being there, I was struck by his visible frustration and guessed that it didn't just rise up in the last month or so. Similarly, I reflected back on the vast numbers of BLM protesters this past summer and their own "last straw" reactions...sometimes thoughtless and violent (too). Two ends of our American political spectrum and equally agitated...could there be a common element in their "root causes"? BTW, while it's patently obvious that these are highly complex situations involving political philosophy, racism, etc., my early career role leading Failure Analysis investigations motivated me to give it a try.
That FA process requires broad observations of the 'problem' and testing them for relevance. In this case, I couldn't help but notice that virtually all of the participants were from similar economic strata, which immediately conjured up thoughts of Income and Wealth Inequality...then I did a little research and found the following study...which did indeed imply a correlation between economic inequality and political polarization/unrest.
https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/papers/2014/wp1408.pdf
While not wanting to jump to any conclusions - which the FA process is built to avoid - I believe that this issue needs to be a priority for the incoming administration...and hopefully a topic for this Forum...to that end, I've also attached a Pew Research Report (see link) that goes into greater detail...well worth reading as a "jumping off" point.
Comments?
Link: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
in his latest book "Ten Lessons for a Post-Pandemic World"...
"In 1970, the top 1% of income earners captured less than 10% of all national income. In 2019, that number passed 20%. "
"The top 10% of America owns almost 70% of the total wealth of the country - from houses and cars to stocks and bonds - while the bottom 50% own just 1.5% of assets."
"In New York City, certain poor neighborhoods in the Bronx, Queens (my old stomping grounds), and Brooklyn have seen four to six times the fatality rates of the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side, even though the latter are far more densely populated.......If not infected yet, they are more likely to get infected because they have to work - and not from a distance in the comfort of their homes."
"Government policy has also supported the rich.....Congress passed trillions of dollars' worth of tax cuts in 2001, 2003 and 2017, the benefits of which have gone to the top 10% of the country. (The previous administration) elected in part on an economic populist who railed against Wall Street, still implemented these regressive policies. The political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson call this two-faced ideology "plutocratic populism"."
"Historically the lesson is clear: if growing inequalities are not addressed by reforms, revolution might follow."
"...we have moved from accepting a market economy to creating a market society, on in which everything is seen through the prism of price."
"When everything can be bought, every aspect of life becomes unequal. Take a simple example. Watching sports live in a stadium used to be one of the great communal events. It will not be communal anymore."
"But if we lead lives that are increasingly worlds apart, separated by partitions that are physical and invisible, we will think of ourselves sharing little. There is then no common ground."
------------------
These issues and problems are "organic"...i.e. they will only get worse if not addressed...overt action by our representatives - with our vocal input - are needed to effect change and a better outcome.
BTW, that (and Gals??) comment baits a real question...is this a 'Male Only' Forum?...Hopefully not.
But what is the answer? Socialism? That's anathema to most of this country. I've done a lot of work in Europe, where countries are more socialistic. The people there do appear to generally be happier. As you say, perhaps the new administration can do some good.
difficult and elusive. Perhaps an insight into what I call the "organic" nature of this problem ('Gap') is another section from Fareed Zakaria's book...
"Peter Thiel, the provocative tech entrepreneur and investor, admits with startling honesty that "competition is for losers." The goal of every company, he notes, should be to create a monopoly. In the tech world, the winners have succeeded beyond any historical standard"...there are lots of "imputations" to this line of thinking, directly affecting the Income/Wealth Gap.
To this I would add that to varying degrees, all companies harbor such desires and with this "ethos" we can expect ever greater rewards for the "winners" and ever smaller compensations for those lower down in the enterprise that do their level best to just hold onto their positions.
While I've personally seen and experienced a corporate environment that largely obviates the need for government intervention (i.e. tax reform), it is highly unlikely that resolution can be found without it. I'll expand on that experience in a subsequent thread.
I would agree that there are less extremes, but that is what happens in Socialism. There is far less dreaming of what is possible and more mere acceptance of their station in life. They've been conditioned to just live with it. No thanks.
Maybe all your European anecdotal evidence is Eastern European.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
There will always be an economic floor - it is unavoidable by defintion, and it is something that we all wish to improve at all times.
The solution is not to make everyone sit on the bottom together so that everyone suffers. The goal is instead to raise as many off of the floor as possible.
Putting in an economic ceiling merely places limits on hope and thus effort and achievement. Instead, a vibrant and healthy middle class provides this.
And just to point out to Fareed, in every case of socialism and communism ever implemented, there was a ruling class that lived in the penthouse above the floor dwellers for whom the rules did not apply.
The places where we have failed in the US have come for the most part from our forays into the very socialistic solution that you propose.
intended) of material regarding the issue...including polled opinions on how to rectify. BTW, there are other sources you - and others - can access, such as the "World Inequality Database" (http://WID.world) for greater understanding on the issue...and real, worldwide data.
