Capitalism vs Not Capitalism

[bigpicture7]

^That graph is certainly interesting, but it dosn't give much information. Is that medium income? I'm sure that it is inflation adjusted. Or is it average income?

Various formats of that graph have been kicking around for years. I first encountered it in a course on labor economics I took a while ago. I was just trying to find a simple version to post. But if you do a google image search for "wages and productivity" or "income and productivity" you can find numerous versions of it with the variables indicated.

Here's a wikipedia page on workforce productivity that reproduces a version of that graph (scroll to bottom)...there they are reporting "average real income":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workforce_productivity

So, yes, real wages are typically reported...it doesn't look much different if you use average or median.

Here's a more scholarly treatment:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/ces.2012.28

 

[Justin7]

 

[TheRifleman]

Anybody can generate a useless graph and portray those numbers to their agenda.

Try using this criteria since 1990.
-Interest rates
-Healthcare costs, Energy, Housing, Organic Food costs
-Private sector Salaries
-Govt Salaries
-Top 1% Salaries

If you can pull this data this would be eye opening.

 

[odurandina]

More and more and more Socialism:

More and more and more mutually shared poverty.

Maintaining a high ratio of capitalism to socialism is tough,

often, politically unsavory.

But you not only have to induce people to work & produce,

You have to have a system that encourages the creation of small businesses, and innovating.

When you help people from less affluent neighborhoods reach higher education & start businesses, the neighborhoods rise up from poverty.

That is the correct target for how best to use socialist tactics.

Social engineers and marxists and their divide and conquer methodology to educate the maximum # of people to believe they're part of a 'special victims unit' of society creates division, less opportunity, fewer results, a crash in the M3, and ultimately, the society crashes.

Down with snowflakism.

 

[bigpicture7]

more and more and more Socialism:

more and more and more mutually shared poverty.

This is completely wrong in every way.

Between the New Deal and now, the nation continually progressed in exactly the opposite direction than you say (away from central planning and toward neo-libralism). Meanwhile, poverty has increased and median wages have stagnated since the post-WWII era of economic prosperity.

Every economist worth their salt on both ends of the political spectrum categorizes the U.S. as one of the most un-coordinated market economies on earth right now.

You probably haven't even read through or thought deeply about the posts on this thread, just swooping in to drop this turd of a comment.

I am not a political ideologue of either party. I honestly do not claim to know what economic system would best benefit the nation's prosperity.

I am simply pointing out that the trend you suggest is not what happened. No one thinks so; neither republicans nor democrats.

 

[TheRifleman]

neither republicans nor democrats.

First you have to reset your brain to understand their are no republicans vs democrats. They are owned by the same group. The republicans and democrats are actually ONE PARTY. The corporation party. Spending the United States taxpayers money on their own corporate agendas.

For Example: Look at the SEAPORT Tax deals to the corporations.

Even Trump can't rein the govt spending at this point which I'm disappointed with since makes him part of the establishment maybe not the deep state but most likely connected to the military–industrial complex.

MONEY drives everything----
Our Govt has spend 100's of Trillions of tax dollars over the last decade. They can't balance a budget. That money is only diverted into a certain groups pockets. This is the swindle job.

The Average Worker that makes America run everyday got their money swindled through
Bailouts (Bankers same group that did not have to file bankruptcy)
Stimilus Packages (Union Hacks that vote for corrupt parties)
Interest rates which did not protect the value of the working class dollar. Thats your labor value everyday on what you can afford on a daily basis for goods and services..

For christ sake the banks don't even have to give you interest on your money in their bank to use to lend out.

Socialism? More like fascism

 

[odurandina]

Some good questions to ask include What times mark high peaks of M3? When did the minimum wage peak? When have wages peaked? i believe a careful study will reveal the wages of the lower and middle classes had the most buying power between 1969 and 1972.

That period was still the 'high peak' when Friedman wrote, 'Money Mischief; shortly before his death.

Odd when you consider this occurred before the US had its historic rise in productivity, and before such a huge % of the population was receiving some form of government benefits!

Friedman also wrote the Bible; 'The Monetary History of the United States.'

He won a Nobel price for his theories connecting the health of any economy to the broadest measures of money supply; "M3."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/m3.asp

Although his reputation faltered as a result of the economy in the 1980's not following Friedman's predictions, the Fed's method to set policy around aggregates that include M1, M2, M3, M1B, MZM is sound.

M3 reveals the failure of too much socialism.

M3 also may fairly well explain why Obama's economic recovery was so slow and anemic.

 

[DominusNovus]

Between the New Deal and now, the nation continually progressed in exactly the opposite direction than you say (away from central planning and toward neo-libralism). Meanwhile, poverty has increased and median wages have stagnated since the post-WWII era of economic prosperity.

