense of consumers. Not long ago most men learned basic automotive maintenance from their dads, and could do the most common repairs in their own garages. Now every car requires a special proprietary tool to interface with the onboard computers and diagnose the issue. It's not like Americans woke up one day and thought, "You know what? I'm tired of saving money by being self-sufficient. I'd rather buy a car that's a black f*cking box and can only be repaired by a highly paid expert. I'll just have to hope he doesn't try to rip me off!" That was all done by greedy corporations, and our government let them do it.



Figure it out? A government that can't even provide affordable housing for its people because there's no solution that the plutocrats find appealing deserves to be burned to the ground.



That's not a good thing! The vast majority of women want to marry and have children. In an economy where men are less educated and have worse employment prospects across the board, there are far too few eligible bachelors to go around, marriage rates drop and everyone suffers (especially women who have to struggle as single moms, and children who have to grow up without a dad).



A society that can't be bothered to reproduce itself reliably is signing its own death warrant. I'm just sick to death of people parroting Mercatus talking points about how ours is the best of all possible political-economies (despite mounting evidence to the contrary), and that reforms are simply impossible because a few people are making disgusting amounts of money off the status quo. You secure stable family formation first via widespread access to affordable basics, and then you can allow the oligarchs to chase the profit motive within certain boundaries. But we've allowed ourselves to become governed by a ruthlessly self-interested merchant class that recognizes no form of noblesse oblige (and has absolutely garbage fucking taste, but that's another topic); that's got to change.

I think this is the first post I’ve seen that succinctly summarizes my domestic political views..

 

[NorthDakota]

I think this is the first post I’ve seen that succinctly summarizes my domestic political views..

Whiskey does a great job at issue spotting and locating ideal outcomes...

The issue is how to get there...

 

[Bluto]

Whiskey does a great job at issue spotting and locating ideal outcomes...

The issue is how to get there...

Well given the trajectory of the Reagan Revolution Neoliberal ideas that have steered this nation sine the mid 70’s we are on the path to becoming remarkably similar to Mexico in our socio economic makeup (oligarchs, small beurocratic and white collar managerial class and then everyone else), electoral system (huge sums of money creating systemic corruption throughout the process) and the nations infrastructure (ie it sucks balls). This is a drum Chomsky has been beating for quite sometime now. Makes the build the wall stuff even that much more ridiculous than it already is.

Now, there are plenty of models of all kinds of societies that function better than ours on a variety of levels. How about we stop the rah, rah we’re number one baloney for a minute and give some of those ideas a shot?

 

[NorthDakota]

Well given the trajectory of the Reagan Revolution Neoliberal ideas that have steered this nation sine the mid 70’s we are on the path to becoming remarkably similar to Mexico in our socio economic makeup (oligarchs, small beurocratic and white collar managerial class and then everyone else), electoral system (huge sums of money creating systemic corruption throughout the process) and the nations infrastructure (ie it sucks balls). This is a drum Chomsky has been beating for quite sometime now. Makes the build the wall stuff even that much more ridiculous than it already is.

Now, there are plenty of models of all kinds of societies that function better than ours on a variety of levels. How about we stop the rah, rah we’re number one baloney for a minute and give some of those ideas a shot?

I'm not sure any other society has the same pros and cons of the United States (racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic diversity).

I personally think the United States should be a loose confederation at most. Very difficult to set national policies with a place like this.

 

[Bluto]

I'm not sure any other society has the same pros and cons of the United States (racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic diversity).

I personally think the United States should be a loose confederation at most. Very difficult to set national policies with a place like this.

That does make some sense. In a scenario like that it would seem California would become the 800 lb. gorilla given the States geographic location (3 large west coast ports, border with Mexico) and overall economic size and makeup. With that in mind it would be able to assert more influence over more “conservative” less populated/economically viable States. Would be comparable to Germany’s position in the EU. I believe many conservatives talk a good game about “hating” California without thinking through the idea of what removing the 5th or so largest economy in the world would do to overall GDP, available revenue and the economy in general. Interesting idea none the less.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The chart about women is relatively narrow. Based on married mothers, with children under 18. Across time periods, the age of which women are married and having kids is different. That obviously impacts the numbers, especially given the issues that exist in the work place that are impacting women (aside from child care). For example, in 1994, 72% of women had a child by age 29, 80% by 34 and 83% by 44. In 2014, those numbers were 61% by 29, 77% by 34 and 85% by 44. More over, in 1994 31% of women aged 40-44 that had kids were never married. That has now risen to 55%. That increase though, wasn't necessarily education driven. Only 5% of Master's or higher degrees were never married mothers compared with over 25% in 2014. Those with a BA in 1994 were at 12% vs 32% in 2014. Motherhood rates have risen dramatically among white never-married women in their early 40s. In 2014, 37% were mothers, compared with just 13% two decades ago.

We can talk about ideals (people marry and stay married, kids grow up in 2 parent household, etc), but we shouldn't confuse the subject. In fact, I read the graph to say that 68% want to be working in some form or fashion, while it was reported that 70% are working. Now, full time vs part time is no trivial difference. But, none of that data suggests that people are clamoring for a return to the single parent working home. Moreover, the data that has come out over the years seems to suggest that the age of the children has the most impact on the amount of work women are wanting.

 

[Wild Bill]

Market is doing well today.

 

[Irish#1]

Thanks China.

