You've suggested a brilliant and very, very revealing question to ask Marti Rosenberg, David Segal, Bob Walsh and all the other far left types who support living wage legislation in Rhode Island: "Why shouldn't we set it at $25,000 per year?"

I can't wait to watch them struggle with that one. Simplicity at its best.

Posted by: John at May 11, 2006 8:44 AM

A couple of points.

The 'free market' is a myth trotted out to justify Social Darwinism. It has never existed. In the late 19 Century, the Senate was known as "The Millionaire's Club." Senators were appointed rather than elected. By controlling the Senate, business interests were able to create a favorable climate that prohibited unions, ensured high protective tariffs, and saw that gov't paid for 60% of the railroads that were built. Not exactly a non-interventionist system, is it?

Then, in the 1950s, the Interstate Highway system benefitted the auto companies at the expense of the railroads. Again, an interventionist action, not the 'market' rendering its rational decision.

The class war is alive and well. But, somehow, it's bad manners to point this out, unless you are part of the moneyed interest. Median income is down over the past few years, even as mean income is up. That shows that conditions are skewed towards the high end. That is, the rich get richer, while the bottom 50% sink. That sounds like a pretty fair definintion of 'class warfare' to me.

And the shift to the non-unionized service industries from unionized manufacturing industries usually means a shift-a big one- downward in wages. People working in retail, at restaurants, or as nannies don't make $60k a year. Stores & bars are much harder to unionize than factories since the ratio of management to employees is much less favorable to the organizers.

And the creation of the American middle class after WWII was the result of an activist, interventionist gov't. The gov't redistributed wealth downward through programs like the GI Bill, and a favorable regulatory climate allowed the creation of unions. The combination of these things lifted millions of people into the middle class. This then created a true mass market for consumer goods, which created more wealth, etc.

Four people making $50k will spend more money than 1 person making $200k. Which is better at creating wealth? Money circulating? Or invested? The price of a stock probably won't go up if there is no one to buy that company's product.

So redistribution of income downward benefits everyone. Redistribution upward benefits a few. Like the latest tax break.

So, please, spare us the free market nonsense. Not when about about half of the growth in GDP over the last few years is due to gov't spending: think defense contractors, no-bid contracts for Haliburton and other connected industries...have you been following the Duke Cunningham scandal? It was all about Repubs directing defense contracts to their buddies, or their paymasters. Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

Go read Kevin Phillips "Wealth and Democracy" and you'll see the connection between having gov't connections and getting rich, from the time of the Revolution until now. And remember Mr Phillips started off as a Republican.

So, please. The class war is alive and well, and the upper class is waging it. And winning. Someone needs to look out for the average guy. With a few exceptions, business sure won't.

Posted by: klaus at May 11, 2006 11:12 AM

Here is a profile of ACORN: http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6968

ACORN is largely a front group for unions, which is not surprising as unions (though they dismiss it in public) are, in their hearts, collectivists and so are kindred spirits to collectivists of all stripes (socialists, communists, fascists, liberals). By definition collectivists are anti-capitalist, for capitalism represents a FREE market economy, while collectivism wants government / Party control of the economy.

By imposing “living wages” ACORN serves the union purpose of “taking wages out of competition” – which is all the unions care about, even though the inevitable result is much higher unemployment among “the working class.”

Klaus – the Senate is still a millionaires club – Kennedy, Kerry and (potentially) Whitehouse – none of whom serve the interests of business (much less the U.S. Constitution).

And unions did not create the middle class, the free market did – unions have merely managed to take credit for it. Union density peaked in the mid-1950’s, and then started its continuous decline. Average family (i.e., middle class) incomes peaked around 1973 - right about the time that the “War on Poverty” programs really started to kick in (the mother of the “wealth redistribution” you champion).

Also, in the 1950’s, the overall tax burden for the average family (typically with one wage-earner) was about 10% of income. Now it is in the forties – meaning that one spouse is in the workforce full time merely to pay the taxes - which primarily go to fund the welfare state (AFDC, Medicare / Medicaid / Social Security el als.).

The post-WWII “government intervention” programs that you credit with the rise of the middle class are all still in place – in fact there are more of them, such as Pell Grants - so how do you explain the decline?

This continuous intervention includes the FDR National Labor Relations Act, that forces unwilling employers to recognize, and unwilling workers to join, labor unions. Could it be that unions are having trouble recruiting new members because workers have grown savvy to the fact that unions protect the worst workers while harming the good workers? Or perhaps it is the job loss that eventually accompanies unionization – just ask airline, steel and autoworker employees “what has a union done for your job security?”

