Ahtman wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actually, capitalist social democracy is the system of governance that has the highest rate of upward social mobility so I don't know where you got that "false belief in a mystical meritocracy" part from.

Upward mobility in the US has been problematic for some time, and the question was why people would vote against their own interests, not "what is the best form of government overall". It is a similar reason to why people in the US constantly bitch about government officials, give them a horrible overall rating, but then keep sending the same people there over and over. I'm not sure how you got from "why do people vote against their own economic interests" to the non-existent "why is capitalist social democracy terrible" and is a bit of its own mystery. Also, in the US you have to go easy on the 'social' part, as that is often conflated with Communism.

The oligarchs feel free, and even entitled, to choose the direction of society in the name of a greater good, but somehow their policies seem mostly to make the oligarchs richer and more powerful. Meanwhile, once-prosperous middle-class communities, revolving around manufacturing industries that have now moved overseas, either sink into poverty or become gentrified homes for the lower-upper class. The middle class itself, meanwhile, is increasingly, in Kotkin's words, "proletarianized," with security vanishing and jobs moving downscale.

The oligarchs are assisted in their control by what Kotkin calls the "clerisy" class — an amalgam of academics, media and government employees who play the role that medieval clergy once played in legitimizing the powerful, and in implementing their policies while quelling resistance from the masses. The clerisy isn't as rich as the oligarchs, but it does pretty well for itself and is compensated in part by status, its positions allowing even its lower-paid members to feel superior to the hoi polloi.

Because it doesn't have to work in competitive industries, the clerisy favors regulations, land-use rules and environmental restrictions that make things worse for businesses — especially the small "yeoman" businesses that traditionally sustained much of the middle class — thus further hollowing out the middle of the income distribution. But the lower classes, sustained by government handouts and by rhetoric from the clerisy, provide enough votes to keep the machine running, at least for a while.


And as Radley Balko notes in the Washington Post, a thicket of petty regulation helps to keep the poor, poor. Traffic fines, fines for not using a city-approved garbage service, even parking tickets all provide revenue for municipal machines that support jobs for the clerisy — social workers, police, etc. — even as they make it harder for poor people to keep their heads above water, or find the kind of work that would let them rise above poverty.

It’s a change that’s been coming for 20 years. From World War II to the 1980s, according to data from the McKinsey Global Institute, it took roughly six months after GDP rebounded from a recession for employment to recovery fully. But in the 1990–91 recession and recovery, it took 15 months, and in 2001 it took 39 months. This time around, it’s taken 41 months–more than three years–to replace the jobs lost in the Great Recession. And while the quantity has come back, the quality hasn’t. The job market, as everyone knows, is extremely bifurcated: there are jobs for Ph.D.s and burger flippers but not enough in between. That’s a problem in an economy that’s made up chiefly of consumer spending. When the majority of people don’t have more money, they can’t spend more, and companies can’t create more jobs higher up the food chain. This backstory is laid out in an interim Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report cautioning that poor job creation and flat wages are “holding back a stronger recovery in consumer spending.” If this trend is left unchecked, we are looking at a generation that will be permanently less well off than their parents.

And we’re just getting started: consider the outcry in certain cities over companies like Zillow, Uber and Airbnb, which are fostering “creative destruction” in new sectors like real estate, transportation and hotels. McKinsey estimates that new technologies will put up to 140 million service jobs at risk in the next decade. Critics of this estimate say we’re underestimating the opportunities that will come with everyone having a smartphone. All I can say is, I hope so. What’s clear is that development isn’t yet reflected in stronger consumption or official economic statistics.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's what I think too.

The rich are justified as long as they actually contribute to the welfare of everyone else.

Recent history has seen the rich being rewarded more and more, which should lead to everyone else improving their living standards and so on.

It hasn't happened.

 Redbeard wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We have a minimum wage and we still saw domestic manufacturing shrink dramatically over the last several decades. Raising the minimum wage won't bring those jobs back and it actively incentivizes more outsourcing and automation by making both alternatives cheaper.

