@Dodgerific the problem with that is every dollar you tax you put into government, you take it out of private sector. It might not sound sexy, but wealthy should not be taxed
I think theres good evidence that letting the free market rip is the better way to a strong middle class again, i just dont agree with some of analysis of the conditions of the average worker. I think that his argument about the increase in benefits is more than countered by the price hike in the housing market (which has not been corrected for yet but should after Alt-A and Option-Arm mortgages trash the market in the next few years). We take different roads to the same conclusion.
wow. A blatant corporate attempt to brainwash the masses into thinking that their lives have improved over the last 30 years! Pretending that practically all of the wealth gained over the last 30 years HASN'T gone to the richest of the rich in this country. The twisting of facts, and the hiding of other facts, in this video is amazing, and quite masterfully done. And, judging by the number of likes, it's working. Pretty sad, but gotta hand it to these guys: masters of propoganda
@trueconservatie33 Ron Paul is a fine guy, but his economic policies are stupid. first, his whole "gold standard" thing. He thinks that we should have something to "back" our money instead of the govt. giving value to paper money. But he fails to understand that we do the same thing to gold. Gold only has value because we say it does. Same thing with paper money that has nothing to back it.
@caffingdu check out Peter Schiff was right on youtube, and he was his economic adviser in 2008. and it takes too long to answer your question, but watch What About Money Causes Economic Crises on youtube by schiff, it will answer every thing you stated about gold standard and monetary policies. Watch it, you will be impressed
@caffingdu Yes because we all know the cell phones, computers, internet, cars, medicine, video games, and nearly everything else the middle class uses, buys or consumes have not improved greatly over 30 years.
@kev3d But these things have gotten much cheaper. So they may be able to afford computers, internet, etc because they're so cheap, yet still not able to afford rent. And you mention medicine as something that has improved, and it has. But that is an example of something that has actually RISEN in price, and now many middle class Americans CAN'T afford important things, like health care.
@caffingdu Have you ever wondered why things like technology get cheaper and better and things like housing gets more expensive? This is largely due to government intervention. Have you ever noticed that places with the strongest rent-control laws, such as New York or San Francisco have housing shortages and extremely high rent? Likewise healthcare is made far more expensive by the slow and inefficient FDA among other factors.
@kev3d Your argument doesn't hold up, especially when comparing our healthcare costs to other nations. I don't think that anyone can argue that the United States interferes in healthcare more than, say, Canada or the UK. Yet both of these nations spend MUCH less on health care than the United States.
@caffingdu First of all, the UK is going broke and it's healthcare system is a behemoth and not a particularly well functioning one, especially if you are old or in a hurry. Second, the US DOES interfere in healthcare a great deal; roughly half of all healthcare dollars spent are from the government; with no downward pressure, costs continue to rise. Third, the US conducts more medical research than other nations which means other nations save on development costs.
@The US does intefere with healthcare, I am not saying it doesn't. In fact, the place where it interferes the most (with the elderly with Medicare) is the place where healthcare seems to function the best. And, by the way, you argue that the UK is going broke (but what about Canada?), but no one would argue that it is BECAUSE of its health care system. I mean, despite the US not even giving universal coverage, the UK still spends much less on healthcare as a percentage of GDP.
@caffingdu Canada was going broke until it made large cuts to government expenditures in the 90s. Medicare seems to be the place where medicine functions the best? You don't know many old people do you? Yes, the UK is going broke because of all entitlements, not just NHS, but that is a big part of it. It is true the US spends more per head, but this is partly because far more is developed in the US.
@kev3d I do know some elderly people. I do not know ONE that wants their Medicare traded in for a privatized system. That, and the polling stats are behind. Every single poll shows that seniors don't want Medicare defunded or taken away. Medicare is one of the most successful govt programs in history, and that some people can deny its success is quite amazing to me.
@caffingdu No kidding. Drug addicts don't want their drugs taken away. Welfare recipients don't want their welfare taken away. Like any pyramid scheme, the first few tiers do fine. The first recipients of Medicare and Social Security got a great deal because they got out of it much more than they paid in, but the nation is going bankrupt, primarily due to entitlement spending. You can only rob Peter to pay Paul for so long.
@MrHamncheez too much to give in a 500 character post, but I'll do my best. First, he mentions these other price inflation indexes. While he may prefer these indexes which show rising income among the middle class, the CPI is the most respected index. And even the other indexes show a small growth, especially when compared to how the rich have seen their own income grow, and he conveniently hides those stats (the top 1%'s income has increased almost 300% over the last 30 years!!)
@caffingdu "The CPI is the most respected index." I happen to have a degree in Economics, and the fact of that matter is that it is not. They all are unique, and depending on the problem at hand different ones are better than others. But that is beside the point. Who cares how much the "rich" have grown in their income? The rich will always be well off. I care about the poorest of the poor. The "poor" are better off now then they have ever been.
@caffingdu Actually the income gap was higher in the 1920s, but so what? Virtually the only time the "rich" get rich through unfair means is when the government steps in with laws for our "protection" but instead prices the "little guy" out of the market. Walmart can afford to hire lawyers to sort our the many many land use laws and permits. Mom and Pop often cannot. So if there is any unfairness, again, the source is the government, not free markets.
@kev3d again, your argument does not hold up. Your own example of a time when the wealth gap was huge was during the 1920s, a time when every economist agrees was a time of DE-regulation and letting the market run wild. The 1980s to 2000s is another prime example. It's actually quite amazing how history repeats itself. Just like the 1920s, there was a boom time in which only the rich benefited (and benefited GREATLY), and then a big crash.
@caffingdu You clearly do not understand the cause of the great depression, and the roaring twenties, were an economic dynamo for average americans too. Deregulation works. It was government meddling on the part of Hoover and Roosevelt that caused the great depression through too many interventionist policies, among them; a 1/3 decline in the total money supply, dragging out the depression for over a decade by some measures.
@kev3d Hoover DEREGULATED the market. After the stock market crashed, Hoover explicitly said that he would not meddle in the market, claiming everything would sort itself out. Once it was clear that the market would NOT sort itself out, Hoover started to pass too-little-too-late legislation. Roosevelt came in and led an albeit long recovery. But his reforms were the foundation of a strong economy that would lead to the most prosperous decades of the nation (despite very heavy taxes).
@caffingdu I love income gaps. The greater the income gap, the better off the poor in a society are. Income levels are bounded only on one side. This means that any growth will create a higher variance, or "gap". Higher variance means greater growth has taken place. If one guy has $10, another has $100, then a 10% increase will mean one guy has $11 and other $110. The "gap" has grown, but both are better off. The gap was $90, now its $99, BUT THE POOR GUY IS STILL BETTER OFF
@MrHamncheez This is just not true. And the whole point many progressives make is the fact that the rich have gotten richer, but the poor have NOT made any growth in income.
And look at Canada. Canada has a higher per-capita GDP than the US, yet still has much more economic equality than the US. Not to mention, many studies have shown that the US has fallen significantly in class mobility. Sure, some level of income gap is fine. But it has gotten WAY out of control today.
@caffingdu unfortunately, Canada does not have a higher GDP per capita. Three of the major groups that try and measure GDP per capita (IMF, CIA world Factbook, World Bank) all peg the USA has having a modest advantage than Canada. You are right, however, that Canada has a lower variance in income levels. However, Canada doesn't have a huge immigrant influx. We do. We let the world's poor and destitute come to our shores and we help them with a better life.
@MrHamncheez Please, immigration is not a huge factor in income variance when comparing Canada and the US. The American poor is a diverse group of mainly immigrants, poor whites (often referred to as "white trash"), blacks (who immigrated here many generations ago)/urban poor. You take all poor immigrants out of this nation and the US still has an obscenely high poverty rate compared to the rest of the industrialized world, even other developed countries with high immigration rates.
@MrHamncheez And you were right about me being mistaken about Canda's per capita GDP compared to the US's. However, I should mention per capita GDP differences within this very country. When you look at per-capita GDP of the states, there actually seems to be higher tax burdens associated with higher GDP per capita. New York, California, and other "blue" states are generally much richer states than "red" states like Arkansas, Mississippi, and even Texas
@caffingdu After doing calculations on correlation between tax rates and GDP per capita, the correlation is -.233, which, ignoring how low it is, implies that higher tax rates means LOWER GDP per capita. Sorry, no association. ht tp://mon ey.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/index.htm l htt p://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_ca pita_(nominal)
@xXGSgamingXx So what does Bill Gates do with his "hoarded" money? Hide it in a mattress? Build a castle of gold bricks? What? Is his "money" actually dollar bills or its it mostly in the form of stock? Please explain how Bill Gates' having wealth interferes with your ability to live well. Bear in mind you are talking on Youtube, owned by another giant, Google, and are likely using either Windows or MacOS.
@kev3d I wasn't talking just in terms of bill gates but merely giving an example. But they are hoarding all the money, they could share the wealth even if it is by stocks.
Thanks, Don. Please explain why the US Gini Coefficient is at its highest level since the Great Depression. Or is that a manipulation of the data as well?
@mrgoodbarker The GINI coefficient is a very poor way to measure well being. Go to scholar.google.com and see if you can find any studies that correlate GINI will individual well being. They aren't there. Income has a lower bound, but no upper bound. As a nation gets richer, the distribution will increase simply because of this.
dont believe this shit. Its corporate propaganda just like how walmart workers are happy to work at walmart. Look at how much as a percentage ceo pay went up, look at how much baseball players salaries went up. Wages for the median person is flat.
this feels like propaganda. The smaller child is analogous to new people entering the workforce? But haven't new people been entering the workforce since 1976,or did they wait 26 years to find a job? Lets keep it real, regardless of benefits (insurance, retirement, vacation) those people still need to put food on the table, pay thier rent, etc. Shouldnt their hourly wages be weighted more when gauging the economy on average compensation?
