"God" Bless American Capitalism!! (aka Greed and Inequality)

whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
edited June 2011 in A Moving Train
Your thoughts?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... record-low

Workers’ share of national income plummets to record low
By Zachary Roth Tue Jun 14, 12:37 pm ET

Over the last decade, the share of U.S. national income taken home by workers has plummeted to a record low.

Check out the chart below [CLICK ON LINK FOR CHART], compiled by the Labor Department, and posted this week by conservative writer David Frum. It shows that the decline began with the brief recession that followed 9/11 in 2001. But it continued even as the economy picked up again, and got even worse once the Great Recession hit. In the weak recovery since then, workers' share of income just kept on falling.

Why are workers taking home such a reduced share of the pie? Opinions differ, but many experts think that the trend has to do with a number of factors, including a decline in the bargaining power of labor, and increased competition from foreign workers. Similarly, over the last year or so, U.S. companies have made record profits, while unemployment has stayed high and wages have barely risen.

The chart jibes with other data, which show that since the 1980s, income for the richest 1 percent of Americans has exploded, while hardly budging at all for everyone else.

Still, there's little sense that either Obama administration or Congress plan to do much about this growing inequality. Indeed, any serious action to boost the economy and cut unemployment now seems to be off the table.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    shrinkingworkers.jpg
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    1) Why is the chart indexed to 2005?
    2) If it's a share (%), why index it at all?
    3) As we all know, NI has decreased since 2005 because we went into recession, so I don't understand why this really matters. NI = W + R+ i + PR. So, rental income, interest or profits could be higher as a relative portion of National Income. And since, even national income fell... the wage portion has fallen by a lot too. This could simply mean a good amount of really, really rich people were laid off, pushing down the "W" in the equation. This certainly has not much to do with the middle class or poor. They wouldn't affect the contribution to W as much as a person making more.
    4) This certainly is also not an argument for "bargaining power of labor".
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • The Wall Street elite are doing just fine under a quasi-Socialist like Obama, too. Don't forget that.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    nothing socialist about america!

    :lol:
  • ParachuteParachute Posts: 409
    Asinine headline on this thread.

    Didn't read it. Don't care.
  • polaris_x wrote:
    nothing socialist about america!

    :lol:

    I know which side of the fence you're on and you're right in your assessment.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • Parachute wrote:
    Asinine headline on this thread.

    Didn't read it. Don't care.

    Nice.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    edited June 2011
    The Wall Street elite are doing just fine under a quasi-Socialist like Obama, too. Don't forget that.

    Yes. I am well aware. Where did I say that they weren't? Why does everything get turned into a right/left thing?
    I am well aware that when Obama took office the Dow was at approx. 6500, and it has nearly doubled: 12,800 in April. CEOs are making record bonuses on top of their tens of millions of dollars in salaries. Wall Street is thriving.

    The point of this post was to facilitate discussion and get people's thoughts on what is the clear inequality of wealth distribution in this country. You cannot argue with the fact that the few hold a majority of the wealth in this country and it is getting even more imbalanced. I used to work on Wall St. and 2 of my friends from high school are still there and are millionaires at 32. They still feel that the place is a cesspool. They see greed, backstabbing, and unethical behavior every day. This is what the system has bred.
    Post edited by whygohome on
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    Parachute wrote:
    Asinine headline on this thread.

    Didn't read it. Don't care.

    It must be, because you don't agree with it.
    And, your response is exactly what I expected; thank you for that.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Capitalism is great and all, but it needs to be regulated or it will just keep fucking itself over.


    I think every system has its flaws as human beings are full of flaws, but I wouldn't be against socialism.


    Wasn't the U.S. founded on a system that was closer to socialism?
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    inlet13 wrote:
    1) Why is the chart indexed to 2005?
    2) If it's a share (%), why index it at all?
    3) As we all know, NI has decreased since 2005 because we went into recession, so I don't understand why this really matters. NI = W + R+ i + PR. So, rental income, interest or profits could be higher as a relative portion of National Income. And since, even national income fell... the wage portion has fallen by a lot too. This could simply mean a good amount of really, really rich people were laid off, pushing down the "W" in the equation. This certainly has not much to do with the middle class or poor. They wouldn't affect the contribution to W as much as a person making more.
    4) This certainly is also not an argument for "bargaining power of labor".
    ...
    Please... define these variables:
    W = Wealth?
    R = ?
    i = intrests or income?
    PR = PRofits?
    ...
    As for your other questions... I would check the sources (U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics) and ask them why it is indexed to 2005. Because, we don't know.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • ParachuteParachute Posts: 409
    Gob wrote:
    Capitalism is great and all, but it needs to be regulated or it will just keep fucking itself over.


    I think every system has its flaws as human beings are full of flaws, but I wouldn't be against socialism.


    Wasn't the U.S. founded on a system that was closer to socialism?


    "I wouldn't be opposed to socialism."

    and

    "How was this country founded again?"


    Typical non-thinker, begging to be ruled.

    This country is 51% morons, and I say we're all fucked.
  • markin ballmarkin ball Posts: 1,075
    Cosmo wrote:
    shrinkingworkers.jpg

    Sure there were peaks and valleys but notice how the major downward trend started in the 80's?
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Look at the same statistics of the overall world instead of America and I think you'll find that basically all of us in the US are very well off compared to the rest of our fellow humans.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Sign In or Register to comment.