This is true, I'm with you here.

There is nothing the state can do to make it worthwhile for Apple to manufacture iphones in the US.

Really? Have you read the constitution lately? The Congress may enact tariffs. We enacted tariffs as recently as the eighties (maybe more recently, but I know about this one off the top of my head). Under Reagan, Harley-Davidson asked for a protective tariff in order to rebuild the domestic heavy-weight motorcycle industry in this country. Congress passed a tariff, Harley stayed in the US, rebuilt their business, and actually asked the government to take down the tariff early as they met their goals ahead of schedule.

Anyone who believes that our government cannot address outsourcing has not studied history. The issue isn't that we cannot, it is that our politicians are bought and paid for by the same companies who wish to outsource jobs. We offer tax incentives to countries that outsource jobs. You know what the state could do to make it worthwhile to manufacture in the US again? Offer tax incentives to do so, and punitive taxes for outsourcing. Don't tell me there's nothing we can do.

What's more, one of the big reasons it is cheaper to manufacture overseas, rather than here, is that we only enforce environmental and workplace safety regulations here. If we refused to allow companies to avoid these regulations by working in other companies, and required that all products sold in the US were manufactured in facilities that complied with US environmental and safety laws, it would cease to be cheaper to work overseas. The global labor market exists as it currently does because the people running the system profit from it this way. Not because it is inherently required to be this way.

And it's not just outsourcing, it's also automation. You say McDonalds would hire fewer people by using automated tellers (or whatever). That's fine - but there are different ways to address this issue than paying your employees starvation-level wages and claiming it's the only alternative.

Automation pretty much guarantees that there will be less demand for labour as time passes. And between breeding and immigration, there will be more people to do those fewer jobs. If you don't change the system, all this does is concentrate more wealth in the hands of those who own capital, and divide less wealth among an ever-increasing number of people. That's not a society I want to live in.

Instead, you can see what Europe is doing. Rather than give all the rewards of increase productivity to just a few, workers are paid more, and work fewer hours. Going from a standardized 5 day work-week to a 4 day work-week (with no change in annual salary) divides the benefit of increased productivity across the entire workforce. It immediately increases demand for labor by 20%.

Instead, the US has the fewest vacation days of all industrialized nations. We work people well over 40-hours/week, and insist that having an uber-wealthy upper class is admirable because those few people must have really earned it, and besides, I want to be one of them one day.

If Congress doubled the federal minimum wage tomorrow it would only exacerbate the very conditions you want it to ameliorate.

Ludicrous. Every time minimum wage has increased, we've seen increases in overall prosperity. Most recently, Seattle passed a $15/hour minimum wage. Did the city crumble? Did businesses flee, or inflict massive price hikes on their customers? No. Instead, businesses prospered as, remarkably, the customer base in the city suddenly had money to spend.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/


Seems fairly relevant to the discussion, as I've seen other articles recently expressing much the same sentiment:

For those who are work blocked, or don't wish to read it, some economists or political "activist" types did a study of a Wisconsin "Super Center" and determined that a single walmart store cost the Wisconsin tax payers' around 1 million dollars in welfare benefits.

 easysauce wrote:

would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think its more a case of Walmart hires a lot of people who live on welfare and not that working at Walmart turns you into a recipient of welfare.

if walmart vanished tommorow, would these people somehow not be on welfare?

 easysauce wrote:


would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think its more a case of Walmart hires a lot of people who live on welfare and not that working at Walmart turns you into a recipient of welfare.

Does it really matter which it is? To be on welfare you need to make under a certain amount. Walmart doesn't pay enough for people working there even at full time hours to live off welfare.

if walmart vanished tommorow, would these people somehow not be on welfare?

That's not even the wrong question, it's an utterly irrelevant question. No one is saying "get rid of walmart." We're saying "wow someone is working full time and still needs welfare. Something is wrong with this picture."

 Grey Templar wrote:


Why should working full time always mean you don't need welfare?