I'm sorry, but thats false. First, there are many sectors in which the government is far more involved than it was at the end of WW2 (healthcare being a prime example). Second, poverty today and poverty of 1945 are just worlds apart (ask whether you'd rather be poor today or poor in 1945). Third, beyond that, comparing the integrated globalized economy today to the economy in 1945, when Europe, Russia, and Asia were smoldering ruins, and the places that weren't were generally economically underdeveloped, is just about useless.

 

[bigpicture7]

^ well, we can disagree, because there are not universal definitions to work with here.

Many consider the post-depression New Deal era to be the biggest instance of the government stepping in to correct market behavior in our history. People had no conception of what modern healthcare even was back then. Your argument is like saying "the auto industry was less regulated in 1870."

And to clarify: I thought we were specifically talking about labor markets and the "type of economy" we have. There's be a neo-liberal turn in the way our economy is run w.r.t. the regulatory environment and government's involvement in employment. That's what I was referring to.

In the New Deal era the government literally funded and handed out jobs, moreso than they've ever done since. And prior to then, there was zero Social Security system. It was the New Deal that introduced that. Unemployment Benefits?...non-existent prior to the New Deal...those were introduced then too.
Unions were at their strongest during the New Deal era. And the government protected unions big time back then. Union membership and power has been in decline continuously since.

When you start talking about other social programs, it becomes really hard to compare 2018 to 1948. As you point out, the world has changed so much it's almost impossible to compare.

Secondly, odura's post is about monetary policy which is tangential to this. How much money the government prints versus what they spend it on are two different questions. Related, sure, but not identical. Meanwhile, other factors that have nothing to do with printing money (e.g., what business practices are legal versus illegal) come into play when one assesses what type of economy we have. Again, post-depression the u.s. passed all kinds of regulartory acts to control the banks and financial markets...

What type of economy we have definitely has to consider policy and regulation, not just money supply. And my point is that corporations get a lot more free reign today versus in the New Deal when everyone was so shellshocked from the crash and control was tightened.

 

[tysmith95]

Some good questions to ask include What times mark high peaks of M3? When did the minimum wage peak? When have wages peaked? i believe a careful study will reveal the wages of the lower and middle classes had the most buying power between 1969 and 1972.

I think that looking at medium wages, inflation adjusted, they have remained relatively flat since the 70s or 80s. I don't think it was necessarily a peak and fall as much as it is a stagnation. Sure it's gone up and down with recessions and boom periods, but over the long term it isn't continuously going up like it used to.

As far as the minimum wage adjusted for inflation it did reach a peak of $10.90 in 1968. Though today only around 3% of workers nationwide make at or below the federal minimum wage.

I think a big reason for rising inequality is policies during the Reagan era up to the 2nd George Busch and the great recession. It's a policy referred to by political scientists as neoliberalism. Basically trickle down economics and anti union sentiments, along with a decrease in the size of government. Whatever your views on Reagan are, most people believe that he was an instrumental force in reducing the power of unions across the United States. When Reagan fired all of the air traffic control employees and hired replacements, it basically set a model for the private sector. Unions are much less influential then they used to be, and as a result inequality has risen.

 

[kingofsheeba]

Unions are much less influential then they used to be, and as a result inequality has risen.

Maybe...

But perhaps you should take a look at what's going on in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Arizona with the walkouts.

I agree that Reagan was no friend of the unions and helped paved the way for neoliberalism.

 

[tysmith95]

Maybe...

But perhaps you should take a look at what's going on in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Arizona with the walkouts.

I agree that Reagan was no friend of the unions and helped paved the way for neoliberalism.

Unions were never gutted in the public sector to the extent that they were in the private sector.

I think we're starting to see a backlash against neo-liberalism and towards more populist personalities. There are two sectors to that, there is left wing populism with guys like Sanders or right wing populism with guys like Trump. But I think that overall the Clinton era democrats or the Reagan/Busch era republicans are losing power to the more populist personalities.

 

[bigpicture7]

I'm sorry, but thats false. First, there are many sectors in which the government is far more involved than it was at the end of WW2...

Ok, since I enjoy and believe in constructive dialogue, actually listening, and trying to understand each other, I reflected on this and offer the following clarification:

1) I still very much believe that the New Deal era through post-WWII was the pinnacle of federal involvement in labor economics and business climate. This is evidenced by:
A) The highest federal tax revenue (as a % of GDP) in our nation's history; federal taxes have actually decreased since then. Federal taxes as a % of GDP peaked at nearly 20% in 1946 and have oscillated between 13-18% of GDP since then. As of 2016, it is 17% of GDP.
B) The institution of a preponderance of banking and financial regulation over a short period of time (Glass-Steagall, etc...which has since been repealed)
C) The institution of social security, welfare, unemployment benefits...none of which existed prior
D) The strongest unions in the history of our nation, which have never been near that level (as a % of workforce) before or since
E) The popular labor economic models of that day centered on a union power and government mediation; these models are now considered obsolete (I'm referring to Dunlop's Industrial Relations Systems).

