The Two-Party System: Rich And Poor

[Winstonm]

In the spring of 2006, Citigroup presented investors with, "Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer." Here are some excerpts:

 

"Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper...[and] take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years..."

 

"...the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US-- the plutonomists in our parlance-- have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US...[and] from globalization and the productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor."

 

"...[and they] are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years. [because] the dynamics of plutonomy are still intact."

 

Welcome to Reagan's plutocracy.

[PassedOut]

In my view, this increasing disparity is a serious problem for the US. Society works better with a large and energetic middle class.

 

From a business point of view, that's where the customers are. But it's also important politically for a large majority to feel that they have a substantial stake in preserving a country's institutions.

[Winstonm]

In my view, this increasing disparity is a serious problem for the US. Society works better with a large and energetic middle class.

 

From a business point of view, that's where the customers are. But it's also important politically for a large majority to feel that they have a substantial stake in preserving a country's institutions.

IMO, the most important part of the quotes is this:

 

the plutonomists in our parlance-- have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US..

 

In a healty economy, the percentage of productivity gains passed on as higher wages is fairly constant. But over the last 30 years in the U.S., the middle and lower classes have been compelled by law to finance the increased wealth of the top tiers. The general budget runs the deficits, but it is social security and medicare that are forced to cut spending.

 

Not only have laws and policy changes dating back to the 1980's concentrated wealth, they have also concentrated political power due to wealth until you are left with a small group who determine policy.

[luke warm]

In my view, this increasing disparity is a serious problem for the US. Society works better with a large and energetic middle class.

 

From a business point of view, that's where the customers are. But it's also important politically for a large majority to feel that they have a substantial stake in preserving a country's institutions.

IMO, the most important part of the quotes is this:

 

the plutonomists in our parlance-- have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US..

 

In a healty economy, the percentage of productivity gains passed on as higher wages is fairly constant. But over the last 30 years in the U.S., the middle and lower classes have been compelled by law to finance the increased wealth of the top tiers. The general budget runs the deficits, but it is social security and medicare that are forced to cut spending.

 

Not only have laws and policy changes dating back to the 1980's concentrated wealth, they have also concentrated political power due to wealth until you are left with a small group who determine policy.

dating back to the '80s, really? could nobody do anything about this in the intervening years? i guess my point is, it would be a mistake to blame one party, much less one president, for what you suppose is wrong - any ills in our society are equally shared by all politicians, regardless of stripe

[Winstonm]

In my view, this increasing disparity is a serious problem for the US. Society works better with a large and energetic middle class.

 

From a business point of view, that's where the customers are. But it's also important politically for a large majority to feel that they have a substantial stake in preserving a country's institutions.

IMO, the most important part of the quotes is this:

 

the plutonomists in our parlance-- have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US..

 

In a healty economy, the percentage of productivity gains passed on as higher wages is fairly constant. But over the last 30 years in the U.S., the middle and lower classes have been compelled by law to finance the increased wealth of the top tiers. The general budget runs the deficits, but it is social security and medicare that are forced to cut spending.

 

Not only have laws and policy changes dating back to the 1980's concentrated wealth, they have also concentrated political power due to wealth until you are left with a small group who determine policy.

dating back to the '80s, really? could nobody do anything about this in the intervening years? i guess my point is, it would be a mistake to blame one party, much less one president, for what you suppose is wrong - any ills in our society are equally shared by all politicians, regardless of stripe

I agree completely this crosses party lines. I only use Reagan because he is so often trumpeted as the hero of modern conservatism. The "Reagan" I use is meant to convey the meaning of everyone who adopted and promoted both then and since those same concepts.

[PassedOut]

dating back to the '80s, really? could nobody do anything about this in the intervening years? i guess my point is, it would be a mistake to blame one party, much less one president, for what you suppose is wrong - any ills in our society are equally shared by all politicians, regardless of stripe

Perhaps not equally, but there surely is plenty of blame to share by all sides.

[kenberg]

To (mis-) quote Jimmy Bufett

 

Some people claim there's a Reagan to Blame

But I know, it's my own damn fault.

 

Here is what brought this to mind:

 

 

As I have mentioned on other threads, we are getting an old porch knocked down and a new one put up. The knocking down is done by a crew that sub-contracts to the putting up group. They're really good, I was told. They checked out what had to be done a week or so back, and yesterday they came to do it. Two trucks, three guys, no ladder. They borrowed mine. And some wrenches.

 

Perhaps we should all vote democratic. Or maybe republican. Or libertarian. Perhaps everyone should go to college. Perhaps Goldman Sachs should be fined. Or it's CEO jailed. In the meanwhile, I suggest that a crew doing a job that requires getting up on a roof bring a ladder. Maybe we could run a course on this for college credit.

[onoway]

An oil rig manager once told me he dreams of the olden days when the new guys he got coming out to work knew what he meant when he told them to go get a screwdriver...and he didn't mean from the bar.

[mike777]

An oil rig manager once told me  he dreams of the olden days when the new guys he got coming out to work knew what he meant when he told them to go get a screwdriver...and he didn't  mean from the bar.

wow is management that insanely incompetent. They hire people to work on a rig who dont know.

 

Fire them.

 

why in the world is this manager hiring this guy.....if he is not in charge of hiring what the heck is he doing as a manager? nothing?

[mike777]

To (mis-) quote Jimmy Bufett

 

Some people claim there's a Reagan to Blame

But I know, it's my own damn fault.

 

Here is what brought this to mind:

 

 

As I have mentioned on other threads, we are getting an old porch knocked down and a new one put up. The knocking down is done by a crew that sub-contracts to the putting up group. They're really good, I was told. They checked out what had to be done a week or so back, and yesterday they came to do it. Two trucks, three guys, no ladder. They borrowed mine. And some wrenches.

 

e meanwhile, I suggest that a crew doing a job that requires getting up on a roof bring a ladder. Maybe we could run a course on this for college credit.

Fire them. Dont lend them.

[kenberg]

Fire them all!!! Sure. So easy.

 

I think I am actually coping adequately, I was just so stunned I had to comment. They took down the old porch just fine. But there were issues beyond the ladders. One of them being that the crew's leader had explained that he was a cement man and this wasn't really his job.

 

So I called the main contractor, the guy who is building the new porch and explained my concerns. I reminded him that he wasn't selected for his low price but rather because I thought he was a good choice to get the job done right, and that we were not getting off to a good start. We shall see how it all goes.

 

Some years back a friend more or less built his own home. He did a lot of the work himself and worked directly with all of the contractors. He can do that sort of thing, I can't. I knew he would be able to handle the work he did, what really impressed me was his ability to handle the contractors. There is a balance between "Fire their asses" on the one hand and letting them get away with shoddy work on the other hand. So far so good I think, but we shall see.

 

After the porch is built we will probably have a concrete patio put around it. The contractor assured us we would love the guy that he sent out. uh huh. We will be getting someone else to do the patio.

 

This last part was really my (weak) justification for putting this in the thread. The OP speaks of the rich and the poor. It probably matters, some, who our president is but it also matters what sort of a job you do.

 

 

I want the old porch down and the new one up before (long before) Christmas. If I have to lend the guy a ladder, I lend it. But I won't be giving him new work and I won't be recommending him.

 

But if you would fire him, maybe you are right. Not yet, for me.