Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 10th, 2017, 02:49 PM   #31

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 2,603

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
They did, but there was still no reason to have to expand the welfare state to the extent that it was, and paid for with oil revenues.
Australia has the same problem. We recently went through a massive mining boom and the Howard government squandered the revenue on tax cuts and middle class welfare instead of investing it. They did create the Future Fund, which is a sovereign wealth fund intended to cover pensions for government employees but the rest of the mining revenue was wasted. We are paying for it now with a massive increase in debt.

Last edited by Dan Howard; October 10th, 2017 at 02:52 PM.
Dan Howard is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 11th, 2017, 12:53 AM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,769

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post

For example today's minimum wage(7.25 an hour) would get Americans the following purchasing power in today's money in past eras adjusted for inflation. As time passes the minimum wage will go down further even if it just stays the same.

1950 73.86
1970 45.88
1990 13.62
2000 10.34
2010 8.16
2017 7.25

So what, yo might ask, won't they just raise the minimum wage from time to time to deal with this?Goods prices are raised adjusted for inflation, wages aren't and by the time they are raised, the purchasing power of the minimum wage is less than it was the previous time it was raised, meaning over time, Americans consistently make less regardless. Take 15 dollars which is seen as the gold standard goal for those wanting to raise the wage would get the following
1950 152.81
1970 94.92
1990 28.18
2000 21.39
2010 16.89
2017 15.00

So purchasing power is declining and this makes the US economy more unstable. This demonstrates the money that is going into profit margins and has made the wealthiest people in this country obscenely more wealthy over the past several decades.
Could you explain these figures please... What is 152$ in 1950 in relation to 15$ in 2017 ?
tomar is offline  
Old October 11th, 2017, 04:43 AM   #33
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,173

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Could you explain these figures please... What is 152$ in 1950 in relation to 15$ in 2017 ?
15 dollars would buy you 152 dollars worth of stuff in 2017 money in 1950. However seeing as the problem I'm citing started in the 70s and 80s that's really not the relevant part honestly don't know why I put 1950 in.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; October 11th, 2017 at 04:45 AM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old October 11th, 2017, 07:10 AM   #34

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 3,482

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
15 dollars would buy you 152 dollars worth of stuff in 2017 money in 1950. However seeing as the problem I'm citing started in the 70s and 80s that's really not the relevant part honestly don't know why I put 1950 in.
But the average annual wage in the U.S. In 1950 was about $2799. Today, it is $48,000. In the end, people had no more spending power. In fact, I would argue that people today can afford more: cell phones, other technology, multiple autos, healthier (and more expensive) food, expansive health care. There were many working poor, literally, 50 years ago . I would argue more people have it better today.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
Rodger is offline  
Old October 11th, 2017, 07:56 AM   #35

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 1,470

.
Rodger , I see your point , even thirty years ago , there was a whole industry to fix domestic appliances
now a washing machine or TV set is simply thrown away ,
in the industrial sector , replacing components is becoming more usual than fixing things
a big industrial plant doesn't rewind electrical motor below 75 Kw ,
it's simpler faster and cheaper to order a new one , it is delivered within 24 hours
sparky is offline  
Old October 11th, 2017, 12:42 PM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,173

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger View Post
But the average annual wage in the U.S. In 1950 was about $2799. Today, it is $48,000. In the end, people had no more spending power. In fact, I would argue that people today can afford more: cell phones, other technology, multiple autos, healthier (and more expensive) food, expansive health care. There were many working poor, literally, 50 years ago . I would argue more people have it better today.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
The rest of the whole "less money can get you more advanced stuff nowadays" argument is somewhat valid even if by today's standards people are doing worse than they were by yesterday's standards(if people were living 1950s lifestyles now that would be weird).

"expansive health care"

Come on man we both know this one's ain't true. Overwhelming majority of Americans go to great lengths(often getting stuck in a job they hate for 40 years) to avoid buying this product they can't afford by getting employer sponsored coverage which just passes on the hillariously high cost to the employer. But yeah a very tiny percentage of the American population can afford health care without their employer or the government picking up at least some of the tab.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; October 11th, 2017 at 12:45 PM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old October 11th, 2017, 12:44 PM   #37
Jai
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: Delhi
Posts: 13

1 % of folks have 50 % of wealth , this is not economy but more so of a non-violent indirect way of doing away with a large chunk of the populace .
Jai is offline  
Old October 11th, 2017, 03:49 PM   #38

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 1,470

.
there is a widely recognized measure of wealth inequality per country ,
it's called the Gini index

OECD Income Distribution Database (IDD): Gini, poverty, income, Methods and Concepts - OECD
sparky is offline  
Old October 11th, 2017, 05:11 PM   #39

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 3,482

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
The rest of the whole "less money can get you more advanced stuff nowadays" argument is somewhat valid even if by today's standards people are doing worse than they were by yesterday's standards(if people were living 1950s lifestyles now that would be weird).

"expansive health care"

Come on man we both know this one's ain't true. Overwhelming majority of Americans go to great lengths(often getting stuck in a job they hate for 40 years) to avoid buying this product they can't afford by getting employer sponsored coverage which just passes on the hillariously high cost to the employer. But yeah a very tiny percentage of the American population can afford health care without their employer or the government picking up at least some of the tab.
No. I have lived a number of years. I have seen the procedures that used to be exclusive to those with financial means become available to every person, even those with M.A. I said expansive health care, not health care COSTS. As far as who is paying for it, does that bother you? If so, I imagine you are against government sponsored health care. If you are stuck in a job, you get no sympathy from me. I watched relatives work 40 years in hot, back breaking steel mills - if they lived that long -just to put food on the table and a roof over their families head. You want it for free? You want it easy? I guess the economy is working for you if you are employed. And people aren't doing worse. I recall relatives living with outhouses, a coal furnace, no auto, no tv, no phone and on and on. Who do you know without a cell phone, tv, bathroom,etc., except by choice?

Last edited by Rodger; October 11th, 2017 at 05:15 PM.
Rodger is offline  
Old October 11th, 2017, 05:19 PM   #40

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 3,482

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jai View Post
1 % of folks have 50 % of wealth , this is not economy but more so of a non-violent indirect way of doing away with a large chunk of the populace .
And we know, since we are on a history site, that it has always been this way. How many people in Europe or Asia in times past controlled the wealth? I would argue a few: kings and nobles. Peasants had to ask permission to marry, to move. They worked 6 days a week and could barely feed their families. Many starved and died of disease. Most people in the developed world have it much better than their ancestors.
Rodger is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
broken, economy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debt based economy vs Equity based economy Menshevik Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 1 November 27th, 2013 09:50 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.