@MrZombieRyan its true, young people have always been entering the work force, but since the late seventies women have begun working in much larger numbers. For most of the history of the USA, women were mostly stay at home moms and didn't participate in the work force in a way that economists could easily measure. 30 years ago, society and our culture changed, and now women are working in increasing numbers. All people have lower wages when they first start working.
@KripDrip You are correct. The reason why is simple. Govn't does not heavily regulate the electronics industry but does the food, gas, alcohol, and tobacco industries. The same could be said for the airline industry, pharmaceutical industry, and the health insurance industry.
@AliceNchainz011 Yes, there was deregulation, but look at all the new rules placed on them by govn't (i.e. the passengers bill of rights). Not saying that some of those things didn't need to be addressed but I believe the govn't goes too far and creates more problems than they solve, one of those created problems is high costs to the traveling public.
@superlucci@pyroseed13@bsabruzzo Of course people who are wealthy have higher wages, how did they get wealthy in the first place? The problem is that those already higher wages are increasing faster than poorer people. That's what the video was trying to disprove and utterly failed at and that's what's so absurd. Why are the wealthy increasing their WAGES! They aren't working harder. The answer is that they are using every way they can to get around regulation.
@helios5868 What you say is true. The wealthy can get around regulation, and poorer people can't. It is the regulation that is the problem. Get rid of the regulation, and the poor now can compete against the established rich.
I noticed that Reich used the period between 1980-2011, which includes the housing collapse, the bailout of Wall St, and the ongoing recession. This video, on the other hand, only uses data between 1976 and 2006, which doesn't incorporate the recession, nor the subsequent bailout.
I'm not saying that either point is right or wrong, but next time you challenge someone's data, be sure to use the same time frame.
@IlluminaZero I'm not sure what bachelor's degree you have, but mine allows me to support a family and plenty of luxuries. Now, those that *risk* their future by borrowing heavily for a bachelor's or master's, with the idea that that piece of paper alone will guarantee them a high paying job are woefully misguided. It doesn't guarantee anything, except to show that the person who earned it spent 4+ years working towards it, that's all.
@DigitalAmmunition Are you denying that the value of an academic degree has dramatically deteriorated -- Or that a Henry Ford scenario applied to the present day isn't ridiculous? If not, than you are not really replying to anything I have said.
I agree that it is naive to assume that simply achieving any degree automatically equals success.
@IlluminaZero I'm denying the conclusion you draw. Some academic degrees are not nearly as valuable as others, but to paint a broad stroke and make a comparison between "two college graduates struggling" and a high school dropout in the era of Henry Ford isn't fair. The market still values college degrees and higher education, it depends on which labor market we are looking at. I'm sure Liberal Arts majors have a harder time finding employment than Engineering majors, but I could be wrong.
@DigitalAmmunition I'm not certain you are objecting to any conclusion I drew but are rather objecting to the means that I presented my point.
I am not asserting that the market doesn't value higher education nor am I asserting that someone with a bachelors degree cannot make a decent living. Rather I was eluding to sentiments that Masters degree = old Bachelors degree. Yes differing degrees have differing theoretic worth, I have never objected to that either.
@DigitalAmmunition Individuating these debates is never constructive. Your personal example could only logically be used to deny a universal statement (which I did not make.) Neither our academic education nor our personal earnings are relevant to historical economic trends.
Was my statement overly broad? Probably. But I'm not trying to write anything comprehensive, especially with 500 characters.
A high school dropout could support an entire family by working for Henry Ford -- Present day people are debating the worth of a bachelors degree and it's common to hear stories of two college graduates struggling to support a family.
@IlluminaZero I dropped out of University in my second year and have been in the work force since. I watch my expenses, I don't waste money on frivolous things, I'm easily paying my rent, I live alone, and I'm banking about 25% of my salary. The majority of my savings go into a self directed investment account. When I get a better job and my wage goes up, I'll divert much of it into a pension plan.
My wage is low relative to the field I am in, but it's plenty for my current needs.
@IlluminaZero that's because our dollar lost of most of it's purchasing power thanks to federal reserve, and a lot of deductions and loopholes didn't exist today. China wasn't an economic power then.
I wish conservatives would use arguments like this more often instead of making up phony statistics, and face-palm inducing statements that hold NO validity.
I applaud this guy for actually making a believable, reasonable, and well thought out retort to Robert Reich's video.
@luvitluvitbaby The only problem is that the only two statistics he mention that support his claim are the two that involve expenditures, not income. It's true that expenses have gone up since the 70s, but this is not a GOOD thing as this is usually a matter of people incurring debt from credit cards, college, car and house loans, and other long term expenses. We are a society in debt right now. Without the increased income to pay for these debts, it is a negative!
@luvitluvitbaby Also, benefits are really not a good way of calculating anything, because younger workers like me almost NEVER use those benefits. I only used my health benefits a couple of times in the past year, and I was paying for that insurance anyway.
Retirement, sick pay and vacation pay are not wages, and don't give you more money to work with, time off is not income!
So yeah, I think his argument falls flat because wages are still the only real important number here.
@drinfested I think you make an excellent point here. I'm will vote for Obama again but I guess I'm so starved to hear a coherent message from the other side that it astonished me when he made an argument that could actually be debated intelligently.
It sure beats hearing things like We're gonna have death panels and FEMA concentration camps now or we need massive cuts in government (translation more layoffs) and this will spur job growth and bring down the unemployment rate lol!
So stagnating is just the nice way of putting it. Don't forget standard and cost of living in conjunction, or to ask why benefits cost more now. Arguing that things need to be worse is lame while the higher end of the spectrum cannot justify the large increase in wages. Services provided at that price point are not correct. But people continue to bend over and take it, foolishly believing it will pay off eventually. Wage-freezes, layoffs, outsourcing, more work and higher costs are all they get.
excellent video! there are always many points of view and ways of looking at things. You have to try to take them all into consideration to get a truer picture of whats happening. Reich is far left and will seek to find justification for his POV. Since he is a media darling, he have more chances to air his POV which gives credence only to that view.
the way i see it, if the rich are getting richer, and there are fewer and fewer poor people, then the economy is improving. Yet if the rich are getting richer yet the middle class is shrinking, and there are more and more poor people, and there are record numbers of homeless and unemployed, hen something is seriously wrong. Wage increases used to be 60 something %, now they are 15-25% ? yet we get benefits ? arent we paying for those benefits with are wage increases ? where is the improvement ?
@muchookees Exactly! And the only reason there are fewer poor people (or people in poverty) is that the government provides more ways to help people in need. It is not a direct result of an influx of money or jobs from the top earners, so their highly increased income does not help the lower class at all.
yeah wages went up .... in an easy credit environment -_-
and if wages have only increased 15-25% then what about the 1% wage increases compared to the 99% ? Theres no question that the extremely rich are getting richer, look at all the new billionaires, and all the new millionaires, you would thing everyone would benefit if the economy is producing more insanely rich people .... but thats clearly not the case, how can there be way more homeless and way more millionaires at the same time ?
This is the biggest load os shit of all time. Assholes like this use confusing terms and calculations to try to create a smoke screen. The simple fact of the matter is; people have negative earnings now, even with a two-income family. An average house in 1970 cost approx. $25,000 in the U.S.. The avarage worker earned $10 / hour - which translates into $20,000 a yeay, or 80% of the price of a house. Now, an average "newly created job" pays $11/hour, which translates into $22,000 a year.
90% of economists are morons. listening to them is akin to listening to a preacher teaching u about evolution. without sound money, the vast majority of us will continue feel the ever growing madness that is brought on by fiat currencies such as wars, corporatism, gmo's, etc. when an economist starts supporting hedonics, u know he is a institutionalized hack who doesn't give a damn about the average man.
I've been researching our economy and the future here on youtube. My conclusion is that, like anything else, economics can be twisted or made to conform to any viewpoint. The more economists you listen to, the more varying answers you will get. When their viewpoints contradict they will invariably start telling each other "then you don't understand economics." The more I search for predictions and forecasts the more I think that none of them have a clue as to what is going on.
I agree with virtually all of his talking points and considering I have some pretty damn close relations to GMU, I have a lot of respect for this guy, but I still feel the wealthy need to be taxed more because there is something as an absolutely absurd amount of money. I seriously think looking at Keynesian economics that the reason we entered a recession in addition to other factors was the fact that a general glut was formed in the higher earning population through hoarding.
@thedevilssaints ''general glut was formed in the higher earning population through hoarding'' Then you will have to explain why that hoarding would occur. Since the whole point of a bank is to lend money out. Banks don't make any profit by hoarding. Or perhaps secretly those rich people were filling grain silo's with cash like Scrooge McDuck. Also how can there be a glut of loanable funds when those funds are being hoarded, is that not a contradiction?
The real way to a strong middle class would be cooperatively owned businesses. In our current "free market" the workers are subject to the whims of the owner, with no say in the matter. If they don't like it, they are forced to find another job (or starve trying.) How about a little democracy in the workplace?
@imaginaryfortress Finding another job is not force, requiring entrepreneurs to relinquish the businesses that they've worked to establish to benefit workers is.