BUT,
I must agree with you and odura on a couple of things:
Y) yes, the money supply has increased
Z) yes, social services offered to the citizenry have increased...

BUT here's the issue with Y and Z:
Social services have increased everywhere in the world since the New Deal era, and in many 1st-world places more so than in the United States. The entire basis for my proclamation about the U.S. having a liberal-uncoordinated market economy was a comparative basis...among those nations that have the least coordinated economies (e.g., the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland..), we generally offer lesser services...and nowhere near the services of the coordinated market economies (e.g., Germany, Japan, Sweden, Austria...). You can't simply point to an increase in services and say the U.S. has become unreasonably more socialized...compared to what? And the point is: these increases took place despite a decrease in federal taxes.
Anyways, again, I was referring the business-friendliness and deregulation of the national economy as a whole...not to the social services climate (which would be more relevant if it were driving federal taxes up...but it's not).

HERE's another concession in the spirit of fair dialogue:
The aggregation of federal, state, and local taxation has increased as a % of national GDP. So, yes, in a place like Boston it may seem different than in Texas or wherever. So I will concede that the local business climate may feel excessively regulated and bureaucratic compared to a century ago. Again, I couch my prior statements with the fact that I was referring to the national business climate / federal gov't level.

In closing, I stand by my statement that economists on both the right and left consider the U.S. to be a liberal/uncoordinated market economy, perhaps the most so in the world, compared to our first-world peers. And, I stand by my statement that economists consider the New Deal era to be the pinnacle of federal involvement.

And with that, I will make a grand concession to you and others that it is tough as shit to build in Boston, and should be less so

 

[stick n move]

Re: The Huntington | 252, 258, and 264 Huntington Avenue

Another thing I see a lot is that building all of these high rises will bring rent down. I dont think thats the case at all tbh and I think its the complete opposite. New york is throwing up like 100 new towers and rent has never been higher. I think all this building is making the city better and thus more expensive. Bringing all these new people here is making it the place to be and prices go up. All of this development all around the city is making the city infinitely better than it has ever been so its going to command a premium. So I think its actually doing the opposite. Manhattan has like 9 million people, theres basicalky an infinite amount of people that can move here. Not to mention after college people used to move away now with this many more jobs more are staying. I dont think a tower like this will bring rent down at all it just gives more room for people to locate here. Then more people want to and it never ends. I think affordable housing out in the neighborhoods, like a shiiiiit ton would help a lot, but thats not happening. High rises in the back bay and downtown are not helping us pay rent and its actually just attracting more people. The world has 7 billion theres an unlimited amount of growth potential. I dont see really any affordable housing going up at all and were just going to have to accept that rents are going to skyrocket. I think if Boston stagnated and wasnt building all these new jobs are high rises thats the only case youd see rents drop. Making the city a million times nicer wont.

 

[617]

Re: The Huntington | 252, 258, and 264 Huntington Avenue

Another thing I see a lot is that building all of these high rises will bring rent down. I dont think thats the case at all tbh and I think its the complete opposite. New york is throwing up like 100 new towers and rent has never been higher. I think all this building is making the city better and thus more expensive. Bringing all these new people here is making it the place to be and prices go up. All of this development all around the city is making the city infinitely better than it has ever been so its going to command a premium. So I think its actually doing the opposite. Manhattan has like 9 million people, theres basicalky an infinite amount of people that can move here. Not to mention after college people used to move away now with this many more jobs more are staying. I dont think a tower like this will bring rent down at all it just gives more room for people to locate here. Then more people want to and it never ends. I think affordable housing out in the neighborhoods, like a shiiiiit ton would help a lot, but thats not happening. High rises in the back bay and downtown are not helping us pay rent and its actually just attracting more people. The world has 7 billion theres an unlimited amount of growth potential. I dont see really any affordable housing going up at all and were just going to have to accept that rents are going to skyrocket. I think if Boston stagnated and wasnt building all these new jobs are high rises thats the only case youd see rents drop. Making the city a million times nicer wont.

Fair point...but either way this is adding supply to supply/demand equation and that is a good thing. So you could argue that this won’t make Boston more affordable but that alone isn’t enough to discredit this development or another one like it.

 

[coleslaw]

Re: The Huntington | 252, 258, and 264 Huntington Avenue

Fair point...but either way this is adding supply to supply/demand equation and that is a good thing. So you could argue that this won’t make Boston more affordable but that alone isn’t enough to discredit this development or another one like it.

You are a straight fool if you actually think that a basic (and propagandistic) supply and demand arguments apply to fixed but speculative goods like housing. This is where capitalist economics become more of a mythological practice then a scientific one.

