On Apr 16, 10:45=A0am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:19=A0pm, Michael Scheltgen <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > > On Apr 15, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >>http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/berkeleysympo2.pdf
>
> > >> "Figure 2, Panel A plots the top 1% income share in France and the
> > >> United States since 1913.20 The patterns are strikingly parallel
from=
> > >> the beginning of the century up to the 1970s. The shares were very
> > >> high, around 18-20% in both countries, at the eve of the first
World
> > >> War.21 The top 1% share is highest in the United States in 1929, at
> > >> the onset of the Great Depression. The top 1% income share falls in
> > >> both countries during the Great Depression, and especially during
> > >> World War II. The fall during World War II is more pronounced in
> > >> France, which suffered much more directly from the shock of the war
> > >> than the United States.By the end of World War II, top 1% income
> > >> shares are around 11% in the United States and 9% in France, about
> > >> only 50% of their pre-World War I level. Strikingly, in the
prosperou=
s
> > >> years and decades following World War II, top income shares do not
> > >> come back to their high levels of the pre-war period, but remain
> > >> relatively stable in France or decrease further (and =A0slowly) in
th=
e
> > >> United States. In the 1970s, the top 1% income share is around 8%
in
> > >> both countries. The pattern of top income shares in the two
countries=
> > >> displays a striking contrast over the last 25 years. While the top
1%=
> > >> income share in France has remained stable around 8% up to year
1998,=
> > >> the top 1% income share has increased dramatically and is around
17%
> > >> in 2000, almost as high as in 1913."
>
> > >> We have entered a new "guilded age" in the U.S. with huge income
> > >> disparities. =A0 As a direct consequence, we are entering a new
> > >> Depression.
>
> > > Actually, that's "gilded age", not "guilded age". =A0Sorry about
that.=
>
> > It could be "guilded age" too when you consider all the unions and
> > professional organizations that extort money by virtue of their
> > government enforced privileges.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You might be talking about Europe. =A0You certainly aren't talking about
> the contem****ary U.S. =A0Unions are very weak here, now. =A0 Which is
why
> one of the reasons we are entering a new Depression. =A0No one is making
> enough money to pay their debts. =A010 trillion dollars in mortgage
> loans about to be "written off". =A0No banks, no money, no business, no
> economy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whoa, that's pretty weak; one of the reasons we are entering a
depression is because unions aren't strong enough? Why is that;
because supposedly people would earn more if there were better union
representation?
A recession is defined as two quarters of negative economic growth,
and we have yet to see even one quarter even though we certainly
expect to see negative growth in 1st quarter 2008, We still need to
wait for second quarter 2008 before we can even call it a recession.
We are very probably at the beginning of a recession, but a recession
is a far cry from a depression. To label this as a depression at this
stage is to really disrespect the significance of past depressions.
You don't need to be reminded that this recession was sparked by the
subprime mortgage crisis.
I do not accept that unionization equals higher pay. Unions were
famous for workers rights, safety in the workplace, coverage for
healthcare and pensions, reduced working hours. Unquestionably, unions
have negotiated pay increases, but it isn't clear that pay is lower
today for the lack of unions. To state the lack of unions is the cause
for our current economic woe is truly a misstatement as even the most
optimistic wage increases would not have forstalled the subprime
mortgage crisis. Those loans were bad the day they were written.
Furthermore, the landscape of the American economy has changed and the
unions have themselves to blame for not keeping up. In 1970, 25% of
Americans held manufacturing jobs. By 2005, that number had declined
to less than 10%. <http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=3D4462685>. Unions haven't understood the changing needs of the
services industry, though they have established small foot holds; the
American worker today is more likely to change jobs and they don't
face the same workplace threats. Unions could do a lot of good,but
they have lost touch with the workers who view them as more of an
annoyance and another tax on their paychecks.
-solon fox
|
