Myth of Americans Living Beyond Their Means

The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.

And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.

maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]

You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]

No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.

[/quote]

So why do you only apply your morality to the poor and middle class but do not apply it to the ultra-rich?
[/quote]

I can’t.
I’m french.
There is no ultra-rich here. They have already fled.
But if you manage to catch some of them, feel free to “apply my morality” to them.

More seriously : this is not a “poor vs rich” issue.
It will soon become a “old vs young” issue.
[/quote]

I thought there was already something like that in the US in the 60s? With the baby boomers and hippies and all that jazz. You think there’ll be another divide like that or in a very different way?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.

And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.

maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]

You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]

No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.

[/quote]

Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?

They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.

I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]

NO! It’s because the definition of a slave was someone who is forbidden to won property. This is still the crux of the matter and the best functional definition there is. Attempts to make all property part of the state in some social justice plan ended up making everyone a slave to the state. (cf. Gulags, forced labor camps &c., &c.)

– jj

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]

lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.

The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.

Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves.

[quote]orion wrote:

But that is not how people are wired, they will not accept a system that has lifted billions out of poverty if the differences in wealth are to great, because they do not think in absolute but in relative terms.

[/quote]

This.

Only problem is you don’t have any cliche % in your statement.

Or “ultra-rich”…

Can anyone put a dollar figure on “ultra-rich” for me?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]

lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.

The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.

Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves. [/quote]

Let’s take it for another hundred years WE will have vast a areas of unemployed people . All the jobs that are necessary are automated . There will not be enough land to revert back to a survival culture . Hell on Earth

@ beans probably the last 10 times I have heard the term (CLASS WARFARE) was from you or Zeb . I contend if the is an actual war , it is waged from the Top

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]

lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.

The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.

Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves. [/quote]

Let’s take it for another hundred years WE will have vast a areas of unemployed people . All the jobs that are necessary are automated . There will not be enough land to revert back to a survival culture . Hell on Earth
[/quote]

I read the other day that like 90% of the US in undeveloped.

Aside from that, FDR said the same shit you are… Almost a 100 years later and even “poor” people have Hi Def TVs, AC units and weed & club money every week.

See Orion’s post. Things are never as good or bad as they seem. This is no exception.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans probably the last 10 times I have heard the term (CLASS WARFARE) was from you or Zeb . I contend if the is an actual war , it is waged from the Top [/quote]

I work with “rich” people everyday.

The only people whinying about the 1%, or is it .01% or Ultra-rich are politicians and their sheep.

My point being, people with money are concerned with getting more money and getting the economy going again so we can make some damn money.

It is the dumbasses that waste their time worrying about what “rich” people have and how they can take it without going out and earning it.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.

And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.

maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]

You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]

No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.

[/quote]

So why do you only apply your morality to the poor and middle class but do not apply it to the ultra-rich?
[/quote]

I can’t.
I’m french.
There is no ultra-rich here. They have already fled.
But if you manage to catch some of them, feel free to “apply my morality” to them.

More seriously : this is not a “poor vs rich” issue.
It will soon become a “old vs young” issue.
[/quote]

I thought there was already something like that in the US in the 60s? With the baby boomers and hippies and all that jazz. You think there’ll be another divide like that or in a very different way?
[/quote]

yes and no.
It’s not another divide.
it’s actually the same.

In the 60s and 70s the children of the baby boom made it very clear that they wanted to get the stuff the previous generations had built through the ages.

They wanted it right here. Right now.
On their own terms.
Which meant the destruction of the last remains of traditionnal society.

Today, the very same people make it very clear that they want to get the stuff the future generations haven’t yet built.

And again, they want it right here. Right now.
On their own terms.

they just do with their grand-children the same things they did to their grand-fathers decades ago.

IMO the economy has recovered , look at the Stock Market . It is just a jobless recovery . When you can produce more with less , that is the name of the game . I could see how today’s employment could be the new standard and we only lose more to automation . Google is moving full speed ahead with a program that can navigate roads not only safely but IMO better . they can communicate in real time with other trucks and traffic situations . the possibilities are endless .

At present there 3 million truck drivers in the US. We are talking a huge wind fall for the trucking industry . A huge loss for Labor

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO the economy has recovered , look at the Stock Market . It is just a jobless recovery . When you can produce more with less , that is the name of the game . I could see how today’s employment could be the new standard and we only lose more to automation . Google is moving full speed ahead with a program that can navigate roads not only safely but IMO better . they can communicate in real time with other trucks and traffic situations . the possibilities are endless .

At present there 3 million truck drivers in the US. We are talking a huge wind fall for the trucking industry . A huge loss for Labor[/quote]

A huge loss that can become a huge opportunity. People just need to focus on improving their lives through their own efforts, and stop worrying about what anyone else may have that is more than them, for the sake of being pissed they have more.

Like I told my son: “There will always be people with more money than you. Your duty is to learn a way to add value to their world so they give you some of their money. Once you earn your money, you can give it to someone who provides you will something you need.”