Housing prices will not be brought down by building more housing that only encourages further speculation, they can only be brought down by collective struggle against landlords and profiteers.

 

[617]

Re: The Huntington | 252, 258, and 264 Huntington Avenue

You are a straight fool.

Maybe...but then no one expects housing in the city center to be cheap do they? It’s the bidding wars and overpaying in the suburbs/elsewhere that is scary to me. Either way I like seeing new things get built. Should be interesting now that the tax code basically caps mortgage interest write-offs and RE tax deductions, coupled with rising mortgage rates.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Huntington | 252, 258, and 264 Huntington Avenue

You are a straight fool if you actually think that a basic (and propagandistic) supply and demand arguments apply to fixed but speculative goods like housing. This is where capitalist economics become more of a mythological practice then a scientific one.

Housing prices will not be brought down by building more housing that only encourages further speculation, they can only be brought down by collective struggle against landlords and profiteers.

This is all fantasyland BS. Housing prices will never go down save for a massive recession which perhaps you'd like to see but keep in mind the lower income people would take it in the shorts hardest if that happened and still would struggle to afford the lower prices.

So, instead of tilting at windmills, acknowledge reality. You'll be a lot happier. Developers aren't building anything that people aren't already asking for. If the demand isn't there then they'll get burned accordingly. Furthermore, the notion that we should stop building because it doesn't matter is stark raving stupid. People are going to continue to flood the Boston area for one reason - Jobs. Good paying jobs in this country are flocking to the same handful of cities (NYC, SF, DC, Seattle, etc) which are all experiencing skyrocketing housing prices. That, in a nutshell, is supply and demand. Screwing landlords will not achieve what you want if its even legally possible anymore.

If you want an affordable place to live, move out of the city. Braintree, Framingham, Malden, Tyngsborough and Foxborough aren't that far away.

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: The Huntington | 252, 258, and 264 Huntington Avenue

Should be interesting now that the tax code basically caps mortgage interest write-offs and RE tax deductions, coupled with rising mortgage rates.

Off topic, but the new tax law's effect on mortgage interest write-offs is generally WAY overstated. The only change is that you can't deduct your interest on new mortgage balances beyond $750k.

Very few people owe more than $750k on their mortgage (that would be a $938k house at 20% equity). And even if one does owe > $750k, the change only applies to the amount above $750k, not the entire amount. So say you're married with a household income of $200k and you buy a $1 million house with 20% down at a 4.5% interest rate. 80% of $1 million is $800k, which is $50k greater than $750k. 4.5% interest on that $50k is $2,250 per year. At a 24% marginal income tax (consistent with joint filers making $200k/yr), that's $540 / year in lost income tax deduction. So $45 / month. That's nothing for someone of that income who owns a million dollar house. And as you pay down your mortgage over time you'll drop under the cap, so that $45 / month in lost income tax deduction decreases to zero in a couple years.

(This is slightly complicated by mortgages front-loading interest payments and back-loading principal, but you get the gist...)

 

[coleslaw]

Re: The Huntington | 252, 258, and 264 Huntington Avenue

This is all fantasyland BS. Housing prices will never go down save for a massive recession which perhaps you'd like to see but keep in mind the lower income people would take it in the shorts hardest if that happened and still would struggle to afford the lower prices.

So, instead of tilting at windmills, acknowledge reality. You'll be a lot happier. Developers aren't building anything that people aren't already asking for. If the demand isn't there then they'll get burned accordingly. Furthermore, the notion that we should stop building because it doesn't matter is stark raving stupid. People are going to continue to flood the Boston area for one reason - Jobs. Good paying jobs in this country are flocking to the same handful of cities (NYC, SF, DC, Seattle, etc) which are all experiencing skyrocketing housing prices. That, in a nutshell, is supply and demand. Screwing landlords will not achieve what you want if its even legally possible anymore.

If you want an affordable place to live, move out of the city. Braintree, Framingham, Malden, Tyngsborough and Foxborough aren't that far away.

Well first, recessions are an intrinsic part of capitalism and absolutely coming in a bubble like this so if anyone is rooting for a recession it is you not me.

Secondly who gives a fuck if it is "illegal" to fight back against your landlord? they wrote the law that way in the first place, and even with the law on their side they break it literally constantly to drive up prices and maximize their profits, simply for owning a deed. They aren't needed and they are the profiteers so if you are actually interested at all into who is being "screwed" over it is the people from whom value is being extracted in exchange for their right to live not those who make profit off of it. landlords are miles from being screwed and even if they were about to be, good.

it is also just genuinely laughable to suggest that what is being built meaningfully reflects needs. They simply don't. we have a total glut of luxury housing and a total dearth of affordable housing but if you ask fucking anyone besides the owners and developers they want more of the latter and less of the former. The capitalist system means that what is built is what is profitable to the owners not what is needed and just pretending that those are the same thing is completely dishonest.