As for lack of free market (i.e., your bringing up the perennial bogeyman Halliburton), I suspect that you have no qualms about supporting “welfare” for unions, such as “project labor agreements” (which is effectively bid-rigging for unions that forces taxpayers to subsidize unions on public and quasi-public projects) and “prevailing wage” laws (same effect).

If you really want people to have a living wage Klaus, overthrow the teachers unions and their imposition of mediocrity on public education, so that children of the “lower classes” can get a world-class education and the skills to hold a job that offers a “living wage.”

Posted by: Tom W at May 11, 2006 12:35 PM

Overthrow the teachers' unions? That's all we have to do? Wow, I'd like to live in your world where life is so simple.

Unions are declining because the milieu in which they thrived--factories--is declining. I don't have the percentages, but a large portion of union jobs were industrial, and the industrial base has been shrinking for the last 2 decades. Add hostile gov't actions--PATCO--and the conditions that fostered unions don't exist any more.

Second, yes, closed shop regulations made 'unwilling' workers join the union. However, those same workers greatly benefitted from the union negotiations, so it was unfair not to support union activities through dues, etc.

Third, yes, the unions want to take wages out of competition. But that's what companies do every day. What happens when a Wal-Mart (the other favorite bogeyman) comes into an area? The competing stores go out of business because they can't compete with Wal-Mart's prices. Then, with no competion, Wal-Mart is able to drive wages down. Maybe it didn't happen in Johnstown, or Warwick, but look at the effect it has in smaller towns. It's no accident that Wal-Mart came to larger cities and the Northeast recently. They milked the smaller places first.

A union stands between the average worker and big business. Be real-the average guy stands no chance against his/her employer. And, yes, you are free to go elsewhere, but when median wage is falling in real terms, that doesn't leave much real choice. In any negotiation, when one side has all the power, there is no effective negotiation. Now you're going to bring up getting retrained, etc. Let's face it: not everyone can be a brain surgeon. And five years ago computer programming was seen as the answer. Not any more. What has happened is that the 'star' system (used so effectively at Enron) has driven up the price for a few high performers while the wage for everyone else has dropped. Hence, increasing mean, decreasing median.

The free market did not create the middle class without gov't intervention. Unions drove up wages, which increased the number of consumers. What was the difference between the US in 1920 and 1950? Highly industrialized in both instances, but the wages were proportionately higher in 1950, and higher still in 1960 and 1970. More people with more money to buy more products. 4 people making $50k a year spend more money than 1 person making $200k, and consumer spending--not investments--make up about 2/3 of GDP. Want to increase GDP? Give more people more money to spend.

Yes there are Pell Grants. However, the cost of college has increased almost exponentially while the amount of aid available has not kept up. The median income of the bottom 10% of the population has gone up by 34% between 1967-2001. The top 5% saw its median income almost double. In 1967, the bottom tenth made about 9% of what the top 95% made; in 2001, the percentage had dropped to 7%. In the same time, a year at a state college went from about 30% of the annual wage of the bottom 10% to about twice the annual wage. The bottom is not keeping up because the mechanisms raising their income are broken.

Henry Ford was rabidly anti-communist, but he figured out that it was to his benefit to pay his workers enough to buy his products. That is, he created a whole new group of consumers; unions continued and expanded on that process. The result was a growing middle class. It wasn't businesses bidding up wages; businesses were forced to raise wages by union activity.

And the reason teachers' wages are becoming such an issue is because median incomes falling. Certain professions are more or less immune to productivity gains. Doctors, teachers, plumbers, athletes, musicians, actors can't benefit from productivity gains made by office or retail workers. So, their salaries have all increased much more than the average. However, since meidan income has stagnated, the increases in teachers wages hurt taxpayers very directly. But so does a trip to Fenway. But teachers are a necessity, and baseball players aren't. So drive up median income, and teachers wages wouldn't seem so onerous.

Oh, and check the percentages spent on the welfare state. At the federal level, it's in the single digits. The military takes up several times more of the fed budget. And most of the cost of state budget is personnel, which is true in any business. And do you have any problems with corporate welfare? I love it how the same people who crow about the free market come to the gov't looking for handouts. Prov Place wouldn't have gotten built without the state outlay and tax breaks. Not exactly "laissez-faire" there, is it? The whole 'welfare queen' who sucks up all of your tax money is a stereotype from the 1980s. It's way out of date.