@dubified89 Lol, more libertarian armchair philosophy. We can have homeless on the street, workers struggling to provide for their families (while the average CEO makes literally 185 times more because they're so great and intelligent and clearly deserve it) but as soon as we force them to share some of this power with the individuals that guarantee their profit and success, it's "force" and therefore evil.
We haven't had a free market in the United States in over a century. Thus the problems with the economy, and the totalitarian-collectivist oppression that continues to ooze throughout society.
>How about a little democracy in the workplace?
How about leaving people alone and letting them choose what to do with their own property rather than voting it away from them?
@doghousepiiman We need a government run by the people – why do you accept (even praise) that power be put in the hands of the few? If the Koch brothers are any example, anyone who gains enough monetary power will be able to do whatever they wish. Influencing the government (crony capitalism) is just the latest demonstration of this power. These abuses will not disappear simply by eliminating government, even though I agree our current government needs drastic reform.
We need a government that is restrained by law that maintains our absolute rights to our individual life, liberty, and property. I have not stated--or even implied--that cronyism (cronyism and capitalism, correctly understood, are mutually exclusive) is acceptable. Such abuses absolutely will (and always do) decrease and/or disappear when there is less government. The less power that government has, the less incentive to buy government off.
In addition, nobody, whether a private individual or a group of individuals under the collective label "government," has the right to coerce or hinder my use of my life, my liberty, or my property, unless the exercise of those rights violates those same rights of others. In other words, the only moral and rational role of government is to protect those rights from infringement by others. That means that the only legitimate government is a tiny government.
@doghousepiiman Does this not essentially equate to anarchy for the rich? You very rightly support the right to life and liberty, yet isn’t the origin of property always acquired by force? We did not create the earth – what gives any individual the right to claim that it is his, depriving anyone else of the freedom to use it?(Using the land and owning the land are two different things.)
>Does this not essentially equate to anarchy for the rich
Of course not. I clearly stated that the legitimate role of government was to protect the rights of each individual to his/her life, liberty, and property. That's not limited to rich people. If the federal government focused on its only legitimate job, then rich people wouldn't be able to violate rights any more than poor people. It's not anarchy for the rich. It's and liberty for everyone.
>isn’t the origin of property always acquired by force?
Of course not. It's originally acquired by going into the wilderness and working the land.
And, no, it's not fair that some people got there first. It's also not fair that I have bad eyes. Adults work to overcome those disadvantages on their own and through wholly voluntary cooperation and exchange with others. Children and cowards want someone to fix it for them.
@doghousepiiman If we eliminated all of our social programs right now, both the poor and the rich would keep their property. Oh, wait. The poor don’t have any property. And now the rich are absolutely unaccountable for their actions – if they accidentally use poison in their food products, the poor (after being poisoned, since there is no FDA to test it) they can just sue! (Against their million dollar legal teams)
Why do you follow the myth that hard work = success?
You seem to think that individuals in lower income brackets in the U.S. tend to stay there. That's only the case in socialist or other totalitarian-collectivist nations. The freer the market, the more mobility. In fact, capitalism in the U.S. has given the poor a standard of living that would be considered luxury in most countries. As for your goofy example of poison, if the government does it's job, it punishes fraud and negligence.
>Why do you follow the myth that hard work = success?
It usually does. Not always, but life's not fair. Life's just life. Failure is an important part of the learning process. Or, are you against the growth of the individual?
@doghousepiiman And again, there is a distinction between working the land, and claiming that NO ONE else can ever use it, except those that YOU choose to allow. Libertarians can’t seem to account for the fact that no one is an island. Your successes are never completely your own. Did you pave the roads yourself to get to work? Did you educate yourself? The whole part of being in a civilization is for human beings to work together, to take care of each other, to progress.
@imaginaryfortress And really? Giving power to the workers (the backbone of our economy and the reason the wealthy have their money to being with) is childish?
I should become a libertarian and stop being a childish coward. “It’s mine! I did it all by myself and it’s mine and I shouldn’t have to share with anybody!” The cult is Ayn Rand is laughable, and you are not taken seriously by the majority. Have fun supporting the right of the rich and powerful to manipulate us.
>I should become a libertarian and stop being a childish coward.
Ah, so you DO understand!
If you are so weak and incompetent that the rich and powerful are able to manipulate you, then you have no place being out in public without an escort, and you likely have personal issues that need to be addressed.
@doghousepiiman Lol, please stop trying. You're a fucking embarassment. Go back to your Ayn Rand reading club with your other upper-class white male friends and cry how paying taxes is the highest evil.
Your comment about no one being an island shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of liberty as well as libertarianism. Those of us who value liberty also place high value on cooperation. However, unlike totalitarians, we don't believe in FORCED cooperation. I gained my education by engaging in a free-will exchange of my property and my labor for that education. Civilization is free-will exchange. Forced exchange is slavery.
@imaginaryfortress "In our current "free market" Well everything you say is not the case. Do one little thing wrong, & employees can take you to a tribunal for unfair dismissel & take huge sums off you. ''hey are forced to find another job (or starve trying.)'' What are you a refugee from the middle ages? Even victorian workers were not allowed to starve. Today with comprehensive welfare states the idea is laughable.
Very good video! But please tell me... why has my business income and that of millions of others dropped so much in just the last 3 years? I believe most of our economic problems are caused by "well-intentions" of our govt. resulting in this horrible situation of $15T in debt, $4B/day to pay interest on that debt.
I loved both the information and the method used to present it. I also agree with the conclusion. If the idiots in the market would get out of the way OR better yet start contributing by bringing new, relavent products and services to market this would go much further toward improving the economy that picking a minority and punishing them. Eventually everyone becomes a member of a minority that gets the short end of the stick.
I am a libertarian; and every time I watch most of this Learn Liberty videos; it leaves me with a sour taste. I am against taxation in general; but he is trying to BSing me into thinking that actual worker compensatiosn have gone up? Really!?
His rosiest estimate still wouldn't come close to compensating for needing 2 rather than 1 breadwinners per median houshold. The rest seems plain dishonest. TVs etc improve over time anyway for reasons that having nothing to do with working conditions and wages. And arguing that the statistical obfuscates the anecdotal, is, well.. obfuscation.
I love how they always dumb it down enough that you can tell they're trying to mislead.
i feel so much better after watching this, although i predict this will only last as long as it takes me to go to the gas station
i have a different measure of inflation, in my measure we take out all the "savings" from having our shit made somewhere else - clothes, tvs, etc. - because those are one time gains that the next generation won't get, but that generation will pay the ultimate price by not having jobs
as you can imagine, i come up with a completely different number
Yes, lets return our tax system to the last one where was can say it was working... The 90's. The country also worked well when we have a ~90% top marginal tax rate in the 50s and 60s.
I like that he mentions income mobility. Another thing he could add is distinction between the incomes groups. While min wage jobs have seen almost no increase in their buying power (quality only increase), The middle class has seen substantial growth in their buying power. Of course, "the rich" have seen the most growth. The more money you make, the faster you accumulate wealth.
google: United States Income Distribution 1947-2007
We're all winning, but the less-skilled are winning less =/
His final comment made me scoff. Not at the idea, just at the presentation. The content of this video had to do with gaining a broader and more accurate perspective on statistics, and he presented his case very well; however, he tacked on his opinion at the tail of the video without providing any supporting information... seemed rather silly...
all i know is that in the last 2 years, i have been spending increasingly more and more money at the grocery store! my wages have gone up, but i am still as broke as ever.
@evi1energy Well that is what we call inflation, and that is the governments fault. And 2 years isn't a large enough scale to produce a noticeable, or any change in standard of living. If you have savings than it's no longer just inflation it's inflation tax.
@evi1energy The inflation probably has, but from what you're saying your wage has kept up with the cost of goods and that basically leaves you in the same position in the last 2 years. In my opinion I think it's pretty lucky that your wage has kept up, cause the second part of the inflation tax is that employee wages tends not to catch up with the cost of goods right away, thus making your work worth less. Feel free to clarify anything I may have misinterpreted in your statements.
@ShamanMcLamie i work in the trades since 2002, so beginning as a green horn to present day, i have had nowhere to go but up. but now i am reaching close to the peak pay and also added a son in the last couple years so my statement was a little disingenuous
ever since ethanol subsidies and gas prices skyrocketing my dollar goes less far at the grocery store these days. basically it is near impossible in my area to buy a meal for under 5 bucks a person unless it's from the 1$ menu
@hitssquad: Since the bush administration of the early 2000's the richest people in America have enjoyed a very big tax cut, according to your logic, we should not be in a great recession, right? where is the investment then?
Where are the jobs? I don't see them? I see record corporate profits, should they pay no taxes at all?if so, where are we going to get the money, poor people? lol, also, by taxing the rich(the only people that can afford it) we can rebuild our failing infrastructure.
@Wulfmanrox "according to your logic, we should not be in a great recession"
You *aren't* in a recession: mjperry. blogspot. com
.
"I see record corporate profits, should they pay no taxes at all?"
Corporations should pay no *income* tax, since income harms no one. They should instead pay land-value tax, since monopolising the use of land hurts everyone. The less land a given corporation monopolizes, the better for society.
1) OK let's use this wage numbers. A whole 10% over 30 years...that's a whole .33% annually. Is that the same rate of annual wage increase for the wealthiest 1%??? NOPE. It's nearly 200% over the same time period.
2) He's counting an explosion in insurance costs as an increase in income???