 Grey Templar wrote:
You were heavily implying that someone working full time shouldn't be on welfare.

 LordofHats wrote:

easysauce wrote:
would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?

Or would it be better off if walmart paid people enough they didn't need welfare? You're creating a false dichotomy.

 easysauce wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

easysauce wrote:
would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?

Or would it be better off if walmart paid people enough they didn't need welfare? You're creating a false dichotomy.

No, I am really not, the only false choice is the one you made, where the choice of "just pay them more" exists in a vacuum unrelated to economic realities.

easysauce wrote:
while it may be true that walmarts employees collect welfare benefits in higher proportions then say, people who work at professional or skilled trades level jobs, to presume that they collect these benefits as a direct result of walmart is a bit of a stretch.

if walmart vanished tommorow, would these people somehow not be on welfare?

would that town be better off with those people earning an income(and gaining all the taxes from that income, as well as the walmart itself) and welfare benefits, or with just those people getting welfare benefits?

hotsauceman1 wrote:I remember what my sociology Proff said recently
"You cant just throw money at poverty, Its a problem that is layered after years and years."
Then someone told me
"The war on poverty can never be won, just managed. Like the war on drugs, the war on crime and war on terrorism"
I personally thing both sides are looking at it wrong. Conservatives look on it as a moral failing of the poor, thinking them often lazy or some other stuff like that w/o looking at why some cant get work. While liberals look upon it that society is failing to provide for everyone, without realizing society cant provide for everyone.
Quite frankly, im tired of the "Living Wage" debate, Im just gonna watch the country fall

 Redbeard wrote:
[

It's all tied to the massive inequality in our society. When 1% of the people control 75% of the wealth, you can see that there's a lot of wealth that could be spread out a bit more and ensure that everyone was provided for.

 cincydooley wrote:
Remind me again why the wealth gained by Peter should be redistributed to Paul?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
[

It's all tied to the massive inequality in our society. When 1% of the people control 75% of the wealth, you can see that there's a lot of wealth that could be spread out a bit more and ensure that everyone was provided for.

Remind me again why the wealth gained by Peter should be redistributed to Paul?

 cincydooley wrote:
Remind me again why the wealth gained by Peter should be redistributed to Paul?

 Redbeard wrote:


The greatest redistribution of wealth already happened. The wealthy redistributed the middle class's money into their pockets. But now, when anyone mentions changing that, they sit and whine about how it's unfair to redistribute wealth. Of course they'd think that - they already did it, and want to keep what they stole.

 cincydooley wrote:
In the 1960s we also had an incredibly strong manufacturing industry, so that's a bit of a false positive.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Or they are operating under a false notion. Seriously, people like my grand parents, who are/were NEVER part of the 1% argue with me now over this very topic, and they always fall back on typical conservative notions of lazy people, trickle down economics, etc. So it's not just the wealthy who whine and moan about redistribution, the common man has been spoon fed bull gak for years, to where now, there are those who rail FOR that 1% and they are completely blind to how it negatively affects them.
.

 Smacks wrote:
I've never really understood how trickle down is supposed to work either. The whole idea of investing is to build your wealth, not diminish (i.e. share) it. Yes, the wealthy might invest their money, but after a certain period they will want that money back with interest. I don't see how the wealth of the 1% can be growing and trickling down at the same time. It should be called trickle up.

 Hordini wrote:
Super simplistic explanation, but I believe the root of the idea (whether you believe it or not) is that it's because the rich create businesses which in turn create jobs.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Super simplistic explanation, but I believe the root of the idea (whether you believe it or not) is that it's because the rich create businesses which in turn create jobs.

Which kind of brings us full circle to the topic at hand. A 'job' could mean anything. The people working in Chinese sweatshops have jobs. The people who worked in 1800s workhouses had jobs too. But these kind of jobs, and the economic environment that forces people into them is not desirable. Having a small number of people controlling wealth leaves everyone else open to exploitation. Initiatives such as minimum wage are designed to protect workers from exploitation.