 

[Legacy]

The chart about women is relatively narrow. Based on married mothers, with children under 18. Across time periods, the age of which women are married and having kids is different. That obviously impacts the numbers, especially given the issues that exist in the work place that are impacting women (aside from child care). For example, in 1994, 72% of women had a child by age 29, 80% by 34 and 83% by 44. In 2014, those numbers were 61% by 29, 77% by 34 and 85% by 44. More over, in 1994 31% of women aged 40-44 that had kids were never married. That has now risen to 55%. That increase though, wasn't necessarily education driven. Only 5% of Master's or higher degrees were never married mothers compared with over 25% in 2014. Those with a BA in 1994 were at 12% vs 32% in 2014. Motherhood rates have risen dramatically among white never-married women in their early 40s. In 2014, 37% were mothers, compared with just 13% two decades ago.

We can talk about ideals (people marry and stay married, kids grow up in 2 parent household, etc), but we shouldn't confuse the subject. In fact, I read the graph to say that 68% want to be working in some form or fashion, while it was reported that 70% are working. Now, full time vs part time is no trivial difference. But, none of that data suggests that people are clamoring for a return to the single parent working home. Moreover, the data that has come out over the years seems to suggest that the age of the children has the most impact on the amount of work women are wanting.

Good info. In perspective, those women with higher degrees, with the assumption that they may have higher debt, and are in the workforce, still marry and have children, though that may be later in life. While some occupations do have glass ceilings, using a profession like physicians and midlevel practitioners can be more representative of achievements.

More than 60 percent of physicians under the age of 35 are female, while just under 40 percent are male. In the next-highest age bracket (35 to 44 years of age), women are the dominant gender as well – just slightly – coming in at 51.5 percent. In general, males prefer specialty practices while female providers may dominate primary care. Of pharmacists, sixty percent of them are women. We can't return to the male breadwinner and stay at home mom model without decimating our health care system. It's very unlikely that married parents at this time will advise their daughters not to succeed in school and pursue a career if they wish.

All of that does not mean we should be distracted from policies that focus on family and values as well as policies that support them, including equal rights and pay for equivalent work. When we no longer need a Womens March on Washington to emphasize changes that are necessary, we will have advanced as a society.

 

[Legacy]

Do you agree it's a problem that the costs of basics have increased to the point that the average American family can no longer cover them on a single salary? Assuming so, who do you support politically that might be able to do something about it?



I'm suggesting that, for both moral and existential reasons, our politics ought to be centered on what's best for babies, women and the elderly; but ours is pretty close to the opposite right now. Only 28% of married mothers want to be working full-time, but more than double that actually are:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NB: Only 28% of married moms wish to work full-time: <a href="https://t.co/DEe7gFwpTU">https://t.co/DEe7gFwpTU</a> <a href="https://t.co/W3zD0E6u8y">https://t.co/W3zD0E6u8y</a> <a href="https://t.co/14EH5EJETI">pic.twitter.com/14EH5EJETI</a></p>— Brad Wilcox (@WilcoxNMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/WilcoxNMP/status/1230716257084665857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Policies designed to prop up single earner households, to restrict the labor supply, to discourage corporations from treating labor like just another commodity, to increase the availability of flexible part-time jobs, etc. would all be helpful. But they have no political representation in Washington because the 1% opposes them.



It's not about going back to the social structures of the 50s, which had their own problems. But that was a golden age for American labor, which laid the foundation for a broad-based prosperity which has since been largely eroded by McKinseyite management consultants and neoliberal economic policies. Our politics will continue to polarize and become more extreme until we figure out a way for the average American to feel like he's building something for his family instead of just running a rat race and using credit cards just to keep himself afloat sometimes.



Much of that is illusory because: (1) tons of jobs that didn't require 4y degree 10-20 years ago are now demanding one, simply because they can; and (2) if you compare the average millennial's buying power versus his parents, he's definitely worse off. Where his parents were getting married, buying their first home and having their first child in their mid-20s, most millennials can't afford for to do that until their early 30s now (if they're lucky). Some of this is caused by cultural factors as well, so it's not purely economic, but it's all connected. Atomized individuals who are accustomed to defining their identities by what they consume are easy to market to, easy to control as dependent wage-earners, and easy to manipulate politically.



That's all by design, to profit car dealers and manufacturers at the expense of consumers. Not long ago most men learned basic automotive maintenance from their dads, and could do the most common repairs in their own garages. Now every car requires a special proprietary tool to interface with the onboard computers and diagnose the issue. It's not like Americans woke up one day and thought, "You know what? I'm tired of saving money by being self-sufficient. I'd rather buy a car that's a black f*cking box and can only be repaired by a highly paid expert. I'll just have to hope he doesn't try to rip me off!" That was all done by greedy corporations, and our government let them do it.



Figure it out? A government that can't even provide affordable housing for its people because there's no solution that the plutocrats find appealing deserves to be burned to the ground.



That's not a good thing! The vast majority of women want to marry and have children. In an economy where men are less educated and have worse employment prospects across the board, there are far too few eligible bachelors to go around, marriage rates drop and everyone suffers (especially women who have to struggle as single moms, and children who have to grow up without a dad).



A society that can't be bothered to reproduce itself reliably is signing its own death warrant. I'm just sick to death of people parroting Mercatus talking points about how ours is the best of all possible political-economies (despite mounting evidence to the contrary), and that reforms are simply impossible because a few people are making disgusting amounts of money off the status quo. You secure stable family formation first via widespread access to affordable basics, and then you can allow the oligarchs to chase the profit motive within certain boundaries. But we've allowed ourselves to become governed by a ruthlessly self-interested merchant class that recognizes no form of noblesse oblige (and has absolutely garbage fucking taste, but that's another topic); that's got to change.

Well-said.

 

[wizards8507]

Market is doing well today.

Just put $10,000 into an ETF. Should make about $300 on the correction tomorrow.