By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - DO REAGAN ECONOMICS WORK? ?

bannedagain on 12 August 2011
HappySqurriel said:
IseeLight said:
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:


The economy we have today is one, where if you can own assets, these asset will appreciate in value, also earn additional income, compounding what has been there previously.  And with lower tax rates, this compounding effect grows larger and larger.  The owning of assets that generate income has little to do with anyone's own competency or skills. In addition to this though is a scale effect that happens in regards to the area of intellectual properties and being networked, and globalization.  Jobs shift to all over the globe, keeping wages down, unless you are a top player, who is at the core of some intellectual property in demand, that has superior branding behind it.  If you are there, then the end result is you see large scale returns.  In short, be in the top 20% and you make a killing.  If you are anywhere else (bottom 60%) and you end up falling further behind.

Even then, it isn't about the skills or going to college.  It is about being in a place where you don't get buried via globalization and can have your job outsourced.  A system where the "bottom 60%" ends up falling way behind means an end to the middle class, and is primed for there to be uprisings happening.

No, it is 100% based on skill differences ...

The person who enters into Engineering, Computer Science or some other in-demand field in University earns significantly more than th person who studies English Literature or Women's Studies; and all university graduates have a much lower unemployment rate and far greater earning potential than those who only have a high-school education or less. There are similar patterns in trade schools, which are far more accessable that University being that you can get into a co-op or internship program that helps pay your tuition, the tuition is far lower in price, and the education is much shorter.

We have known since the 1970s that a high-school education simply wasn't enough for the average person to have a decent career, and that being a high-school drop-out was almost ensuring you would be a "failure", and yet our education system has chugged along producing the same mediocre results (or worse) completely oblivious to the destruction they would cause.

The super rich are mostly just inheritants though, and didn't actually do anything.


http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

For the sake of brevity, I didn’t cite the research behind the statement. But since many of you have asked, and we aim to please here at the Wealth Report, here are my three main data points:

1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.





Around the Network
bannedagain on 12 August 2011
Allfreedom99 said:
bannedagain said:

Some facts about the reagan economics or the so called give your money to the rich and it will trickle down. This type of political belief has been going on since the 1980's. So here is your numbers. From the 1950 - 1980 (that did not practice these policies) The income growth for the bottom 90% of america's pay went up 75% or about $13,222. However from 1980 to 2008 the bottom 90% pay grew only by 1% or $303. Remember that reagan economics was put into place in 1980. So before reagan 75% after 1%. So what happens with the upper .01% or the very wealthy. Well from 1950 - 1980 there growth was 80% or $2,419,070. About even growth with the bottom 90%. After reagan 1980-2008 there growth grew by 403% or 21,904,288. SO thanks to reagan economics we get a 1% increase and the very wealthy get a 403% increase. Is this unbalanced?

This should add to your fury. The average median wage, single worker makes 26,000 and pay 6,084 in taxes which comes out to 23.4 % of there pay. The average of the top 400, income is 344,590,000 and payed in 58,176,761 which adds to 16.9% in taxes. So we make less and pay more they make more and pay less. WHAT? Republicans want to give them another tax break. So reagan economics does not work. So there is the numbers that Republicans do not want you to see.

 

So does it work? NO

First of all where are your references for this information? You need to site your facts or else you could be saying whatever you want. Also, then if trickle down economics does not work, what do you suggest as its replacement. You are showing what you think the problem is but are not giving any solution. So all you are doing is complaining about it. Therefore, what is your solution system?

Where are you getting those tax percentage numbers? . So where are you getting your figures?

They are all right. you are most likely a republican.

I won't waste my time.  Loop holes included guy.  its in the archives.  It happened it's not what you think they should be. These where the numbers. The numbers are spot on. It's simple common since reagonomics don't work.

You put taxes back to what they where before reagan.  Here you need to learn a lot more then you know I will give you that.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/



HappySqurriel on 12 August 2011
bannedagain said:


OK heres your problem. More people work in the house hold now. If you are talking about the individual workers, The pay rates have dropped. This is a common republican bull proof. That makes no proof at all  because more people work in the house hold. Not just the dad Like it used to be.

 

Second obama followed all republican ideals and thats why the democratic base is pissed off at him. So it is still republican ideals and also congress spend and make the rules for the most part. When dems had control, republicans did a record number of filibusters on bills that would have made this economy work. They don't want it to work because they want to destroy obama even if it means putting the economy in the dumps.

 

Since the labor force participation rate peaked at (roughly) 66%/67% at the end of Regan's administration, and has fallen since 1998,  how could more people be working per household on average? If, of the last 4 presidents, the labour force grew the most under Regan and wages grew the most under Regan, what does that tell you about Regan Economics?

 

On the topic of Obama, things will get worse under Obama because the core problem is still not being addressed; that the bottom 60% of adults of working age don't have the skills to be effective in our economy. When you have a world where a company can set up shop in China and hire unskilled workers for $1 to $2 per hour, why would they set up shop in the United States and hire similarly unskilled workers at $20 to $75 per hour (including benefits)?



bannedagain on 12 August 2011
HappySqurriel said:
bannedagain said:


OK heres your problem. More people work in the house hold now. If you are talking about the individual workers, The pay rates have dropped. This is a common republican bull proof. That makes no proof at all  because more people work in the house hold. Not just the dad Like it used to be.

 

Second obama followed all republican ideals and thats why the democratic base is pissed off at him. So it is still republican ideals and also congress spend and make the rules for the most part. When dems had control, republicans did a record number of filibusters on bills that would have made this economy work. They don't want it to work because they want to destroy obama even if it means putting the economy in the dumps.

