Income Gap Widens

[oregonpackfan]

Re: Income Gap Widens

When Reagan took office, our country had a budget surplus. When he left office 8 years later, our country had the biggest budget deficit in its history. Part of the deficit was due to the corruption in his massive military buildup. Have you forgotten how Defense companies bilked the government by charging $89 for a wingnut and $600 for a toilet seat?

Reagan's economic policies were hardly friendly to the middle or working classes.

I just couldn't possibly disagree with you any more. Reagan's military build up eliminated the greatest risk to this country that encompassed my entire childhood - the Cold War.

His economic policies set the table for the unprecedented economic growth of the 1990's. Reagan is one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

Scott,

Too often Reagan is given undue credit for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. His military buildup had virtually nothing to do with the Soviet Union breaking up.

The Soviet Union broke up primarily because of:
1. massive internal graft, corruption, and inefficiencies within the country.
2. massive amounts of money spent on its military fighting border wars against Afghanistan and countries within their western boundaries seeking independence.

Again, Reagan came into the presidency with a budget surplus and left with a budget deficit larger than all the American presidents combined.

As far as the economic growth of the 90's, need I remind you that Bill Clinton was the President for eight of those years. He left the presidency with a budget surplus.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Income Gap Widens

Do you think employees are going to work to their maximum when employers callously regard them as expendable?

Absolutely I do. If employees don't work to their maximum, they certainly become more expendable. Employers can't take care of any employees if they are tied to a business model that is not viable. Pension plans are not viable for business. That is why they are going away - not because Ronald Reagen was president. Pensions are not portable, and they artificially tie employees to their existing employers - restricting free agency. Pensions are incredibly unhealthy from both the employer, and employee side of the equation. That is why they are going the way of the dodo bird.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Income Gap Widens

He left the presidency with a budget surplus.

......a surplus based on capital gains tax revenue from the phony baloney dot bomb bubble.........and with much of the White House furniture, and the country headed into a recession.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Income Gap Widens

While their were some abuses by unions, they were designed to protect the rights from abuses by their employers.

I agree, that's how they were originally designed. But by the time Jimmy Hoffa was elected into his leadership position, the work of the Unions transformed into something sinister and corrupt. The ties to organized crime were widely known.

[GrnBay007]

Re: Income Gap Widens

the work of the Unions transformed into something sinister and corrupt.

No different than politicians. :P

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Income Gap Widens

the work of the Unions transformed into something sinister and corrupt.

No different than politicians. :P

Maybe East coast politicians. :P

[The Leaper]

Re: Income Gap Widens

Too often Reagan is given undue credit for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. His military buildup had virtually nothing to do with the Soviet Union breaking up.

Perhaps.

However, his skill as a communicator allowed him to create an opportunity for dialog with the Soviet Union where one had not existed before in decades.

You can attribute Russia's fall to whatever you want to...there certainly were numerous reasons for the breakup. However, there is no arguing that Reagan's personality and communication skills were key to bringing about that fall so rapidly and with so little hostility. Without Reagan, that fall may have taken another 10-20 years to occur.

As far as the economic growth of the 90's, need I remind you that Bill Clinton was the President for eight of those years. He left the presidency with a budget surplus.

The budget surplus only occured after the GOP took Congress in 1994 on the platform of balancing the budget, which ultimately was what ensured the budget surplus...and kept Hillary from creating billions in new spending. The reversal of the trend of increasing deficits actually was a result of the tax increases of Bush Sr. (which ultimately knocked him out of office). That reversal, by most trends I've seen, began around the 2Q or 3Q of 1992...BEFORE Clinton even took office.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the unions are prone to corruption just like every other human institution.

the sad thing about unions is that the only ones that are thriving are the unions for public sector employees, the place where they are least needed. I'm not against unionizing public employees, but it's obvious that the labor movement doesn't want to do the much harder work of organizing in the private sector.

[Zool]

the unions are prone to corruption just like every other human institution.

\
Bring on skynet

[Scott Campbell]

the sad thing about unions is that the only ones that are thriving are the unions for public sector employees, the place where they are least needed. I'm not against unionizing public employees, but it's obvious that the labor movement doesn't want to do the much harder work of organizing in the private sector.

Gotta love those trade show unions. You know, the union rules prohibiting non electricians from plugging in a phone, or a lamp. Safety first!

