On Apr 18, 12:38=A0pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2:29=A0pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
fr=
om
> > > >> 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
Worl=
d
> > > >> 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
prosper=
ous
> > > >> 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 =
the
> > > >> United States. In the 1970s, the top 1% income share is around 8%
i=
n
> > > >> both countries. The pattern of top income shares in the two
countri=
es
> > > >> 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
199=
8,
> > > >> 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
tha=
t.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > You might want to check some current stats on unions before you start
> > with that line of argument. =A0Unions have been declining in direct
> > pro****tion to the growth of the income share in the top 1%.
>
> > --
> > Taxes are not "punishment for success". =A0Nor are they "theft".
=A0Taxe=
s
> > are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
> > a shared socio-economic system.
>
> > "Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- Common Law maxim- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hatred of Unions is deeply embedded in U.S. culture, rougly since the
> time of Ronald Regan. =A0Notable for decertifying the air traffic
> controller's union with a stroke of his pen. =A0Way-to-go Ronnie.
>
> I think a lot of people are beginning to rethink the Regan presidency
> a bit. =A0Whether Michkael Gorbachev's Soviet Union was really an "evil
> empire" or just a nation in transition to social democracy is far from
> clear. =A0He was no Stalin. =A0And, the prosperity of the 1980's was
> largely bought at the cost of wars in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan,
> promoted and encouraged by the Regan Presidency: curiously, and
> possibly not coincidentally WE seem to be now involved in those exact
> same places, to our considerable cost.
>
> Unions can be corrupt. =A0They can be incompetent. =A0But, they do
promote=
> good wages for workers, which tends to be good for the economy. =A0And,
> without them, CEO's tend to steal whatever they can get their hands
> on. =A0As we can now see, on a daily basis. =A0Best to have a balance of
> powers: tends to neutralize the corruption a bit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Mr. Krauss,
I agree that unions are not generally viewed favorably today. If it is
true that the negative public profile of unions began approximately
around the time that President Reagan dismisseds the air traffic
controllers, I don't know that a causal link to the decline of unions
may be laid upon that event.
I don't know that the public was decidedly against the air traffic
controllers or their union. What President Reagan did was
controversial at the time, although his legal standing was solid.
My guess it that Americans have developed more of an apathy towards
unions than an actual hatred. I would say that amongst those with
manufacturing jobs and retail services jobs that unions continue to
sup****t the views of the workers. However, we have a lot more
professional services jobs today and the unions for whatever reason
have not successfully adjusted to the changes in the job market. There
are a few notable exceptions like the pilot's union. Nurse's are
unionized in some states, but I get the impression that unions aren't
too popular amongst Registered Nurses even where they are represented
by a union. I would hypothesize that this is simply due to the fact
that the unions have been unsuccessful in representing the interests
of professionals.
-solon fox
|