 

Since the labor force participation rate peaked at (roughly) 66%/67% at the end of Regan's administration, and has fallen since 1998,  how could more people be working per household on average? If, of the last 4 presidents, the labour force grew the most under Regan and wages grew the most under Regan, what does that tell you about Regan Economics?

 

On the topic of Obama, things will get worse under Obama because the core problem is still not being addressed; that the bottom 60% of adults of working age don't have the skills to be effective in our economy. When you have a world where a company can set up shop in China and hire unskilled workers for $1 to $2 per hour, why would they set up shop in the United States and hire similarly unskilled workers at $20 to $75 per hour (including benefits)?

It got better because reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times and put us in worse dept then all the presidents from washington to Carter. So it was all debt that made people work. SO it was a show.  Plus your map don't prove sh-t. Wages grew for the upper 10% not the lower. Sp the rich go more, Exactly what I said. You just proved my point.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/search?keys=the%20secret%20republicans%20don%27t%20want%20you%20to%20know



badgenome on 12 August 2011
bannedagain said:


OK heres your problem. More people work in the house hold now. If you are talking about the individual workers, The pay rates have dropped. This is a common republican bull proof. That makes no proof at all  because more people work in the house hold. Not just the dad Like it used to be.

Wrong. The labor participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1983.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 12 August 2011
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:


The economy we have today is one, where if you can own assets, these asset will appreciate in value, also earn additional income, compounding what has been there previously.  And with lower tax rates, this compounding effect grows larger and larger.  The owning of assets that generate income has little to do with anyone's own competency or skills. In addition to this though is a scale effect that happens in regards to the area of intellectual properties and being networked, and globalization.  Jobs shift to all over the globe, keeping wages down, unless you are a top player, who is at the core of some intellectual property in demand, that has superior branding behind it.  If you are there, then the end result is you see large scale returns.  In short, be in the top 20% and you make a killing.  If you are anywhere else (bottom 60%) and you end up falling further behind.

Even then, it isn't about the skills or going to college.  It is about being in a place where you don't get buried via globalization and can have your job outsourced.  A system where the "bottom 60%" ends up falling way behind means an end to the middle class, and is primed for there to be uprisings happening.

No, it is 100% based on skill differences ...

The person who enters into Engineering, Computer Science or some other in-demand field in University earns significantly more than th person who studies English Literature or Women's Studies; and all university graduates have a much lower unemployment rate and far greater earning potential than those who only have a high-school education or less. There are similar patterns in trade schools, which are far more accessable that University being that you can get into a co-op or internship program that helps pay your tuition, the tuition is far lower in price, and the education is much shorter.

We have known since the 1970s that a high-school education simply wasn't enough for the average person to have a decent career, and that being a high-school drop-out was almost ensuring you would be a "failure", and yet our education system has chugged along producing the same mediocre results (or worse) completely oblivious to the destruction they would cause.

 

The difference due to globalization now is that, if it can be offshored, your job isn't safe at all.  Some tech and highly trained skills, which can't be offshored, retain their earnings.  But, for stuff in IT, which can be offshored (Iifted up and transferred over the Internet). there is currently wage depression going on.  Take computer programmers.

http://careerplanning.about.com/od/occupations/p/comp_programmer.htm

Job Outlook - Computer Programmer:

Employment of computer programmers, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts, is expected to decline slowly through 2018.

It isn't 100% skill differential.  It is supply and demand and how many workers are needed in an area, and how difficult it is to find individuals for that work.  If there isn't as much demand for workers, then the wages will be lower, if the supply is high or high enough.  Contrast that with IT work that can't be offshored, and you have a different animal, or other professions, say like nursing.

 

It is also important to dig deeper into how people are compensated:

http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/22/income-inequality-a-deeper-look/

The current system has shifted benefits to owning capital as a means of generating income, as opposed to wages.  With globalization afoot, wages will have downward pressure on them.


Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we're really saying anything that is significantly different ...

We're both (effectively) saying that wages are not growing for the bottom 60% of Americans because they lack in-demand skills and are being eaten alive by globalization.

Personally, I would lay the blame on an education system that "educates" children for 13 years and they graduate into a world where the only jobs they're qualified to do can be done equally well by an uneducated child in a third world country.



bannedagain on 12 August 2011


HappySqurriel on 12 August 2011
bannedagain said:

It got better because reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times and put us in worse dept then all the presidents from washington to Carter. So it all debt that made people work. SO it was a show.

Nice strawman, do you actually ever defend any of your points?



HappySqurriel on 12 August 2011
bannedagain said:
badgenome said:
bannedagain said:


OK heres your problem. More people work in the house hold now. If you are talking about the individual workers, The pay rates have dropped. This is a common republican bull proof. That makes no proof at all  because more people work in the house hold. Not just the dad Like it used to be.

Wrong. The labor participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1983.


Does that change that more people are working in the house, NO!.  That just says less people are working. Plus more people are devorced.


People being divorced or single parent families works against your argument because they are counted as two separate households and (therefore) it would mean that less people were working per household.



badgenome on 12 August 2011
bannedagain said:
badgenome said:
bannedagain said:


OK heres your problem. More people work in the house hold now. If you are talking about the individual workers, The pay rates have dropped. This is a common republican bull proof. That makes no proof at all  because more people work in the house hold. Not just the dad Like it used to be.

Wrong. The labor participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1983.


Does that change that more people are working in the house, NO!.  That just says less people are working. Plus more people are devorced.

So more people are divorced, but more people are also working in the household now? That sounds a bit contradictory.