3) Bogus analogy, wage growth and human body growth are not at all the same.
Certainly living standards have gone up - HOWEVER;
1) some "economic activity" is not socially useful. In those cases, taxes can increase as far as I am concerned, to disuade from the pursuit of such activites.
2) if there is at all the possibility that activity could result in private profit / public losses then such activity is by definition not free market, and if not free market, then should be regulated.
I agree that life qualities has become better, but disagree that rich shouldn't be taxed more. Everybody has to pay rent and bills, and boy food - these are natural taxes witch we pay to survive in modern society. And if we allow poor people to earn more, they are more likely to achieve more if they have financial resources to for example study or start their own businesses, or send their kids to college. Wealthy people don't need extra money so desperately, because they already have that money.
@hitssquad "You want to tax the rich to prevent them from investing? ...Because investment in new production and better ways of doing things hurts society?"
So the rich always "invest" their tax breaks into "new production" and "better ways of doing things."
"40% of Americans pay no income tax at all."
I suppose you're referring to federal income tax and it's closer to 50% This is due to the fact that so many people earn so little that they don't even qualify to pay federal income tax.
Right now, the biggest issue is less about the top income tax bracket and more about the capital gains tax. The solution to the "unfair" 15% capital gains tax is to lower everyone else's taxes until they it seems fair again lol
The problem is we have a government that costs a certain amount of money, and rarely are cuts made appropriately when you cut the tax dollars that keep it afloat. To really and truly lower taxes, you have to limit government size first, that's the issue.
Ummm.... The goal on both sides is lower taxes. Being able to lower taxes reasonably and in a viable manner is like the holy grail of re-election.
What's not helpful is not paying for our obligations. What is helpful is when people have more of their own money to spend and the government doesn't need as much from everyone.
@hitssquad Investments is based soley on speculation. In reality, the wealthy prefer the least amount of ppl in their labor market because that is more shares for themselves. The wealthy cannot improve the economy; consumer based economics is based on consumption and since they have all their needs and wants they spend the least. whereas if the poor had the money it would be spent because they collectively have more needs thereby causing economic stimulation and demand for labor.
@hitssquad it's not just rich peoples investments(not talking about the top 1% here but the mere millionare next door) but their daily spending that spurs economic growth. I have a friend who is a mere millionare (not anywhere near the top 40% ) who's purchases of tacos for friends and employees keeps several taco shops in business . if he were to be taxed past his alread already overtaxed status, 3 taco shops would suffer major losses. not to mention one liquor store. tax the poor they pay 0
@hitssquad no the act of spending is benevolent and helps keep people in work and private business. spending fuels growth and cannot live without it. it also keeps the farmers who grow food in business , hence spurring economic growth. if he were taxed then he would not afford those tacos .
@circusboy90210 "no the act of spending is benevolent and helps keep people in work and private business."
That's a common fallacy. Even just thinking about it for a moment should tell you that any spending of money, without an expectation of a return on investment, wastes resources. When you buy tacos, you're latently forcing people to waste their valuable time making tacos, instead of using their valuable time to do something more productive.
@circusboy90210 Spending money to keep wasteful businesses, such as Taco stands, in business is a form of homicide, since the resources that money commands could have been spent on life-saving, and wealth-producing, investments. Everyone loses when anyone buys a taco -- unless that's the absolute best value in terms of time and money. But we know the millionaire-next-door who keeps the taco stands in business could probably be feeding himself more efficiently by planning ahead.
@hitssquad making tacos is productive and makes those people happy so in a sense that is the most productive use of their time. not everything has to be an investment so spurr economic growth. however the mexicans who made those tacos invested with the idea of making profit from tacos. the roi on buying tacos?? saving time , getting better tacos than we could make ourselves. o the tacos are the roi, mexicans time is worth less than mine so i keep my time to do more fun things.
@hitssquad Taxing the rich would not allow poor people to earn more. However, even though many Americans pay no federal income tax, that does not mean they are not taxed. All dollar holders (most especially those not close with the banking industry) are taxed by inflation. Sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, etc. We are being taxed to death. The solution is not to make someone else pay more taxes. That does not make me pay less taxes, nor does it make me any better off.
I think people enjoy believing the Robert Reich view. People like to believe that their own circumstances are controlled by others. They like to believe in villains. I think this is the reason many people loath their economics classes in college. These classes take away villains people want to believe in.
@goose1077 Really? Economics class pretty much confirms that there are villains. That rational people will lie, cheat, and steal as long as the cost-benefit analysis favors it. Companies will pay you as little as possible, and will charge as much as possible as long as the price effect is better than the quantity effect. They will try to turn any costs into externalities and push them on to others. Economics just sees it as rational and to be expected, not a moral quandry.
I agree with almost everything except for his general opinion at the end, taxing the wealthy, or market chance for the middle class would both help.
Dodgerific 2 days ago
@Dodgerific the problem with that is every dollar you tax you put into government, you take it out of private sector. It might not sound sexy, but wealthy should not be taxed
trueconservatie33 12 hours ago
I think theres good evidence that letting the free market rip is the better way to a strong middle class again, i just dont agree with some of analysis of the conditions of the average worker. I think that his argument about the increase in benefits is more than countered by the price hike in the housing market (which has not been corrected for yet but should after Alt-A and Option-Arm mortgages trash the market in the next few years). We take different roads to the same conclusion.
HedgehogRebellion 3 days ago
wow. A blatant corporate attempt to brainwash the masses into thinking that their lives have improved over the last 30 years! Pretending that practically all of the wealth gained over the last 30 years HASN'T gone to the richest of the rich in this country. The twisting of facts, and the hiding of other facts, in this video is amazing, and quite masterfully done. And, judging by the number of likes, it's working. Pretty sad, but gotta hand it to these guys: masters of propoganda
caffingdu 4 days ago
@caffingdu because of quantitative easing, our government is destroying our money, listen to Peter schiff and Ron paul
trueconservatie33 4 days ago
@trueconservatie33 Ron Paul is a fine guy, but his economic policies are stupid. first, his whole "gold standard" thing. He thinks that we should have something to "back" our money instead of the govt. giving value to paper money. But he fails to understand that we do the same thing to gold. Gold only has value because we say it does. Same thing with paper money that has nothing to back it.
caffingdu 3 days ago
@caffingdu check out Peter Schiff was right on youtube, and he was his economic adviser in 2008. and it takes too long to answer your question, but watch What About Money Causes Economic Crises on youtube by schiff, it will answer every thing you stated about gold standard and monetary policies. Watch it, you will be impressed
trueconservatie33 3 days ago
@caffingdu Yes because we all know the cell phones, computers, internet, cars, medicine, video games, and nearly everything else the middle class uses, buys or consumes have not improved greatly over 30 years.
kev3d 3 days ago
@kev3d But these things have gotten much cheaper. So they may be able to afford computers, internet, etc because they're so cheap, yet still not able to afford rent. And you mention medicine as something that has improved, and it has. But that is an example of something that has actually RISEN in price, and now many middle class Americans CAN'T afford important things, like health care.
caffingdu 3 days ago
@caffingdu Have you ever wondered why things like technology get cheaper and better and things like housing gets more expensive? This is largely due to government intervention. Have you ever noticed that places with the strongest rent-control laws, such as New York or San Francisco have housing shortages and extremely high rent? Likewise healthcare is made far more expensive by the slow and inefficient FDA among other factors.
kev3d 3 days ago
@kev3d Your argument doesn't hold up, especially when comparing our healthcare costs to other nations. I don't think that anyone can argue that the United States interferes in healthcare more than, say, Canada or the UK. Yet both of these nations spend MUCH less on health care than the United States.
caffingdu 3 days ago
@caffingdu First of all, the UK is going broke and it's healthcare system is a behemoth and not a particularly well functioning one, especially if you are old or in a hurry. Second, the US DOES interfere in healthcare a great deal; roughly half of all healthcare dollars spent are from the government; with no downward pressure, costs continue to rise. Third, the US conducts more medical research than other nations which means other nations save on development costs.
kev3d 3 days ago
@The US does intefere with healthcare, I am not saying it doesn't. In fact, the place where it interferes the most (with the elderly with Medicare) is the place where healthcare seems to function the best. And, by the way, you argue that the UK is going broke (but what about Canada?), but no one would argue that it is BECAUSE of its health care system. I mean, despite the US not even giving universal coverage, the UK still spends much less on healthcare as a percentage of GDP.
caffingdu 3 days ago
@caffingdu Canada was going broke until it made large cuts to government expenditures in the 90s. Medicare seems to be the place where medicine functions the best? You don't know many old people do you? Yes, the UK is going broke because of all entitlements, not just NHS, but that is a big part of it. It is true the US spends more per head, but this is partly because far more is developed in the US.
kev3d 2 days ago
@kev3d I do know some elderly people. I do not know ONE that wants their Medicare traded in for a privatized system. That, and the polling stats are behind. Every single poll shows that seniors don't want Medicare defunded or taken away. Medicare is one of the most successful govt programs in history, and that some people can deny its success is quite amazing to me.
caffingdu 2 days ago
@caffingdu No kidding. Drug addicts don't want their drugs taken away. Welfare recipients don't want their welfare taken away. Like any pyramid scheme, the first few tiers do fine. The first recipients of Medicare and Social Security got a great deal because they got out of it much more than they paid in, but the nation is going bankrupt, primarily due to entitlement spending. You can only rob Peter to pay Paul for so long.
kev3d 2 days ago
@caffingdu what facts are twisted and hidden? Some evidence, please
MrHamncheez 3 days ago
@MrHamncheez too much to give in a 500 character post, but I'll do my best. First, he mentions these other price inflation indexes. While he may prefer these indexes which show rising income among the middle class, the CPI is the most respected index. And even the other indexes show a small growth, especially when compared to how the rich have seen their own income grow, and he conveniently hides those stats (the top 1%'s income has increased almost 300% over the last 30 years!!)
caffingdu 3 days ago
@caffingdu "The CPI is the most respected index." I happen to have a degree in Economics, and the fact of that matter is that it is not. They all are unique, and depending on the problem at hand different ones are better than others. But that is beside the point. Who cares how much the "rich" have grown in their income? The rich will always be well off. I care about the poorest of the poor. The "poor" are better off now then they have ever been.