I also provided a Fed report on the relationship of inequality to political polarization...while media certainly amplifies and bends opinions, there are solid underlying reasons why this gap exists and why if allowed to grow too large, it is dangerous to all of society.
Your constant reference to the concept of "Everyone" sharing the same fate is non-productive...as I'm tallying up the number of times I have to repeat it, that idea has no home with me...please stop.
The concept of an "economic ceiling", however, does register with me...and a lot of others (e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and many other billionaires). One of the insights brought up by Thomas Piketty is that market forces don't apply fairly to all income levels...I believe I've used this example before, so apologies if you've already heard this...CEOs consistently get 'generous' compensation' from their BODs (selected by the CEO), who have "Compensation Committees" that hire "Compensation Consultants" who know where their bread is buttered, and who 'rarely' recommend a reduction in pay for the CEO...seemingly without concern for actual 'value added'....would that the line workers and staff members had such 'Consultants'. For these and similar reasons (i.e. lack of strong correlation between 'performance' and pay in may studies of executive compensation), we need to discuss means of correcting this Income/Wealth Gap contributor.
On this score, you probably have first hand knowledge...i.e. Doctors, Nurses, Tech, Staff pay versus Hospital Executives (again, see Steven Brill's book "America's Bitter Pill"), and the impact of Hospital consolidation...another topic I'd like to engage with you about (I'm on your side, btw).
Note wrt Fareed Zakaria...I've been meeting weekly for over a decade with friends who have a range of political views...some quite conservative...and all of them watch Fareed...this is only anecdotal, but telling...try it for awhile.
One more thing on your "Hot Button" of Socialism v. Capitalism...I know for a fact that Democrats have 401Ks and like them very much...getting rid of Capitalism never has been included in that party's platform...reforming the real and often unavoidable "Ills" of Capitalism is...and if you need a listing I'll be happy to provide it...remember, I'm a proud owner of an MBA...one that I've used to help advance corporate interests at the highest levels.
(no message)
(no message)
I'm out.
hopefully one of them resonates with you...give it another shot, because the issue will be front page news when the Biden administration presents its own tax bill. Under the assumption that you don't just 'react' to such proposals without analysis, it might be worthwhile to engage in some discussion here beforehand.
cause of unrest being economic inequality is false.
The agitation is coming from information manipulation - ie the media. They are creating and the widening a wedge for the very purpose you appear to be proposing.
limiting the H1b visa program
I would assume you do...if not, we've got more work ahead on there...but given that real world example, our own wealth gap is very large by U.S. historical records, and getting larger with no systemic reason for stopping...therefore, the only entity that can reverse it is........Government. The questions are "How" and "How Much"...let's discuss.
One major cause is the polarization of news sources (24 hour cable news), this has been going on for 20 years and has been exacerbated in the last 5-10 with social media and algorithms to feed confirmation bias and radical thought and conspiracy.
If groups of people can't agree on the basic facts around an issue, there is no chance for common ground and compromise.
The disaffected are rising up and I do believe this is related to economic status and lack of opportunity. Something needs to change, we need a unifying common sense leadership that is above the political fray. We obviously don't have that with Trump, will we get it with Biden? We'll see, I hope so.
First, agree on a reasonable majority level required to pass laws. Part of what drives this panic that we have seen by both sides over the last decade over losing or gaining slim majorities is the fact that ever since that scumbag Reid went nuclear, we now do things with huge effects with a simple majority. 51% of the nation dictating policy is not good for anyone.
Second, less federal overreach. Again, if states and communities provide people the political and cultural happiness they want, they're less likely to be rioting. Just stop trying to override it at the federal level if your party is in power.
We need a bigger hurdle, in my opinion.
And, in your opinion, is 60 high enough? I just don't know.
It became overused as a way to block all initiatives by the opposition. Which is too bad.
It will eventually be a thing of the past.
Link: Look at how the filibsuter took off
The Senate filibuster rule is still in effect. The “nuclear option” only affects judges - and, I might add, only in place because the minority GOP was blocking 100% of Obama’s judicial nominees.
But most things still take 60. Which is why DC is not going to be a state any time soon.
(no message)
I'd like to delve into it more...especially in understanding why our representatives can't seem to find ways of "collaborating" while shutting out the special interests that seem to occupy all their waking hours...
On the second point, the words that spring to mind are "Art Form"...i.e. there is a balance - as you suggest earlier - that must be found...and the fact that such a balance is in response to a 'dynamic' environment means that it's not a case of "set it and forget it"...it is a constant effort...with "progress" being the guide; not "perfection".
I should also make clear that the links I provided give away the thrust I was making...i.e. Income and Wealth Inequality have a great deal to do with the 'unease' we are seeing. The PEW Report offers a considerable amount of insight on this issue, with a fair amount of options presented as remedies. Over time (like it or not), I'll be adding my own further observations and thoughts as to why we have such an expanding gap and how we might minimize - if not eliminate - it.