Also, your 40% tax burden is total tax burden, which is FICA, disability, and the like. And, interesting that someone making the median income who derives all income from wages (i.e. "works for a living") has a higher tax rate than someone who derives all income from dividends (i.e. "the idle rich.") Sure seems fair to me.

Posted by: klaus at May 11, 2006 1:57 PM

>> Overthrow the teachers' unions? That's all we have to do? Wow, I'd like to live in your world where life is so simple.

No, that’s not all we’d have to do. However, the presence of the teachers’ unions means that necessary reforms will be blocked in order to protect the low-performing membership … meaning that children attending public schools will continue to receive an inferior education and, thus, reduced economic prospects than they would otherwise enjoy.

>> The free market did not create the middle class without gov't intervention. Unions drove up wages, which increased the number of consumers. What was the difference between the US in 1920 and 1950? Highly industrialized in both instances, but the wages were proportionately higher in 1950, and higher still in 1960 and 1970. More people with more money to buy more products. 4 people making $50k a year spend more money than 1 person making $200k, and consumer spending--not investments--make up about 2/3 of GDP. Want to increase GDP? Give more people more money to spend.

If this mythical “union effect” were true then “middle class” family incomes would have peaked around the same time that union density peaked (mid-1950’s), not some twenty years later (1973).

Similarly, Rhode Island, with among the highest union density rates in the country should then have a “middle class” enjoying a higher standard of living, and with “more money to buy more products” (and thus a more dynamic local business climate) than, e.g., the relatively union-free “Sunbelt” states. But the opposite is true. Rhode Island is usually one of the first states to go into recession, and one of the last to come out (can you say “opportunity cost”?) … and our economic growth is a perennial “also ran.” In the 1970’s / 1980’s a hugely disproportionate number of my “middle class” friends graduated college and then moved south and west to find decent jobs, for they couldn’t find them here. In fact, heavily-unionized Rhode Island economic modus operendi is to export college graduates and import welfare recipients.

>> Yes there are Pell Grants. However, the cost of college has increased almost exponentially while the amount of aid available has not kept up … In the same time, a year at a state college went from about 30% of the annual wage of the bottom 10% to about twice the annual wage. The bottom is not keeping up because the mechanisms raising their income are broken.

Sounds like we need a windfall profits tax on institutions of higher education! They clearly are gouging the public, for there is no inherent reason why their infrastructure and personnel costs would so far outpace those of other entities.

>> But teachers are a necessity, and baseball players aren't. So drive up median income, and teachers wages wouldn't seem so onerous.

You are assuming that NEA and AFT would stand by and allow that to happen. The issue for most of regarding teachers wages (and total compensation) is that the massive increases over the preceding decades have not been accompanied by any increases in accomplishment (if anything, the performance of public education is going backwards). So the VALUE is not there. But in a unionized environment in which seniority and tenure are all that matter, what else would one expect. Unionized environments are not exactly known for efficiency or performance, you know.

>> Oh, and check the percentages spent on the welfare state. At the federal level, it's in the single digits. The military takes up several times more of the fed budget … Also, your 40% tax burden is total tax burden, which is FICA, disability, and the like. And, interesting that someone making the median income who derives all income from wages (i.e. "works for a living") has a higher tax rate than someone who derives all income from dividends (i.e. "the idle rich.") Sure seems fair to me.

Defense spending is dwarfed by welfare. FICA (and the rest) ARE welfare programs – government (forcibly) taking from one citizen and giving to another in order to subsidize the latter’s personal living expenses is, by definition, welfare.

And the Democrats dirty little secret is that ultimately it is the middle class that pays most of the taxes – there aren’t enough “rich” people to fund the Democrats’ welfare state / wealth redistribution schemes; if “middle class” taxes were rolled back to 1950’s levels (putting far more money in their pockets than a union could ever dream about) it would be impossible to fund AFDC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest. The highly “progressive” income tax rates are largely a pr ruse to fool the middle class into thinking that the “rich” are paying more / “paying their fair share.”

>> The whole 'welfare queen' who sucks up all of your tax money is a stereotype from the 1980s. It's way out of date.

Visit a welfare office or District / Family Court in Providence sometime and check out all of the “unwed mothers” … many with multiple children (and multiple fathers) … and many second-plus generation on “public assistance.” Case closed.