MrHamncheez 3 days ago
@MrHamncheez type in blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/25/income-growth-of-top-1-over-30-years-outpaced-rest-of-u-s/
caffingdu 3 days ago
@MrHamncheez there is UNDENIABLY a VERY large income gap today, the highest it has EVER been. And this guy doesn't even ACKNOWLEDGE that fact.
caffingdu 3 days ago
@caffingdu Actually the income gap was higher in the 1920s, but so what? Virtually the only time the "rich" get rich through unfair means is when the government steps in with laws for our "protection" but instead prices the "little guy" out of the market. Walmart can afford to hire lawyers to sort our the many many land use laws and permits. Mom and Pop often cannot. So if there is any unfairness, again, the source is the government, not free markets.
kev3d 3 days ago
@kev3d again, your argument does not hold up. Your own example of a time when the wealth gap was huge was during the 1920s, a time when every economist agrees was a time of DE-regulation and letting the market run wild. The 1980s to 2000s is another prime example. It's actually quite amazing how history repeats itself. Just like the 1920s, there was a boom time in which only the rich benefited (and benefited GREATLY), and then a big crash.
caffingdu 3 days ago
@caffingdu You clearly do not understand the cause of the great depression, and the roaring twenties, were an economic dynamo for average americans too. Deregulation works. It was government meddling on the part of Hoover and Roosevelt that caused the great depression through too many interventionist policies, among them; a 1/3 decline in the total money supply, dragging out the depression for over a decade by some measures.
kev3d 3 days ago
@kev3d Hoover DEREGULATED the market. After the stock market crashed, Hoover explicitly said that he would not meddle in the market, claiming everything would sort itself out. Once it was clear that the market would NOT sort itself out, Hoover started to pass too-little-too-late legislation. Roosevelt came in and led an albeit long recovery. But his reforms were the foundation of a strong economy that would lead to the most prosperous decades of the nation (despite very heavy taxes).
caffingdu 3 days ago
@caffingdu you are a moron.
i weep for you.
ZamolxisReborn 3 days ago
@ZamolxisReborn nice retort.
caffingdu 2 days ago
@caffingdu Ok, clearly you have adopted the myths as truth. watch?v=7QLoeehMw0w
kev3d 2 days ago
@caffingdu I love income gaps. The greater the income gap, the better off the poor in a society are. Income levels are bounded only on one side. This means that any growth will create a higher variance, or "gap". Higher variance means greater growth has taken place. If one guy has $10, another has $100, then a 10% increase will mean one guy has $11 and other $110. The "gap" has grown, but both are better off. The gap was $90, now its $99, BUT THE POOR GUY IS STILL BETTER OFF
MrHamncheez 3 days ago 2
@MrHamncheez This is just not true. And the whole point many progressives make is the fact that the rich have gotten richer, but the poor have NOT made any growth in income.
And look at Canada. Canada has a higher per-capita GDP than the US, yet still has much more economic equality than the US. Not to mention, many studies have shown that the US has fallen significantly in class mobility. Sure, some level of income gap is fine. But it has gotten WAY out of control today.
caffingdu 2 days ago
@caffingdu unfortunately, Canada does not have a higher GDP per capita. Three of the major groups that try and measure GDP per capita (IMF, CIA world Factbook, World Bank) all peg the USA has having a modest advantage than Canada. You are right, however, that Canada has a lower variance in income levels. However, Canada doesn't have a huge immigrant influx. We do. We let the world's poor and destitute come to our shores and we help them with a better life.
MrHamncheez 1 day ago
@MrHamncheez Please, immigration is not a huge factor in income variance when comparing Canada and the US. The American poor is a diverse group of mainly immigrants, poor whites (often referred to as "white trash"), blacks (who immigrated here many generations ago)/urban poor. You take all poor immigrants out of this nation and the US still has an obscenely high poverty rate compared to the rest of the industrialized world, even other developed countries with high immigration rates.
caffingdu 1 day ago
@MrHamncheez And you were right about me being mistaken about Canda's per capita GDP compared to the US's. However, I should mention per capita GDP differences within this very country. When you look at per-capita GDP of the states, there actually seems to be higher tax burdens associated with higher GDP per capita. New York, California, and other "blue" states are generally much richer states than "red" states like Arkansas, Mississippi, and even Texas
caffingdu 1 day ago
@caffingdu After doing calculations on correlation between tax rates and GDP per capita, the correlation is -.233, which, ignoring how low it is, implies that higher tax rates means LOWER GDP per capita. Sorry, no association. ht tp://mon ey.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/index.htm l htt p://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_ca pita_(nominal)
bdg323 10 hours ago
INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH!!!!!!! They could at least share, Bill Gates is whoring all the damn money!
xXGSgamingXx 5 days ago
@xXGSgamingXx How does one "whore" money. Do you mean to say "hoard"?
kev3d 3 days ago
@kev3d Yes that would be a better word.
xXGSgamingXx 3 days ago
@xXGSgamingXx So what does Bill Gates do with his "hoarded" money? Hide it in a mattress? Build a castle of gold bricks? What? Is his "money" actually dollar bills or its it mostly in the form of stock? Please explain how Bill Gates' having wealth interferes with your ability to live well. Bear in mind you are talking on Youtube, owned by another giant, Google, and are likely using either Windows or MacOS.
kev3d 3 days ago
@kev3d I wasn't talking just in terms of bill gates but merely giving an example. But they are hoarding all the money, they could share the wealth even if it is by stocks.
xXGSgamingXx 3 days ago
@xXGSgamingXx You are allowed to buy any stocks you wish. Again, how do the "rich" hoard "all the money"?
kev3d 2 days ago
Thanks, Don. Please explain why the US Gini Coefficient is at its highest level since the Great Depression. Or is that a manipulation of the data as well?
mrgoodbarker 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrgoodbarker The GINI coefficient is a very poor way to measure well being. Go to scholar.google.com and see if you can find any studies that correlate GINI will individual well being. They aren't there. Income has a lower bound, but no upper bound. As a nation gets richer, the distribution will increase simply because of this.
MrHamncheez 3 days ago
dont believe this shit. Its corporate propaganda just like how walmart workers are happy to work at walmart. Look at how much as a percentage ceo pay went up, look at how much baseball players salaries went up. Wages for the median person is flat.
KripDrip 6 days ago
@KripDrip
"dont believe this shit. Its corporate propaganda "
And yet all you can provide by way of a counter argument is a bunch of ad hominem-fed hysteria.
NiceGuyCody 5 days ago
this feels like propaganda. The smaller child is analogous to new people entering the workforce? But haven't new people been entering the workforce since 1976,or did they wait 26 years to find a job? Lets keep it real, regardless of benefits (insurance, retirement, vacation) those people still need to put food on the table, pay thier rent, etc. Shouldnt their hourly wages be weighted more when gauging the economy on average compensation?
MrZombieRyan 1 week ago
@MrZombieRyan its true, young people have always been entering the work force, but since the late seventies women have begun working in much larger numbers. For most of the history of the USA, women were mostly stay at home moms and didn't participate in the work force in a way that economists could easily measure. 30 years ago, society and our culture changed, and now women are working in increasing numbers. All people have lower wages when they first start working.
MrHamncheez 3 days ago
electronics are cheaper but food, gas, booze and tobacco are way more expensive.
KripDrip 1 week ago
@KripDrip You are correct. The reason why is simple. Govn't does not heavily regulate the electronics industry but does the food, gas, alcohol, and tobacco industries. The same could be said for the airline industry, pharmaceutical industry, and the health insurance industry.
mikebri527 1 week ago
@mikebri527 Are you saying that the airline industry is regulated or not? I thought it was deregulated back during the Carter administration
AliceNchainz011 5 days ago
@AliceNchainz011 Yes, there was deregulation, but look at all the new rules placed on them by govn't (i.e. the passengers bill of rights). Not saying that some of those things didn't need to be addressed but I believe the govn't goes too far and creates more problems than they solve, one of those created problems is high costs to the traveling public.
mikebri527 5 days ago
@superlucci @pyroseed13 @bsabruzzo Of course people who are wealthy have higher wages, how did they get wealthy in the first place? The problem is that those already higher wages are increasing faster than poorer people. That's what the video was trying to disprove and utterly failed at and that's what's so absurd. Why are the wealthy increasing their WAGES! They aren't working harder. The answer is that they are using every way they can to get around regulation.
helios5868 1 week ago
@helios5868 What you say is true. The wealthy can get around regulation, and poorer people can't. It is the regulation that is the problem. Get rid of the regulation, and the poor now can compete against the established rich.
MrHamncheez 3 days ago
Excellent break down.
