I keep pretty well up with the history of the U.S. and something that stands out, there hasn't been this level of inequality since 1940s. I'm not speaking from statistics or numbers, I'm talking about from what I see. The 70s weren't good, to be sure, but they were nothing like now. In the late 90s there was the dot com tech bubble where many middle classers were living on the edge of avarice, in big brand new houses in cookie cutter suburban developments. Then finally there was the housing bubble. A lot of these middle class people were flipping houses with no end in sight. In a lot of regions there was limited amounts of living area so it wasn't like there was a pressure release valve. There was a limited supply of something and then real estate speculation made that supply even scarcer. Something was amiss by 2005 but the alarm didn't go off till 2009. Then there was "The Great Recession", which was a protracted one. Some have compared it to a "Lost Decade". The recession is now pretty much past, but what has been left in its wake, things in the country have been permanently altered. Some think that the country's real underlying problems weren't caused by the housing bubble, that that was just a side show. I am though still noticing that banks are STILL holding onto foreclosed properties. They don't want to sell because as soon as they do they'll have to write it off as a loss (the actual price isn't worth what the bank says it's worth). Some real estate flippers are trying to sell but they still can't recover the amount of money they put into the home. Some of them have been holding on unhappily for 6 years, having to rent out the place, even though that rent doesn't justify the cost of the house. So it's obvious that the effects of the housing bubble are still lingering, at least to some extent. What we're also going to have is a lost generation of Millenials, who graduated during the worst time and couldn't get their foot on the ladder of anything. They'll be passed by by the next generation. This generation is going to be more likely to live in poverty without a career, life and dreams on hold. (It will be a wonder if they have any children. But don't worry there's plenty more from other parts of the world to take their places) Something else I've noticed, there's a lot more tiny businesses and street peddlers. This is reminiscent of how things are in the third world. That will make shopping much more fun, but it comes on the back of these people who didn't have other opportunities. Maybe a couple of them will make it big. (Remember Karl Karcher or Dave Thomas?) Yeah, I remember in the 90s when everything was becoming corporate and big chains were taking over because people had better things to do than start low level businesses.
So then why not end liberal policies that cause inequality: 1) liberals destroyed the family creating millions of poor single Mom's unsuited for work and equality 2) liberal unions drove 30 million jobs off shore creating 30 million inequal unemployed workers 3) highest liberal corporate tax rate in world drove 20 million jobs off shore and created 20 million inequal 4) liberal deficits encourage China and Japan to buy our debt rather than our products with their dollars thus unemploying 5 million and creating 5 million more inequals 5) Obamacare prevents businesses from hiring and growing thus recessing 20% of our economy creating more inequals 6) Liberal union war on our schools has destroyed them rendering many of our kids unfit for work and equality!! 7)) Liberal war on religion has left many Americans aimless and without drive or ambition to work and thus inequal. Liberals support minimum wage making it illegal to hire many who then cant achieve equality 9) liberals invited in 20 million illegals to take our jobs thus making equality impossible for 20 million.
Even orthodox economics predicts gains from minimum wages, given monopsonistic labour markets are norm. The problem with inequality is clear: we have been fed economic fibs to enable policy to be corrupted by neoliberalism. It is of little surprise that the countries which have most embraced neo-liberalism, typically those under the banner of Anglo-Saxon Capitalism, have the highest problems of inefficient inequalities and social immobility.
sadly the two working family model worked great at first as it meant a extra income, then the greedy corps made two incomes a requirement to live for most by raising prices and not wages so now single people have a much harder time starting out in life then in the past and families no longer get the boost they used too from two working this also means of course children are less supervised then in the past as both parents working
the republican tax plans main purpose is to give the rich a huge tax cut by ending the inheritance tax, they will throw scarps at the 99% and then later raise that back up, but not add back in the inheritance tax
The rich pay all the taxes so if you want to increase freedom from govt of course you have to lower their taxes. Crippling the rich, our most productive people, is obviously counter productive and compounded when liberal govt uses the stolen money to cripple the poor with even more welfare?.
it is a perfect liberal lie to suggest economists agree: Jeff Clemens, an assistant professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego and a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. If you believe employers are squeezing more and more output from their payrolls without fair compensation, then a minimum wage hike would be for you. But if you believe technological advances and low-skill, low-wage competition from overseas have limited the number of minimum wage jobs in the U.S. and prevented employers from doling out raises, then a minimum wage bump might not make sense and could ultimately hurt low-skill workers' employment opportunities. Clemens' own research suggests the series of minimum wage hikes enacted in the mid-2000s contributed substantially to the number of low-skill jobs lost during and around the Great Recession. But he says there are compelling bodies of evidence on both sides of the spectrum. https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...will-a-minimum-wage-hike-help-or-hurt-workers
it's happened, what more evidence do you need, the average household income of Americans rose with two working members of the family, back then that was a big boom for families, todays it's a requirement for most
Two problems with this statement. First, you use the liberal tag. I'm not a liberal. Second, your reference to fibbing only informs me that you do not understand how supply and demand is applied to labour markets. For minimum wages to necessarily be bad we would need perfect competition to hold. Drop any of those assumptions and monopsonistic power is nearly always derived (i.e. firms face an upward sloping labor supply curve such that they have wage making power). For example, see job search analysis where we take into account imperfect information about job opportunities. This has been a vital part of modern analysis as it provides the economist with the means to explain how wage distributions, independent of human capital criteria, develop. And the impact of job search? Monopsonistic power. The minimum wage then can increase wages and employment. Its certainly becomes part of eliminating market failure.