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO the economy has recovered , look at the Stock Market . It is just a jobless recovery . When you can produce more with less , that is the name of the game . I could see how today’s employment could be the new standard and we only lose more to automation . Google is moving full speed ahead with a program that can navigate roads not only safely but IMO better . they can communicate in real time with other trucks and traffic situations . the possibilities are endless .

At present there 3 million truck drivers in the US. We are talking a huge wind fall for the trucking industry . A huge loss for Labor[/quote]

A huge loss that can become a huge opportunity. People just need to focus on improving their lives through their own efforts, and stop worrying about what anyone else may have that is more than them, for the sake of being pissed they have more.

Like I told my son: “There will always be people with more money than you. Your duty is to learn a way to add value to their world so they give you some of their money. Once you earn your money, you can give it to someone who provides you will something you need.”[/quote]

This particular loss would be to millions of people and to the benefit of a few .And just think in two generations the Republicans will be talking about all the poor lazy people that are not doing the make believe jobs

You and I are not far apart on what we told our kids I just included everybody else . I told my kids everybody’s money is green .

If I had the chance to revise what I told them , I would mention the fact that the very wealthy money is greener .

I also do not think when the middle class sees the writing on the wall they will roll over as easy as you. (at least I hope ) I guess this is one reason I think it a bad Idea to give up our guns

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This particular loss would be to millions of people and to the benefit of a few .[/quote]

I would hope that Americans, given all the opportunity available, could actually turn around and find a new way to add value to the world if their trucking endevor dried up.

I would hope they wouldn’t roll over so easy.

You are thinking short term, I’m thinking long term.

Again, you and Zepplin are talking right out of the FDR playbook. It’s been a hundred years and evil rich whitey hasn’t enslaved the poor, honest and purest or pure folk yet.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO the economy has recovered , look at the Stock Market . It is just a jobless recovery . When you can produce more with less , that is the name of the game . I could see how today’s employment could be the new standard and we only lose more to automation . Google is moving full speed ahead with a program that can navigate roads not only safely but IMO better . they can communicate in real time with other trucks and traffic situations . the possibilities are endless .

At present there 3 million truck drivers in the US. We are talking a huge wind fall for the trucking industry . A huge loss for Labor[/quote]

This is a common fallacy pit but one that is pretty easy to see through once you look at it critically.

To say that there is a NET loss in employment when automation occurs is to say that people will be happy with their current level of consumption and that there are no other areas of life and society on which to improve upon.

At one point over 90% of the American population was involved in agriculture. Can you imagine what the people of this time would think if you were to be able to go back and tell them that at some point in the future less than 3% of people would be working in agriculture? What would everyone do ?

Taken from "Economics in One Lesson " -

The belief that machines cause unemployment, when held with any logical consistency, leads to preposterous conclusions. Not only must we be causing unemployment with every technological improvement we make today, but primitive man must have started causing it with the first efforts he made to save himself from needless toil and sweat"

Let’s go through an example -

A manufacturer introduces a machine that will allow him to make coats using half as much labor.
He installs the machine and drops half his labor force.

Offset #1 - the machine itself needed labor to build. ( but it couldn’t have needed as much labor, in terms of payrolls, to build the machine as labor savings it will produce or else there would be no economy in it. But even at first it may produce a net increase in employment as it may take a few years for the machine to “pay for itself”)

Now after the machine has paid for itself the manufacturer has more profits than before. He must use these profits in at least one of three ways

1- expand his operations by buying more machines

2- invest the profits in some other industry

3- spend the extra profits on increasing his own consumption

In other words, every dollar that has been saved in direct wages to former coat makers now is paid out in indirect wages to the makers of the new machines, or to workers in another industry, or to the makers of goods for his own consumption.

Now, either our manufacturer will expand his operations at the expense of his competitors or they will have to begin buying the machine as well.

Prices of coats must fall.

Let’s say that prices fall from $40 to $30.

If we assume that not a single additional coast was sold ( inelastic demand) consumer will now be just as well provided with coats but will now have an extra $10 with which to increase their consumption somewhere else ( thereby increasing employment in some other industry).

Now all of the above isn’t to say that automation doesn’t cause hardships for some people. If a man devotes his life to learning a skill that can now be done by a machine he will indeed find himself in a very difficult place. What should be done about him is a whole other debate. But, that doesn’t change, that on the whole, machines and automation, do not throw men out of work.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This particular loss would be to millions of people and to the benefit of a few .[/quote]

I would hope that Americans, given all the opportunity available, could actually turn around and find a new way to add value to the world if their trucking endevor dried up.
[/quote]

Exactly.

We need to remember that WORK is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The end goal is to create VALUE. If we can do this with less work it is always a good thing, as there will always be additional value to be created elsewhere.

Edit - and Pit, as you can see from my example, it would actually be the case that the benefits from automating trucking would accrue to the many (literally all other consumers) at the expense of the few (the truckers).

The truckers would be hurt no doubt. What to do with them is another debate.

You can believe what you like and I hope you are right when you have all the money migrating in one direction . Some day one end will have all the money and maybe then money will have no value . But my point was the present course is non sustainable

Looking at the rust belt , I am not optimistic about America’s ability to recover from a major industry loss. Look at all the lazy Chicago , Detroit threads . It is not the loss people see ,it’s those damned lazy Democrats

That avatar…