KittenKoder 1 week ago
I noticed that Reich used the period between 1980-2011, which includes the housing collapse, the bailout of Wall St, and the ongoing recession. This video, on the other hand, only uses data between 1976 and 2006, which doesn't incorporate the recession, nor the subsequent bailout.
I'm not saying that either point is right or wrong, but next time you challenge someone's data, be sure to use the same time frame.
JTrizzleFizzle 1 week ago
1970 and 2008
cosmopolite66 2 weeks ago
Does Prof. Don Boudreaux take under consideration the debt American family had 1700s and in 2008?
cosmopolite66 2 weeks ago
yeah but if the baby died then the average would shoot up
winmine0327 3 weeks ago
tax the wealthy
MyDormantSoul 3 weeks ago
@IlluminaZero I'm not sure what bachelor's degree you have, but mine allows me to support a family and plenty of luxuries. Now, those that *risk* their future by borrowing heavily for a bachelor's or master's, with the idea that that piece of paper alone will guarantee them a high paying job are woefully misguided. It doesn't guarantee anything, except to show that the person who earned it spent 4+ years working towards it, that's all.
DigitalAmmunition 3 weeks ago
@DigitalAmmunition Are you denying that the value of an academic degree has dramatically deteriorated -- Or that a Henry Ford scenario applied to the present day isn't ridiculous? If not, than you are not really replying to anything I have said.
I agree that it is naive to assume that simply achieving any degree automatically equals success.
IlluminaZero 3 weeks ago
@IlluminaZero I'm denying the conclusion you draw. Some academic degrees are not nearly as valuable as others, but to paint a broad stroke and make a comparison between "two college graduates struggling" and a high school dropout in the era of Henry Ford isn't fair. The market still values college degrees and higher education, it depends on which labor market we are looking at. I'm sure Liberal Arts majors have a harder time finding employment than Engineering majors, but I could be wrong.
DigitalAmmunition 3 weeks ago
@DigitalAmmunition I'm not certain you are objecting to any conclusion I drew but are rather objecting to the means that I presented my point.
I am not asserting that the market doesn't value higher education nor am I asserting that someone with a bachelors degree cannot make a decent living. Rather I was eluding to sentiments that Masters degree = old Bachelors degree. Yes differing degrees have differing theoretic worth, I have never objected to that either.
IlluminaZero 3 weeks ago
@DigitalAmmunition Individuating these debates is never constructive. Your personal example could only logically be used to deny a universal statement (which I did not make.) Neither our academic education nor our personal earnings are relevant to historical economic trends.
Was my statement overly broad? Probably. But I'm not trying to write anything comprehensive, especially with 500 characters.
IlluminaZero 3 weeks ago
A high school dropout could support an entire family by working for Henry Ford -- Present day people are debating the worth of a bachelors degree and it's common to hear stories of two college graduates struggling to support a family.
Yes. Wages have not stagnated at all.
IlluminaZero 3 weeks ago
@IlluminaZero I dropped out of University in my second year and have been in the work force since. I watch my expenses, I don't waste money on frivolous things, I'm easily paying my rent, I live alone, and I'm banking about 25% of my salary. The majority of my savings go into a self directed investment account. When I get a better job and my wage goes up, I'll divert much of it into a pension plan.
My wage is low relative to the field I am in, but it's plenty for my current needs.
theredscourge 2 weeks ago
@theredscourge Hwy your personal experience would be illustrative for the economical trends in US?
cosmopolite66 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theredscourge Hwy your personal experience would be illustrative for the economical trends in US?
cosmopolite66 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theredscourge Hwy your personal experience would be illustrative for the US economy trends in US?
cosmopolite66 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theredscourge Hwy a personal experience would be illustrative for the US economy trends in US?
cosmopolite66 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theredscourge a personal experience would be illustrative for the US economy trends in US?
cosmopolite66 2 weeks ago
@IlluminaZero that's because our dollar lost of most of it's purchasing power thanks to federal reserve, and a lot of deductions and loopholes didn't exist today. China wasn't an economic power then.
trueconservatie33 2 weeks ago
I wish conservatives would use arguments like this more often instead of making up phony statistics, and face-palm inducing statements that hold NO validity.
I applaud this guy for actually making a believable, reasonable, and well thought out retort to Robert Reich's video.
Now we can have a real debate!
THANK GOD!!!
luvitluvitbaby 3 weeks ago
@luvitluvitbaby The only problem is that the only two statistics he mention that support his claim are the two that involve expenditures, not income. It's true that expenses have gone up since the 70s, but this is not a GOOD thing as this is usually a matter of people incurring debt from credit cards, college, car and house loans, and other long term expenses. We are a society in debt right now. Without the increased income to pay for these debts, it is a negative!
drinfested 3 weeks ago
@luvitluvitbaby Also, benefits are really not a good way of calculating anything, because younger workers like me almost NEVER use those benefits. I only used my health benefits a couple of times in the past year, and I was paying for that insurance anyway.
Retirement, sick pay and vacation pay are not wages, and don't give you more money to work with, time off is not income!
So yeah, I think his argument falls flat because wages are still the only real important number here.
drinfested 3 weeks ago
@drinfested I think you make an excellent point here. I'm will vote for Obama again but I guess I'm so starved to hear a coherent message from the other side that it astonished me when he made an argument that could actually be debated intelligently.
It sure beats hearing things like We're gonna have death panels and FEMA concentration camps now or we need massive cuts in government (translation more layoffs) and this will spur job growth and bring down the unemployment rate lol!
luvitluvitbaby 3 weeks ago
@drinfested our wage is falling flat because federal reserve's quantitative easing policies
trueconservatie33 3 weeks ago
So stagnating is just the nice way of putting it. Don't forget standard and cost of living in conjunction, or to ask why benefits cost more now. Arguing that things need to be worse is lame while the higher end of the spectrum cannot justify the large increase in wages. Services provided at that price point are not correct. But people continue to bend over and take it, foolishly believing it will pay off eventually. Wage-freezes, layoffs, outsourcing, more work and higher costs are all they get.
hybridmcgee 3 weeks ago
Reich is a Far Leftist who Supports Class Welfare.
Liberals will always Twist Truth to Fit their Radical Agenda.
3martijns 3 weeks ago
or you could use gold which went from $30 to $1600
Bass20HZobsession 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
excellent video! there are always many points of view and ways of looking at things. You have to try to take them all into consideration to get a truer picture of whats happening. Reich is far left and will seek to find justification for his POV. Since he is a media darling, he have more chances to air his POV which gives credence only to that view.
sw8741 3 weeks ago
the way i see it, if the rich are getting richer, and there are fewer and fewer poor people, then the economy is improving. Yet if the rich are getting richer yet the middle class is shrinking, and there are more and more poor people, and there are record numbers of homeless and unemployed, hen something is seriously wrong. Wage increases used to be 60 something %, now they are 15-25% ? yet we get benefits ? arent we paying for those benefits with are wage increases ? where is the improvement ?
muchookees 4 weeks ago
@muchookees Exactly! And the only reason there are fewer poor people (or people in poverty) is that the government provides more ways to help people in need. It is not a direct result of an influx of money or jobs from the top earners, so their highly increased income does not help the lower class at all.
drinfested 3 weeks ago
yeah wages went up .... in an easy credit environment -_-
and if wages have only increased 15-25% then what about the 1% wage increases compared to the 99% ? Theres no question that the extremely rich are getting richer, look at all the new billionaires, and all the new millionaires, you would thing everyone would benefit if the economy is producing more insanely rich people .... but thats clearly not the case, how can there be way more homeless and way more millionaires at the same time ?
muchookees 4 weeks ago
This is the biggest load os shit of all time. Assholes like this use confusing terms and calculations to try to create a smoke screen. The simple fact of the matter is; people have negative earnings now, even with a two-income family. An average house in 1970 cost approx. $25,000 in the U.S.. The avarage worker earned $10 / hour - which translates into $20,000 a yeay, or 80% of the price of a house. Now, an average "newly created job" pays $11/hour, which translates into $22,000 a year.
VeryHugeAss 4 weeks ago
90% of economists are morons. listening to them is akin to listening to a preacher teaching u about evolution. without sound money, the vast majority of us will continue feel the ever growing madness that is brought on by fiat currencies such as wars, corporatism, gmo's, etc. when an economist starts supporting hedonics, u know he is a institutionalized hack who doesn't give a damn about the average man.
JonathanJWB1 4 weeks ago
I've been researching our economy and the future here on youtube. My conclusion is that, like anything else, economics can be twisted or made to conform to any viewpoint. The more economists you listen to, the more varying answers you will get. When their viewpoints contradict they will invariably start telling each other "then you don't understand economics." The more I search for predictions and forecasts the more I think that none of them have a clue as to what is going on.
damrak1969 4 weeks ago
he has a point
rennappu 4 weeks ago
So what the guys is saying that if I work really really hard then maybe some day I can also benefit from lower taxes and subsidies?
hotbeanful 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeonTheMortgageAgent
>Who would dislike this video?
People who want more of your stuff.
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
I agree with virtually all of his talking points and considering I have some pretty damn close relations to GMU, I have a lot of respect for this guy, but I still feel the wealthy need to be taxed more because there is something as an absolutely absurd amount of money. I seriously think looking at Keynesian economics that the reason we entered a recession in addition to other factors was the fact that a general glut was formed in the higher earning population through hoarding.
thedevilssaints 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@thedevilssaints ''general glut was formed in the higher earning population through hoarding'' Then you will have to explain why that hoarding would occur. Since the whole point of a bank is to lend money out. Banks don't make any profit by hoarding. Or perhaps secretly those rich people were filling grain silo's with cash like Scrooge McDuck. Also how can there be a glut of loanable funds when those funds are being hoarded, is that not a contradiction?
