On the Nature of Things | Forum

Folks,

An article by Eduardo Porter in the NYT (27/4/14) gives us this:

“In the United States, the share of national income that goes to workers is at its lowest level since the 1950s, and corporate profits take the largest share of national income since the 1920s.”

Of course, we have seen this process accelerating for many decades, not just in the US but elsewhere in the developed world. The interesting question is - why?

Porter suggests the usual suspects: technological advances, weakening union power, erosion of minimum wage, dwindling natural resources, lack of good business ideas and the rise of rewards to inherited wealth.

It’s a hard one. Looking at causes for long term trends is never easy, and I am inclined to think that there is a deep driver of this process, rather than a basket of likely causes.

What might it be?

Alex.

obama, STPN, the Democrat Party, liberalism, progressivism, leftism. Plain as the nose on ones face.

Current polling indicates that is how America is beginning to feel. I look forward to a GOP wave.

manolo: a combination of automation, labor wage arbitrage, and meritocratic power structures have made this an inevitable reality. "Progress", however you want to define it, is not linear, constant, or gradual. It comes in bursts. The scientific and industrial revolutions aren't over yet. The idea that broad-based mid-20th century prosperity (in Westernized countries, at least) was sustainable or normal has no theoretical basis. Individuals seek to maximize wealth and power and, when they obtain it, they have every incentive to justify it. In the past, it was divine right, today it is "meritocracy". It's a positive feedback loop that structures society into a pyramid.

Within our lifetime, vast segments of the labor market will be eliminated. The population will simply have to decline but it won't be a pleasant process. What will probably happen is that wealth will be taxed to alleviate the pain of the unemployed just enough to prevent outright violence or less palpable "solutions" but not enough to allow them to reproduce.

Zack Morris wrote:manolo: a combination of automation, labor wage arbitrage, and meritocratic power structures have made this an inevitable reality. "Progress", however you want to define it, is not linear, constant, or gradual. It comes in bursts. The scientific and industrial revolutions aren't over yet. The idea that broad-based mid-20th century prosperity (in Westernized countries, at least) was sustainable or normal has no theoretical basis. Individuals seek to maximize wealth and power and, when they obtain it, they have every incentive to justify it. In the past, it was divine right, today it is "meritocracy". It's a positive feedback loop that structures society into a pyramid.

Within our lifetime, vast segments of the labor market will be eliminated. The population will simply have to decline but it won't be a pleasant process. What will probably happen is that wealth will be taxed to alleviate the pain of the unemployed just enough to prevent outright violence or less palpable "solutions" but not enough to allow them to reproduce.

Zack,

Yes, I have read similar analyses elsewhere. The simplest was "Driving down labour costs to maximise profits by exporting jobs." To such globalisation I would add the globalisation of tax evasion, giving the corporates a win at both ends.

I agree with you about taxation strategy. Tax and spend has taken some of the sting out of the process so far, but more will be required to avoid outright unrest.

Alex.

Zack Morris wrote:manolo: a combination of automation, labor wage arbitrage, and meritocratic power structures have made this an inevitable reality. "Progress", however you want to define it, is not linear, constant, or gradual. It comes in bursts. The scientific and industrial revolutions aren't over yet. The idea that broad-based mid-20th century prosperity (in Westernized countries, at least) was sustainable or normal has no theoretical basis. Individuals seek to maximize wealth and power and, when they obtain it, they have every incentive to justify it. In the past, it was divine right, today it is "meritocracy". It's a positive feedback loop that structures society into a pyramid.

Within our lifetime, vast segments of the labor market will be eliminated. The population will simply have to decline but it won't be a pleasant process. What will probably happen is that wealth will be taxed to alleviate the pain of the unemployed just enough to prevent outright violence or less palpable "solutions" but not enough to allow them to reproduce.

I think I can find some people saying almost word for word back in the 1930's.

I think gents this throwback 30's and 70's rhetoric is driving predictably the upcoming election results.

So guys, in your minds which segments of the population are going to have to reduce in number. Which ones won't be allowed to breed.

I remember back in Spengler forum, in 2008, I posted some pictures of people in starvation camps in association with obama/Democrat policy.

The forum erupted in outrage. Sheer unadulterated blood shot outrage. You'd've though I sodomized a spotted owl. Or worse, commented on someone's private sex life.

Now? Well we might to starve 'em out after all. Amazing what becomes conventional wisdom after just a few short years.

BTW, no need for the eugenics, white leftists all over the place are cutting their reproduction rates voluntarily. I think it is a win win for everyone.

Contrarily to what happens with other species, among humans sometimes the sheep slaughter the wolves... It doesn't last very long, but it gives the sheep some satisfaction... I'm waiting for the next round...

Endovelico wrote:Contrarily to what happens with other species, among humans sometimes the sheep slaughter the wolves... It doesn't last very long, but it gives the sheep some satisfaction... I'm waiting for the next round...

Endo,

I hadn't mentioned that phenomena, but there is indeed historical precedence. When the right wingers whinge about tax and spend, I think they forget that this political expedient is protecting them.

Mr P,

You have made four posts in a row.

Alex.

Zack Morris wrote:manolo: a combination of automation, labor wage arbitrage, and meritocratic power structures have made this an inevitable reality. "Progress", however you want to define it, is not linear, constant, or gradual. It comes in bursts. The scientific and industrial revolutions aren't over yet. The idea that broad-based mid-20th century prosperity (in Westernized countries, at least) was sustainable or normal has no theoretical basis. Individuals seek to maximize wealth and power and, when they obtain it, they have every incentive to justify it. In the past, it was divine right, today it is "meritocracy". It's a positive feedback loop that structures society into a pyramid.

Within our lifetime, vast segments of the labor market will be eliminated. The population will simply have to decline but it won't be a pleasant process. What will probably happen is that wealth will be taxed to alleviate the pain of the unemployed just enough to prevent outright violence or less palpable "solutions" but not enough to allow them to reproduce.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Zack Morris,

but not enough to allow them to reproduce.

I'm not so sure about that.....

From what I can see, more reproduction seems to be happening way down the economic ladder versus on the High End among the so called elites.....

manolo wrote: Mr P,

You have made four posts in a row.

Alex.

Sorry, Zack Morris gets very upset when I edit posts. I would prefer to edit them, but I don't want to get him mad. With his eugenic impulses, it seems like bad idea.

Endovelico wrote:Contrarily to what happens with other species, among humans sometimes the sheep slaughter the wolves... It doesn't last very long, but it gives the sheep some satisfaction... I'm waiting for the next round...

And Berzer thinks I'm the one with bloodlust. When you hear enough people give voice to this urge, well, why wouldn't you spend tens of thousands of dollars on armaments.