So many love letters. Don't know if I have time to answer them all, but I'll give it a shot.
NomadPatriot wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Adjusted for inflation, the economy of today is four times as productive as the economy of 1980, but all the gains are going to the boss man. The worker of today is worse off than his 1980s counterpart by every meaningful measure. He's less likely to own his own house, less likely to be able to send his kids to college, less likely to have a company pension to retire on, less likely to have a stable full-time job, has less leisure time, less job satisfaction, and despite spectacular gains in medical knowledge is actually getting less healthy.
without the 'boss man' providing jobs.. there would be no jobs..
That may be true. Most people have no problem with there being a boss man. Most people have no problem with the boss man making more than they do. When they start having a problem is when they are asked to take a pay cut while the boss man gives himself a 20% raise. At that point they start to question if maybe things are getting a little skewed.
In 1950, the typical corporate CEO made 20 times what a frontline worker in his industry made. Most people, I think, don't have a problem with the CEO making 20 times more than a basic worker. By 1980, CEO salaries had increased to typically 40 times what their workers made. Lifts some eyebrows, but not revolution-worthy. Today, however, average CEO salaries have mushroomed to 361 times what workers make.
sourceMost people have no problem with the boss making 20 times what they do. I think most didn't even have a problem with it when he starts making 40 times what they do. But as he starts reaching towards 400 times their salary, I think people are waking up and realize that something stinks. But what's more significant, is that between 1950 and 1980, while CEO salaries were going up, workers' wages and benefits were going up too. Almost everybody felt like they had a slice of the pie. But since 1980, while executive salaries have continue to boom, workers' wages have been flat, and their benefits have actually been declining.
The trend which started in the 80's and continues to accelerate today, is for full-time jobs with benefits and pensions to be redefined as part-time jobs without benefits or pensions. Sometimes the same person is laid off from his full time job and immediately rehired as a casual, doing the exact same job as before but for a lot less money.
Not going to spend the whole day digging up graphics to show you, but here's just a few.
This is from Canada, showing the percentage of jobs with a pension plan declining from almost 50 percent to less than 30 percent:
This is from the U.S. Unfortunately only goes back 20 years not 40. 40 years would show the trend better, but like I said I don't want to spend the whole day searching for graphics.
In Australia, part-time work goes from less than 10 to more than 30 percent of total jobs.
NomadPatriot wrote:for 1,000's of years people have migrated looking for " a better tomorrow" for themselves & their future families.. for some reason you have a problem with this concept in the current year.. if you are not moving forward how you like.. move somewhere else..
There's two answers to this. First, I think it's absolutely hilarious that you would say that when you celebrate a president whose entire campaign was based on preventing people from migrating in search of a better tomorrow. Hilarious in a sad and unfunny kind of way. You probably don't even see the hypocrisy.
The second answer is that I have nothing to gain by moving. I'm already living in one of the best places on the planet. It's sad but true, that as much as life sucks here, it's actually worse almost everywhere else. And as pitiful as my income is, it's sad but true that 99.9% of the world's population makes even less. I make just a little under $70K. If I was in your country,
I'd be considered middle class! If I was in Botswana, I'd be considered Creosus.
As much as I resent making $70K while my boss walks away with $3 mils, I'm doing relatively better than the average American worker who has to survive on $38K while his boss pays himself nearly $14 million!
NomadPatriot wrote:( but it is hilarious to see these leftists start to get angry & outburst when they start losing the political power... US, Canada, uk.. -all voted conservative)
Not sure where you've been living, but leftists aren't "starting" to lose power. They lost power at the end of the 70s and never got it back. Since the early 80s, the world has been ruled by right-wing governments. Starting with Reagan and Thatcher and Helmut Kohl and Nakasone, right-wing governments swept to power in the 80s and they've never given it up. Sure, sometimes an oddball mild leftist like Obama squeezes through, but then Congress just cuts cuts him off at the knees and prevents him from passing any meaningful changes, and life goes on. The odd Italian or French leftist to liven things up, but then things go back to right-wing dominance.
This trend, of CEOs giving themselves raises while denying raises to the rank-and-file, coincides
exactly with the rise of the right in politics, which makes it glaringly obvious that it's part of the same movement.
jimboston wrote:Duk... Define “Left” and “Right”?
Are you saying ALL ‘Right/Conservative’ views can only be held be people who are ignorant/or uneducated?
Did I say that? Did you even
look at the graph?
It's pretty clear what it shows.
I'll quote it again, so you don't have to go back to the top of the thread:
In the French 1956 election, educated voters were 13% more likely to vote right. In 2012, they were 13% more likely to vote left.
In the British 1955 election, educated voters were 21% more likely to vote right; in 2017 they were 12% more likely to vote left.
In the American 1948 election, educated voters were 16% more likely to vote right; in 2016 they were 23% more likely to vote left.
Why would you be putting absolutist words in my mouth like "ALL" or "ONLY"? If we were talking about "ALL" or "ONLY", we wouldn't be talking about 13%s and 21%s, would we? We'd be talking about 100%s.
Political parties play percentages. In a divided country, a swing of 5% here or there can make all the difference in the world. No ALLs or ONLYs required.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Exhibit A. The right wing position in a nutshell.
The people deserve to be slaves because (insert horseshit justification here.)
Duk, are you trying to be serious here with the identity politics?
Are you seriously going to take my words out of context and then ask me to defend them? That's not exactly the honest debate you claim to be seeking.\
I was responding to DoomYoshi's statement that restoring slavery by gradually chiselling away workers wages is "the natural order". In other words, just the way things should be.
While most conservatives wouldn't be as brutally honest as DoomYoshi, most conservatives (on surveys I've seen published) do agree with the statement "poor people deserve to be poor because they're lazy" -- completely ignoring the fact that most poor people do in fact work for a living, often working at multiple jobs and to the point of exhaustion.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:How about we discuss positions individuals believe instead of pigeon-holing people into certain groups based off identity. You know, not everyone believes the same things?
I know that we have many disagreements politically, but I'm not going to call you a communist because you're a liberal. That is infallible in a discussion, and quite frankly, indemonstrable in an argument. I would suggest you talk about discussion of ideas instead of coming right out of the gate and saying "all conservatives are (insert horrible belief/viewpoint here)."
Sure, we can discuss individual beliefs if you wish. I love discussing things with people who disagree, as long as they have an open mind. I hope you stick around.
Just like my response jimboston, however, why would you be putting absolutist words in my mouth like "ALL" or "ONLY"? If we were talking about "ALL" or "ONLY", we wouldn't be talking about 13%s and 21%s, would we? We'd be talking about 100%s.