Malthus0 4 weeks ago
The real way to a strong middle class would be cooperatively owned businesses. In our current "free market" the workers are subject to the whims of the owner, with no say in the matter. If they don't like it, they are forced to find another job (or starve trying.) How about a little democracy in the workplace?
imaginaryfortress 1 month ago
@imaginaryfortress Finding another job is not force, requiring entrepreneurs to relinquish the businesses that they've worked to establish to benefit workers is.
dubified89 1 month ago
@dubified89 Lol, more libertarian armchair philosophy. We can have homeless on the street, workers struggling to provide for their families (while the average CEO makes literally 185 times more because they're so great and intelligent and clearly deserve it) but as soon as we force them to share some of this power with the individuals that guarantee their profit and success, it's "force" and therefore evil.
imaginaryfortress 1 month ago
@imaginaryfortress
>our current "free market"
We haven't had a free market in the United States in over a century. Thus the problems with the economy, and the totalitarian-collectivist oppression that continues to ooze throughout society.
>How about a little democracy in the workplace?
How about leaving people alone and letting them choose what to do with their own property rather than voting it away from them?
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@doghousepiiman We need a government run by the people – why do you accept (even praise) that power be put in the hands of the few? If the Koch brothers are any example, anyone who gains enough monetary power will be able to do whatever they wish. Influencing the government (crony capitalism) is just the latest demonstration of this power. These abuses will not disappear simply by eliminating government, even though I agree our current government needs drastic reform.
imaginaryfortress 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress
We need a government that is restrained by law that maintains our absolute rights to our individual life, liberty, and property. I have not stated--or even implied--that cronyism (cronyism and capitalism, correctly understood, are mutually exclusive) is acceptable. Such abuses absolutely will (and always do) decrease and/or disappear when there is less government. The less power that government has, the less incentive to buy government off.
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress
In addition, nobody, whether a private individual or a group of individuals under the collective label "government," has the right to coerce or hinder my use of my life, my liberty, or my property, unless the exercise of those rights violates those same rights of others. In other words, the only moral and rational role of government is to protect those rights from infringement by others. That means that the only legitimate government is a tiny government.
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@doghousepiiman Does this not essentially equate to anarchy for the rich? You very rightly support the right to life and liberty, yet isn’t the origin of property always acquired by force? We did not create the earth – what gives any individual the right to claim that it is his, depriving anyone else of the freedom to use it?(Using the land and owning the land are two different things.)
imaginaryfortress 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress
>Does this not essentially equate to anarchy for the rich
Of course not. I clearly stated that the legitimate role of government was to protect the rights of each individual to his/her life, liberty, and property. That's not limited to rich people. If the federal government focused on its only legitimate job, then rich people wouldn't be able to violate rights any more than poor people. It's not anarchy for the rich. It's and liberty for everyone.
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress
>isn’t the origin of property always acquired by force?
Of course not. It's originally acquired by going into the wilderness and working the land.
And, no, it's not fair that some people got there first. It's also not fair that I have bad eyes. Adults work to overcome those disadvantages on their own and through wholly voluntary cooperation and exchange with others. Children and cowards want someone to fix it for them.
Why are you afraid of liberty?
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@doghousepiiman If we eliminated all of our social programs right now, both the poor and the rich would keep their property. Oh, wait. The poor don’t have any property. And now the rich are absolutely unaccountable for their actions – if they accidentally use poison in their food products, the poor (after being poisoned, since there is no FDA to test it) they can just sue! (Against their million dollar legal teams)
Why do you follow the myth that hard work = success?
imaginaryfortress 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress
You seem to think that individuals in lower income brackets in the U.S. tend to stay there. That's only the case in socialist or other totalitarian-collectivist nations. The freer the market, the more mobility. In fact, capitalism in the U.S. has given the poor a standard of living that would be considered luxury in most countries. As for your goofy example of poison, if the government does it's job, it punishes fraud and negligence.
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imaginaryfortress
>Why do you follow the myth that hard work = success?
It usually does. Not always, but life's not fair. Life's just life. Failure is an important part of the learning process. Or, are you against the growth of the individual?
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@doghousepiiman And again, there is a distinction between working the land, and claiming that NO ONE else can ever use it, except those that YOU choose to allow. Libertarians can’t seem to account for the fact that no one is an island. Your successes are never completely your own. Did you pave the roads yourself to get to work? Did you educate yourself? The whole part of being in a civilization is for human beings to work together, to take care of each other, to progress.
imaginaryfortress 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress And really? Giving power to the workers (the backbone of our economy and the reason the wealthy have their money to being with) is childish?
I should become a libertarian and stop being a childish coward. “It’s mine! I did it all by myself and it’s mine and I shouldn’t have to share with anybody!” The cult is Ayn Rand is laughable, and you are not taken seriously by the majority. Have fun supporting the right of the rich and powerful to manipulate us.
imaginaryfortress 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress
>I should become a libertarian and stop being a childish coward.
Ah, so you DO understand!
If you are so weak and incompetent that the rich and powerful are able to manipulate you, then you have no place being out in public without an escort, and you likely have personal issues that need to be addressed.
Why are you so afraid of liberty?
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@doghousepiiman Lol, please stop trying. You're a fucking embarassment. Go back to your Ayn Rand reading club with your other upper-class white male friends and cry how paying taxes is the highest evil.
imaginaryfortress 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress
You're giving up already?
Okay, well, best of luck in your future endeavors.
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress - Why do people assume that anyone with an accurate grasp of economics is an Ayn Rand fan?
StateExempt 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@imaginaryfortress
Your comment about no one being an island shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of liberty as well as libertarianism. Those of us who value liberty also place high value on cooperation. However, unlike totalitarians, we don't believe in FORCED cooperation. I gained my education by engaging in a free-will exchange of my property and my labor for that education. Civilization is free-will exchange. Forced exchange is slavery.
doghousepiiman 4 weeks ago
@imaginaryfortress "In our current "free market" Well everything you say is not the case. Do one little thing wrong, & employees can take you to a tribunal for unfair dismissel & take huge sums off you. ''hey are forced to find another job (or starve trying.)'' What are you a refugee from the middle ages? Even victorian workers were not allowed to starve. Today with comprehensive welfare states the idea is laughable.
Malthus0 4 weeks ago
40 people think Obama's stimulus worked
takadi 1 month ago
love it
trukien1 1 month ago
Brilliant.
orduck23 1 month ago
Very good video! But please tell me... why has my business income and that of millions of others dropped so much in just the last 3 years? I believe most of our economic problems are caused by "well-intentions" of our govt. resulting in this horrible situation of $15T in debt, $4B/day to pay interest on that debt.
MemoryTechnologies 1 month ago
@rverne8 Can you see any holes in his logic? If not stfu.
Tacotruck1166 1 month ago
I loved both the information and the method used to present it. I also agree with the conclusion. If the idiots in the market would get out of the way OR better yet start contributing by bringing new, relavent products and services to market this would go much further toward improving the economy that picking a minority and punishing them. Eventually everyone becomes a member of a minority that gets the short end of the stick.
1guyiknow 1 month ago
I am a libertarian; and every time I watch most of this Learn Liberty videos; it leaves me with a sour taste. I am against taxation in general; but he is trying to BSing me into thinking that actual worker compensatiosn have gone up? Really!?
MarcLira66 1 month ago
His rosiest estimate still wouldn't come close to compensating for needing 2 rather than 1 breadwinners per median houshold. The rest seems plain dishonest. TVs etc improve over time anyway for reasons that having nothing to do with working conditions and wages. And arguing that the statistical obfuscates the anecdotal, is, well.. obfuscation.
I love how they always dumb it down enough that you can tell they're trying to mislead.
Muwt 1 month ago
i feel so much better after watching this, although i predict this will only last as long as it takes me to go to the gas station
i have a different measure of inflation, in my measure we take out all the "savings" from having our shit made somewhere else - clothes, tvs, etc. - because those are one time gains that the next generation won't get, but that generation will pay the ultimate price by not having jobs
as you can imagine, i come up with a completely different number
daddiosgarage 1 month ago
Yes, lets return our tax system to the last one where was can say it was working... The 90's. The country also worked well when we have a ~90% top marginal tax rate in the 50s and 60s.
Loathomar 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I like that he mentions income mobility. Another thing he could add is distinction between the incomes groups. While min wage jobs have seen almost no increase in their buying power (quality only increase), The middle class has seen substantial growth in their buying power. Of course, "the rich" have seen the most growth. The more money you make, the faster you accumulate wealth.
google: United States Income Distribution 1947-2007
We're all winning, but the less-skilled are winning less =/
TheBalancedAmerican 1 month ago
I knew JFK was still alive!
DasGuntLord01 1 month ago
Between 4:25 and 4:36 are you saying that women and immigrants aren't actual people?
tailormade643 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
CHECK THIS OUT!
A real opportunity to make part time income and share something really heathly with others.
No better satisfaction.
Go to >>> amazingautosystem.weebly.com <<< and sign on!
louisbrassyyy 1 month ago
His final comment made me scoff. Not at the idea, just at the presentation. The content of this video had to do with gaining a broader and more accurate perspective on statistics, and he presented his case very well; however, he tacked on his opinion at the tail of the video without providing any supporting information... seemed rather silly...
