The inflation adjusted mean income of the bottom 90% has decreased by 8%??? Can you post your source?
Are you intentionally playing these infantile semantics games and intentionally mis-characterizing my posts? It certainly appears so to me.
Okay, so I'm looking at cencus data (https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/) In the spreadsheet "Table H-3 Mean Household Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent", I see the following figures for mean household income. Bottom Fifth 1981 Income (2014 dollars) $11,499 2014 Income $11,676 2% increase Second Fifth 1981 - $28,643 2014 - $31,087 9% increase Middle Fifth 1981 - $47,450 2014 - $54,041 14% increase Fourth Fifth 1981 - $70,731 2014 - $87,834 24% increase Top Fifth 1981 - $126,347 2014 - $194,053 54% increase So contrary to your claims, the bottom 90% are NOT getting poorer. Since the "trickle down revolution" every quintile has seen growth in its real median income as measured in 2014 dollars.
I can see you are intentionally playing your silly semantic games and sophomoric intentional mis-characterization of my posts. This I've noticed is a regular theme for you. I never said that real income of the bottom 90% decreased or that they were getting poorer. What I stated was: "... since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution the bottom 90% has seen their share of the nation's income decrease from 65% to 50% which been redistributed to the richest instead." Median incomes (including all income) increased only 8% from 1979 to 2012. Compare: Family median income 2012 dollars http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2012/F06AR_2012.xls Year - income 2012 62,241 1979 57,734 1953 31,929 In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 81%. In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 8%. http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 126.4% In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 137.9% http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls So therefore, mathematically, since the incomes of the richest have skyrocketed, the median income of the bottom 90% has increased less than 8%. The bottom 90% has not shared in the economic growth they've helped create since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.
No, not really. Since 1981, the lowest fifth has increased 2%, the second fifth 9%, the middle fifth 14%, and the fourth fifth 24%. And the top fifth, half of which falls into your 90%, has increased 54%.
Real income numbers may rise but that does not indicate that benefit from economic growth is shared is any sort of equitable manner. Real income growth does not indicate that buying power is maintained. Since 1981 the buying power of median income earners has declined enormously. In 1981 the average home price was about the same as median annual income. The average new auto price was close to the median monthly income. These days the average home price is 5 times annual median income, and the average new auto price is 8 times monthly median income. The only way income can be accurately compared over a long term is through buying power in the economy. Income distribution as a percentage of GDP is a far better indicator of that than simple income measures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKNNFaf3T-U Watch this video, and start changing that % around, it is possible...
Well, no, mathematically, if you are getting dramatic increases at the fringes, and you take them out, your median number decreases. So it's going to be less than 8%.
I'm just using the figures provided by the census. Since 1981, the average household income of the lowest fifth has increased 2%, the second fifth 9%, the middle fifth 14%, and the fourth fifth 24%. And the top fifth, half of which falls into your 90%, has increased 54%.
You've repeatedly cited these figures. I've already addressed them. Repeatedly re-posting the same thing over and over doesn't make it more credible. Nor does it explain how my statement is inaccurate. My post was about median figures. You are posting data on various quintiles. Which demonstrates again that you don't understand the what a median is.
Dear gurus of political forum, powers of influence. I may have understood why you did not like the video, possibly because it doesn't seem plausible to build such an entity. Here's version 2.0 - - a business model to make it clear. It's certainly colossal amounts of work, but it is achievable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxVEfBFgTtM
"The power of the people" and the "Voice of the people" demonstrates that this guy is a moron. We have anti-people members of government funded by the wealthy such as "anti-union" (anti-organized labor) Republicans in the US that have far more political power than the People of the United States. If the people had any power in the economy it would only be through organized labor but per capita union membership at it's lowest point since the Great Depression and we have Republicans to blame for that.
Ok, my friend, here we go. On a purely basic level, your lost. I don't mind being called a moron, but being called a moron and missing the point....I mean really Shiva_TD you could have at least asked for more information, rather than making assumptions which have no place be, ill clarify: a) First of all my exceptional friend, im not talking about the US, im talking about the world... b) You have a good argument about "per capita union membership..." but still you are missing the point... c) Yes I accept the level of corruption and greed that exists in governments, and yes you are still missing the bloody point... Here is the point: You create a framework where people leave their opinion, then the body (organization) which receives this information, uses it to directly question leadership on an international level (in international environments) not on a national level, no one will care and the outcome will be as you said it would... Now if you make it on an international level, its different, people around the world will be AWARE of who is really the bad guy. Because now, we only have media telling us who is good or bad, we have no body that tells us the rational of the situation and the reasoning behind external politics of countries... And yes, AWARENESS is key to change. AWARENESS will get more people questioning - questioning actions rather than authority (at least initially). This is the rational of this framework (mechanism), and yes, if nurtured, over time can become the voice of the people... that's the point (even if, primarily nothing will change) - overtime, eventually, as more people question and express their dissatisfaction this voice will grow stronger, thus making this entity (body) stronger, which could ultimately, actually accommodate positive changes in the world... I am a dreamer, just like those before me, im the rebel who is criticized, because my dreams are irrational and naive; fortunately you are wrong, and this is achievable... yes achievable even in our 21st century world of greed and power. PS: there has been no empire that hasn't fallen, eventually, due to greed and power, and it seems history will remain that way for years to come.