Thanks for replying...please continue.
Is that what you're saying?
any association with that concept. I should have chosen something like "...might minimize - if not eliminate - the "perception" of it" (i.e. there being a meaningful enough income/wealth gap that anyone - other than a pure 'socialist' - would care to bring up)...does this help?
communism/socialism.
I'll wait to hear, but your sounding like you plan to finally make a long planned pitch after hanging about for a while. We'll see. But again, your premise as to the agitation is already off base. Iarishcheeks also correctly noted the source in his post as well - skewed, biased, and inflammatory information sources (media) pushing an agenda and intentionally driving wedges.
concept"...i.e. 'equal outcomes'...i.e. 'communism', or 'pure socialism'. As to the notion of 'any socialism', the fact that we have Medicare and Social Security leaves the concept of 'some socialism' in play...you'll agree with that, I trust.
As to your second point...I said in my very first post that I see both sides of our political spectrum (conservative and liberal) to be 'naturally occurring'...that there is nothing inherently wrong with either stance. I'll go further in stating that they are necessary for the health of any society. Once again, as indicated in my first post, I see 'common ground' as essential to long lasting progress, as opposed to rigorous and unbending adherence to philosophies that impact others unacceptably...so, no there isn't any "Hidden Agenda"...let's keep talking.
Link: http://e
Not sure I can agree that we need to make progress from a Federal government perspective. We only need periodic adjustments. Unfortunately, we need to undo a lot of the "progress" we've made in the last 60 years.
add some more to the notion of "periodic adjustments" and how they would help shrink the "Gap"?
Thanks...as with Jake...appreciate the participation.
I gave forced bussing as an example below. We continually implemented significant policies (that are hard to undo) without sufficient concern as to the long-term unintended consequences.
We need periodic adjustments because of things like the advancement of technology makes it necessary. These adjustments might be in the form of laws, regulation, taxes, etc. Changes to the tax code would also qualify as periodic adjustments. Focusing on eliminating certain types of fraud or misuse of funds could be another example.
What are not examples are things like the Green New Deal or reparations. Also, anything that grants more long-term power and control to the Federal government.
for resolution...(significant) tax reform; not just a 'tweak'...which is definitely coming to a voting booth near you in 2021, I would guess. IMHO we all should seek information from the Biden administration as to what their plan is, evaluate it, ask (many) questions and then voice our opinions. This Forum could serve as a good 'practice field' for hopefully communications with your representatives.
BTW, your comment about the "New Green Deal" is near and dear to my heart and I'm hoping to enlist your support for my own entreaties to Congressmen/women...in case you haven't guessed, it has to do with significant use of Nuclear Power.
(no message)
economically rigged against them, it’s a powder keg.
Before, it was easier to ignore because it was mostly minorities. Guess what, the white working class has joined them. We need to address it or this rot could end up being the end of the republic as we know it. We have been warned both by Orange and by BLM notwithstanding how much they are despised by the different ends of the spectrum.
UBI and/or Friedman's concept of a negative income tax need to be considered as well.
I would also like a wealth tax. There's some upper limit whether it be $10M, $100M or $1B of personal wealth that is reasonable. It could be tied to multiples of median household income or something. IMO, when we still have children without access to proper nutritional needs and other resources to allow them to thrive while also having hundred billionaires, there is a problem. In the depth of a pandemic and high unemployment, billionaires are thriving, this seems immoral to me. Of course, if we had more Mackenzie Scotts, this would be less of a problem.
Raising the minimum standard of living for our citizenry will cause a lot of problems to go away.
noticed, I'm a fan of Thomas Piketty and the contents/recommendations of his book "Capital in the 21st Century", and the taxation approach is 'Center Front' for him. I'm just starting his second book now and hope to get to relevant parts "before the chewing gum loses it's flavor on the bed post" ;-).
(no message)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. However, I believe we were in a far better place from a race relations perspective 35 years ago. Politicians and MSM made it worse by using it as a wedge issue and the internet and social media has made it exponentially worse.
But I had good parents and good teachers and schools. Not sure where I'd be if I grew up in one of the inner city war zones. It's not directly tied to race, but minorities tend to be worse off.
The "Systemic Racism" concept isn't helpful, IMO. "Systemic Poverty" is.
(no message)
It’s the feeling that the system is economically rigged against you. Creates a grievance culture which is what we have. In the past this was largely in the black community. Not anymore.
I have always said that the vast majority of division among people follows socio economic lines and not race, religion, etc. Unfortunately, we have gone down too many destructive paths because politicians lumped in race with solutions to poverty. Economic solutions should be color blind. Otherwise we get destructive policies like forced bussing and communities are destroyed.
It’s also an indication of a less than healthy society.