[packinpatland]

the sad thing about unions is that the only ones that are thriving are the unions for public sector employees, the place where they are least needed. I'm not against unionizing public employees, but it's obvious that the labor movement doesn't want to do the much harder work of organizing in the private sector.

Gotta love those trade show unions. You know, the union rules prohibiting non electricians from plugging in a phone, or a lamp. Safety first!

About ten years ago I did a trade show in NYC at the JacobJavitts Center....my boxes got soaked on the loading dock, because only union 'loaders' were allowed to touch them, and there weren't enough on the clock that day......they wouldn't let me carry the stuff in myself!

[Scott Campbell]

Was your stuff ruined?

[LL2]

the sad thing about unions is that the only ones that are thriving are the unions for public sector employees, the place where they are least needed. I'm not against unionizing public employees, but it's obvious that the labor movement doesn't want to do the much harder work of organizing in the private sector.

Gotta love those trade show unions. You know, the union rules prohibiting non electricians from plugging in a phone, or a lamp. Safety first!

About ten years ago I did a trade show in NYC at the JacobJavitts Center....my boxes got soaked on the loading dock, because only union 'loaders' were allowed to touch them, and there weren't enough on the clock that day......they wouldn't let me carry the stuff in myself!

It's no different here in Chicago at the McCormick Place or Stevenson Center. If you send a shipment over there for the trade show a trucker can literally wait hours to unload, and after the first hour truckers charge by the hour for wait time. Shipping to trade show places can be expensive!

[packinpatland]

Was your stuff ruined?

Thankfully, I had packed table coverings on the top of each box....they were VERY wet....but protected everything that was under them.
What bothered me the most about the situation was the 'nonchalantness' by the center's managers...........you know, the shrugged shoulders 'nothing we can do' crap.

[the_idle_threat]

They are looking at a few discrete three-year periods. The periods I'm focusing on are the second and third periods---1998-2000 and 2004-2006..... the data would almost certainly show that incomes for the highest earners went down from the period 1998-2000 to the period 2004-06. This would have been unacceptable, so they decided to just leave out

Oh come on. You're speculating.

This may be true, but I'm citing some basis for the speculation too, if you look at the economic data from those time periods.

I push the envelope by stating the authors of the study made it intentionally misleading, but there is no other rational conclusion if you understand how capital gains work, and especially if you consider why they limited their study to discrete three-year periods rather than considering all years (this is an argument I haven't even made above, but may be even more damning). They "conveniently" leave out too much information that would torpedo their point, and it's impossible to believe that was unintentional.

This is a junk study by biased researchers

We're comparing a peer-reviewed study to your back-of-envelope analysis. I'm not dismissing your opinion because you are wrong, but because I have no way of judging it. And the more forcefully and definitively you state your conclusions, the less credibility you have, because you are not being realistic about your own limits in understanding all the technical issues.

I understand your resistance to my argument. People don't want to agree with someone who is overbearing and comes across as a fist-pounder. I do that at times. I call it the "Tyrone" syndrome.

But you're speculating (incorrectly, I might add) when you say I don't understand the "technical issues." You can assume that I have a "limited understanding" just because you have a limited understanding, but some people actually work in this field.

Is this study really "peer reviewed," or are you just assuming that? I missed where it was published in a professional journal, where it would gain the attention of economic peers. It appears to be self-published by a self-identified liberal think tank. Not exactly the place where reliable studies are born.

Of course, unquestioning journalists who are sympathetic to the findings might just pick it up and run with it. I think that's what's happened here. And of course, they probably only read the press release. You and I looking at the actual study have probably done more research than most journalists did.

Self-published releases from such places are unlikely to gain much attention from actual economists, or even from serious critics, who would consider the source and not waste the time. Who has the time to debunk all the garbage coming from biased think tanks? How many think tanks are there just in the D.C. area? How 'bout in the rest of the country?

And I understand when you claim that I'm a voice in the wilderness and that's why you think I'm mistaken (although I answer that argument in the paragraph above), but to say I'm wrong because you haven't seen criticism on blogs---that's a tad insulting. Why do I lack the ability to understand this study, but some anonymous blogger somewhere else would be an authority?

All that being said, I understand that you want to believe I'm wrong, so I can't convince you. Go ahead and believe this study's clearly erroneous conclusion.

I argue too forcefully and---even more significantly---you want to believe the study. People believe what they want.