I never referred to you or implied you're a moron. That's reserved for the idiot in the video. So let's see. We have 194 countries all being run by those serving their own self-interests and no organization exists that people that are basically ignorant of economic principles are going submit generally stupid questions to that will be presented to the leaders of these countries which, in turn, will laugh and ignore them. Do I have that about right? And that's somehow magically going to create AWARENESS for people that don't even spend enough time to understand basic economic principles? Seriously? Is that's what's being proposed?
And why is it that unions are dying? Unions themselves are corrupt and loosing willful members. I believe unions have their place as just another part of a free market as long as they are not given power by the government. Corporations and unions have no business funding campaigns or petitioning the government. They should not be bailout as what happened with GM and others. While they can be a viable arbiter for better pay and work conditions, they should also suffer the defeat of bankrupting companies when they exceed their worthiness. Union membership should be completely voluntary and businesses should be able to hire non union workers along side them.
There was a time when organized crime (e.g. the Mafia) was involved in the unions. Organized crime used union funds to finance their investments and also for the purpose of extortion. This was correctly identified as corruption but those days ended about 45 years ago with a crackdown by the FBI on organized crime. Today the claims that unions are corrupt is based upon the 1950's and 1960's when organized crime was involved in the unions but it's really a myth today based upon right-wing propaganda. By analogy it was like building the case that Iraq had WMD's in 2002-2003 based upon intelligence from the 1980's when Iraq did have WMD programs ignoring the fact that the WMD's and production facilities were destroyed in 1991. For the unions to fulfill their place in a free market system they must be powerful enough to effectively negotiate mutually agreeable compensation packages. Unions are the positive force on compensation while the market is a negative force on compensation so there must be a balance of power. Due to legislation predominately at the state level the unions have lost the power necessary to negotiate mutually agreeable contracts with the owners/management of enterprise. We need to restore the powers of the unions so that they can successfully negotiate with the enterprise which relies on market forces. There must be a balance of power but that balance has been lost due to union-busting legislation. This expresses a disagreement with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. We can point out though that while corporations can basically spend as much as they want the unions are highly limited as to how much they can spend on funding political activities. The unions did not benefit from the bailouts of GM or Chrysler as their contracts were effectively voided by the bankruptcy proceedings in both cases. Unions never seek to bankrupt any enterprise. They have the same goals of the owners when it comes to a healthy and profitable enterprise which is the foundation for the voluntary contracts between the unions and the owners/management of enterprise. No one is being forced to join a union although paying union dues (that funds the employee services provided for by the union) can be a condition of employment based upon the voluntary contract between the union and the enterprise. In point of fact when a union is voted in by the workers none of the workers are required to actually join the union and those that don't never have to pay any union dues. Those that never join are exempted from ever joining or paying any union dues. Only if the management agrees to a "closed shop" does the payment of union dues because mandatory but that is only for new hires to the enterprise. Of course no one is ever forced to work for a union shop and they only do so voluntarily. An enterprise can employ non-union workers if it never voluntarily chooses to have a "closed" union shop. Where some legislation crosses the line is by taking the "closed shop" off the table for unions with "right to work laws" that nullify this voluntary condition of contract between the union and the owners/managment of enterprise. "Right to Work Laws" violate the principles of contract where mutually agreeable contracts can be voluntarily entered into between the union and the enterprise.
You just proved marxism is wrong. You made the CHOICE to pay more. No one forced you. Therefore, you had an edge, and a supply of good workers. If the government FORCED these wages on ALL companies, then it would not work, would it? It's the creative CHOICE of the free market that allows companies to thrive. To come up with better ways to improve a product or service.
Are you suggesting that GM's legacy benefits were not bailed out by Americans? All I've seen from u ions is that they demand more and concede nothing. This is why GM should have gone bankrupt.
As I understand it the union contracts had to be renegotiated under the bankruptcy so there are no legacy benefits. It wasn't the unions that caused the failures of GM and Chrysler. It was the drop in demand for new cars from 18 million to only 9 million and they were unprepared to dramatically cut production in half. As we know Ford, that also uses union labor, weathered the economic downturn because they were preparted to dramatically reduce production based upon demand.
Seems to me that when a company goes through a significant recession, cutting expenses is essential, including labor and legacy cost. And, GM's legacy liabilities were a growing problem before the recession. Unions seem to think that companies are cash cows that will sustain milk forever. One small Union brought down the Wonder Bread factory here in Tulsa. I think it brought down Hostess.
