CEOs
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
Heck, up through the 1970s a single earner household could eke out a middle class existence, with children!
I am not that old and I can still remember that as a child, so I would say up to mid or end 80s
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Frankly, at least in the US, I am sure you are either misremembering, or your earner had a better job than most.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Frankly, at least in the US, I am sure you are either misremembering, or your earner had a better job than most.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
honey the codewitch wrote:
Frankly, at least in the US, I am sure you are either misremembering, or your earner had a better job than most.
Agreed. I've seen graphs that show just that, and the curve simply stops its upwards trend in the 70s. And not just one, but from many discussions on this topic. I have no problem sticking by that claim. What one remembers is entirely irrelevant, especially when you trace back to before even being alive.
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
Frankly, at least in the US, I am sure you are either misremembering, or your earner had a better job than most.
Agreed. I've seen graphs that show just that, and the curve simply stops its upwards trend in the 70s. And not just one, but from many discussions on this topic. I have no problem sticking by that claim. What one remembers is entirely irrelevant, especially when you trace back to before even being alive.
-
Most of those curves end their upward climb when Nixon dropped the gold standard and fiat currency became all the rage. That and the huge growth of government and regulation.
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
The graphs typically start diverging at 1979, and that's right around when Reagan took office, just after Carter.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
The graphs typically start diverging at 1979, and that's right around when Reagan took office, just after Carter.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Err... no. Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981. So 1979 was square in the middle of Carter's reign of terror.
I said around the time. I was approximating. Besides, either way nothing Reagan did was enacted at that point. However, he did continue the neoliberal economic policies of the time. And so did Clinton and Bush. Anyway, it certainly had nothing to do with gold standard or regulations. A common myth dreamt up by people with too much money, when the reality is that regulations and progressive taxation is precisely what Adam Smith prescribed in The Wealth of Nations to prevent the kind of wealth concentration we see today. The matter was settled a long time ago. The rest is just chin music.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I said around the time. I was approximating. Besides, either way nothing Reagan did was enacted at that point. However, he did continue the neoliberal economic policies of the time. And so did Clinton and Bush. Anyway, it certainly had nothing to do with gold standard or regulations. A common myth dreamt up by people with too much money, when the reality is that regulations and progressive taxation is precisely what Adam Smith prescribed in The Wealth of Nations to prevent the kind of wealth concentration we see today. The matter was settled a long time ago. The rest is just chin music.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
America specifically and western society generally are more highly regulated and taxed (progressively) than at any time in our history. Blaming the concentration of wealth on some mythical lack of progressive ideals is a farce. I'd more likely blame the welfare state created by Kennedy & LBJ. I recommend reading some Thomas Sowell[^] for the details. His life story gives him one hell of an insight.
-
America specifically and western society generally are more highly regulated and taxed (progressively) than at any time in our history. Blaming the concentration of wealth on some mythical lack of progressive ideals is a farce. I'd more likely blame the welfare state created by Kennedy & LBJ. I recommend reading some Thomas Sowell[^] for the details. His life story gives him one hell of an insight.
Nothing to do with progressive ideals. It has to do with progressive taxation, like I said. That's an entirely different thing. And I'll continue to take Adam Smith's wisdom over some randos on the Internet, but thanks. Thomas Sowell is a clown. He's a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like. That's all I have to say on this subject.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Nothing to do with progressive ideals. It has to do with progressive taxation, like I said. That's an entirely different thing. And I'll continue to take Adam Smith's wisdom over some randos on the Internet, but thanks. Thomas Sowell is a clown. He's a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like. That's all I have to say on this subject.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Frankly, at least in the US, I am sure you are either misremembering, or your earner had a better job than most.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I come from Spain. A lot of kids in my age had only a working father (me too). And all of those families had enough to live without troubles. Today... those kids have grown and had families on their own (as me), mostly working both of the parents and they can survive and barely make it through the year but far away of the life they had as kids. Granted... there is a lot about economical education, lifestyle and many other factors. But still, adquisitive power has been drastically reduced in 30 years.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I said around the time. I was approximating. Besides, either way nothing Reagan did was enacted at that point. However, he did continue the neoliberal economic policies of the time. And so did Clinton and Bush. Anyway, it certainly had nothing to do with gold standard or regulations. A common myth dreamt up by people with too much money, when the reality is that regulations and progressive taxation is precisely what Adam Smith prescribed in The Wealth of Nations to prevent the kind of wealth concentration we see today. The matter was settled a long time ago. The rest is just chin music.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
honey the codewitch wrote:
Anyway, it certainly had nothing to do with gold standard or regulations.
If that "gold standard" means that governments had to back up their money with assets (gold in this case)... I think yes, that really is a factor (if not THE factor). I don't know nor care who started it. But in my opinion that was the first big step and the inflection point into the mess we have today.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.