GreyManny 1 month ago
all i know is that in the last 2 years, i have been spending increasingly more and more money at the grocery store! my wages have gone up, but i am still as broke as ever.
evi1energy 1 month ago
@evi1energy Well that is what we call inflation, and that is the governments fault. And 2 years isn't a large enough scale to produce a noticeable, or any change in standard of living. If you have savings than it's no longer just inflation it's inflation tax.
ShamanMcLamie 1 month ago
@ShamanMcLamie it definitely has been noticeable within the last 6 years.
i guess it's a good thing i'm to broke to save money.
evi1energy 1 month ago
@evi1energy The inflation probably has, but from what you're saying your wage has kept up with the cost of goods and that basically leaves you in the same position in the last 2 years. In my opinion I think it's pretty lucky that your wage has kept up, cause the second part of the inflation tax is that employee wages tends not to catch up with the cost of goods right away, thus making your work worth less. Feel free to clarify anything I may have misinterpreted in your statements.
ShamanMcLamie 1 month ago
@ShamanMcLamie i work in the trades since 2002, so beginning as a green horn to present day, i have had nowhere to go but up. but now i am reaching close to the peak pay and also added a son in the last couple years so my statement was a little disingenuous
ever since ethanol subsidies and gas prices skyrocketing my dollar goes less far at the grocery store these days. basically it is near impossible in my area to buy a meal for under 5 bucks a person unless it's from the 1$ menu
evi1energy 1 month ago
He has got that last part about the free market correct but hes data is more corrupt then he knows earning him a thumbs down.
travissand 1 month ago
@travissand Proof? How are his data "corrupt"?
SuzeraintyNow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuzeraintyNow try google. Its all there.
travissand 1 month ago
@hitssquad: Since the bush administration of the early 2000's the richest people in America have enjoyed a very big tax cut, according to your logic, we should not be in a great recession, right? where is the investment then?
Where are the jobs? I don't see them? I see record corporate profits, should they pay no taxes at all?if so, where are we going to get the money, poor people? lol, also, by taxing the rich(the only people that can afford it) we can rebuild our failing infrastructure.
Wulfmanrox 1 month ago
@Wulfmanrox Corporations require employees to make profits and if they grow, they hire new employees.
JustinBaker2567 1 month ago
@Wulfmanrox "according to your logic, we should not be in a great recession"
You *aren't* in a recession: mjperry. blogspot. com
.
"I see record corporate profits, should they pay no taxes at all?"
Corporations should pay no *income* tax, since income harms no one. They should instead pay land-value tax, since monopolising the use of land hurts everyone. The less land a given corporation monopolizes, the better for society.
hitssquad 1 month ago
Dear god this is stupid:
1) OK let's use this wage numbers. A whole 10% over 30 years...that's a whole .33% annually. Is that the same rate of annual wage increase for the wealthiest 1%??? NOPE. It's nearly 200% over the same time period.
2) He's counting an explosion in insurance costs as an increase in income???
3) Bogus analogy, wage growth and human body growth are not at all the same.
TheDuttzz 1 month ago
Certainly living standards have gone up - HOWEVER;
1) some "economic activity" is not socially useful. In those cases, taxes can increase as far as I am concerned, to disuade from the pursuit of such activites.
2) if there is at all the possibility that activity could result in private profit / public losses then such activity is by definition not free market, and if not free market, then should be regulated.
MensRifleAssociation 1 month ago
I agree that life qualities has become better, but disagree that rich shouldn't be taxed more. Everybody has to pay rent and bills, and boy food - these are natural taxes witch we pay to survive in modern society. And if we allow poor people to earn more, they are more likely to achieve more if they have financial resources to for example study or start their own businesses, or send their kids to college. Wealthy people don't need extra money so desperately, because they already have that money.
jurmalniex 1 month ago
@jurmalniex "but disagree that rich shouldn't be taxed more."
You want to tax the rich to prevent them from investing? ...Because investment in new production and better ways of doing things hurts society?
.
"And if we allow poor people to earn more"
How would taxing the rich allow poor people to earn more? 40% of Americans pay no income tax at all.
hitssquad 1 month ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@hitssquad "You want to tax the rich to prevent them from investing? ...Because investment in new production and better ways of doing things hurts society?"
So the rich always "invest" their tax breaks into "new production" and "better ways of doing things."
"40% of Americans pay no income tax at all."
I suppose you're referring to federal income tax and it's closer to 50% This is due to the fact that so many people earn so little that they don't even qualify to pay federal income tax.
TheDuttzz 1 month ago
@TheDuttzz "the rich always "invest" their tax breaks"
No, beause they're also taxed on their capital gains, rather than being taxed for the value of land they monopolize.
.
"it's closer to 50% This is due to the fact that so many people earn so little"
So you admit that Americans are bribed to limit their own production.
hitssquad 1 month ago
@hitssquad
Right now, the biggest issue is less about the top income tax bracket and more about the capital gains tax. The solution to the "unfair" 15% capital gains tax is to lower everyone else's taxes until they it seems fair again lol
The problem is we have a government that costs a certain amount of money, and rarely are cuts made appropriately when you cut the tax dollars that keep it afloat. To really and truly lower taxes, you have to limit government size first, that's the issue.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity "To really and truly lower taxes"
Where did I say it would be helpful to lower taxes?
hitssquad 1 month ago
@hitssquad
Ummm.... The goal on both sides is lower taxes. Being able to lower taxes reasonably and in a viable manner is like the holy grail of re-election.
What's not helpful is not paying for our obligations. What is helpful is when people have more of their own money to spend and the government doesn't need as much from everyone.
Have you completely lost sight of this?
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@hitssquad Investments is based soley on speculation. In reality, the wealthy prefer the least amount of ppl in their labor market because that is more shares for themselves. The wealthy cannot improve the economy; consumer based economics is based on consumption and since they have all their needs and wants they spend the least. whereas if the poor had the money it would be spent because they collectively have more needs thereby causing economic stimulation and demand for labor.
1polymath 1 month ago
@1polymath "if the poor had the money it would be spent"
And spending, instead of investing, hurts the economy.
hitssquad 1 month ago
@hitssquad if they had money they would not be poor.
circusboy90210 4 weeks ago
@hitssquad it's not just rich peoples investments(not talking about the top 1% here but the mere millionare next door) but their daily spending that spurs economic growth. I have a friend who is a mere millionare (not anywhere near the top 40% ) who's purchases of tacos for friends and employees keeps several taco shops in business . if he were to be taxed past his alread already overtaxed status, 3 taco shops would suffer major losses. not to mention one liquor store. tax the poor they pay 0
circusboy90210 1 month ago in playlist 2.06
@circusboy90210 "daily spending [...] spurs economic growth"
No. Spending inhibits economic growth: ebook3000. com/How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Crashes_104344. html
.
"who's purchases of tacos [...] keeps several taco shops in business ."
Thus, he is committing homicide through his act of spending.
hitssquad 4 weeks ago
@hitssquad no the act of spending is benevolent and helps keep people in work and private business. spending fuels growth and cannot live without it. it also keeps the farmers who grow food in business , hence spurring economic growth. if he were taxed then he would not afford those tacos .
circusboy90210 4 weeks ago
@circusboy90210 "no the act of spending is benevolent and helps keep people in work and private business."
That's a common fallacy. Even just thinking about it for a moment should tell you that any spending of money, without an expectation of a return on investment, wastes resources. When you buy tacos, you're latently forcing people to waste their valuable time making tacos, instead of using their valuable time to do something more productive.
Did you read the book?
hitssquad 4 weeks ago
@circusboy90210 Spending money to keep wasteful businesses, such as Taco stands, in business is a form of homicide, since the resources that money commands could have been spent on life-saving, and wealth-producing, investments. Everyone loses when anyone buys a taco -- unless that's the absolute best value in terms of time and money. But we know the millionaire-next-door who keeps the taco stands in business could probably be feeding himself more efficiently by planning ahead.
hitssquad 4 weeks ago
@hitssquad making tacos is productive and makes those people happy so in a sense that is the most productive use of their time. not everything has to be an investment so spurr economic growth. however the mexicans who made those tacos invested with the idea of making profit from tacos. the roi on buying tacos?? saving time , getting better tacos than we could make ourselves. o the tacos are the roi, mexicans time is worth less than mine so i keep my time to do more fun things.
circusboy90210 4 weeks ago
@hitssquad Taxing the rich would not allow poor people to earn more. However, even though many Americans pay no federal income tax, that does not mean they are not taxed. All dollar holders (most especially those not close with the banking industry) are taxed by inflation. Sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, etc. We are being taxed to death. The solution is not to make someone else pay more taxes. That does not make me pay less taxes, nor does it make me any better off.
dachickenman 4 weeks ago
In 1976, to fly anywhere cost a lot of money. Today many people can easily fly on the cheap.
Brantoc 1 month ago
I think people enjoy believing the Robert Reich view. People like to believe that their own circumstances are controlled by others. They like to believe in villains. I think this is the reason many people loath their economics classes in college. These classes take away villains people want to believe in.
goose1077 1 month ago
@goose1077 Really? Economics class pretty much confirms that there are villains. That rational people will lie, cheat, and steal as long as the cost-benefit analysis favors it. Companies will pay you as little as possible, and will charge as much as possible as long as the price effect is better than the quantity effect. They will try to turn any costs into externalities and push them on to others. Economics just sees it as rational and to be expected, not a moral quandry.
Waywardpaladin 1 month ago