>> And do you have any problems with corporate welfare? I love it how the same people who crow about the free market come to the gov't looking for handouts.

Actually, I do. I resent welfare in all of its forms. It goes against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and it is nothing more than politicians invoking the coercive power of government to take from some citizens and give to political supporters a/k/a “redistribute wealth.” Thus social welfare, corporate welfare, union welfare and agricultural welfare are all morally repugnant.

Posted by: Tom W at May 11, 2006 3:36 PM

OK, one at a time.

Middle class income did not peak coincident with max union density because it took a couple of decades for the very real union effect to work its way through the system. Wages did not go from minimal to middle class in one fell swoop. Contracts negotiated over the course of 20 years kept raising wages.

OK, can't fully address RI econ history. Not from the area. However, it seems that RI did not have the heavy industry where high union wages were prevalent. Think cars and steel. Textiles is the first stage of industrialization, and it was one of the first to flee to the south to avoid unionization. However, I can't speak to the timing.

As for teachers' performance, you missed my point about productivity growth. An office worker can accomplish much more in 8 hrs than 20 years ago. A school day is a school day. The professions I mentioned are time-intensive; these professions are not producing widgets. Whether the unions would allow it is irrelevant, unless you can come up with a way to allow teachers to teach the same amount of info in two hours that they taught in 6 hours in 1970. That is the analogy.

Windfall profits on universities. 1) Straw man; 2) see answer above. Another time-intensive situation. A class hour is a class hour. You need to speed up the receptivity of the human brain, so we can absorb more than the couple of 100 (or whatever it is) words per minute that we can now absorb.

FICA is welfare? Whatever. I can't argue with a statement like that. It's pure ideology. But, even if it is, poverty among seniors has plummeted in the past 40 years How is that a bad thing?

While you're at it, go take a look at this website:

http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/greatdepression/stevens-fogel-photos.html.

Especially the last photo, called "Christmas Dinner." Rather than put people through that, I'll put up with a little welfare for the elderly. And before you get into how they should be saving their own money, have you ever tried to live on $18k per year? So what are we supposed to do with the elderly who have worked all their lives but haven't been able to save? Are they just out of luck?

Right, the unwed mothers. Well, case closed, you say. Glad to hear that you're willing to discuss this.

Look, all I can say is that I hope you have a good job with good benefits, and that you're never unfortunate enough to lose either. Even with these, you are one bad break away from poverty. Unless you come from money. Guess it's my bad planning that I didn't pick my family more effectively.

The middle class pays most of the taxes? That's funny. When people complain that the wealthy benefit the most from tax cuts, Rush & his ilk always claim that the wealthy pay most of the taxes, so they're entitled to most of the tax cut. Which is it?

And the inference from your "point" about the supposedly progressive tax rates is that you oppose the Bush tax cuts, previous and coming, and the tax cut for the high-end earners just passed by the RI House? Have to agree with you.

Because the rich do have most of the money. The top 10% of households own 65% of all assets. So I agree with you that we need to make income taxes more progressive by raising the top marginal rates. The top 10% should be paying 65% of all the taxes. Sounds fair.

My point is that concentrating wealth in the hands of an ever-smaller group is an economic disaster waiting to happen. We did that once. We got the Depression.

Posted by: klaus at May 11, 2006 4:32 PM

Klaus,

Pretty obvious you're not from these parts. If you were, you'd realize that RI has what -- the second highest unionization rate in the country? Unfortunately, the outcomes we who live here observe all around us don't match the predictions of your theory.

Also, on your point about doctors and productivity, you are way, way off base. One of the great challenges we face is to raise the productivity level of America's health care system. For example, here in RI we are voting on a bond issue this year to finance a statewide healthcare IT system; Lifespan is at the forefront of using IT in hospitals, and over half the state's physicians have just agreed to use electronic patient records. All of these moves are, in essence, an attempt to have RI match the dramatic improvements in efficiency and patient outcomes achieved by the Veterans Administration in their hospital system through a similar application of technology and complementary organizational changes in recent years. The idea that you cannot improve productivity in healthcare is simply wrong.

Posted by: John at May 11, 2006 5:46 PM

My "theory"? Guys, come on. Read a bit. Do some research. It's not "theory". When a factory worker without a college degree can make more than a teacher, or some mid-level corporate types, that's not theory. I saw it. The wage scales I'm familiar with are out-of-date, so I can't give you hard dollar amounts, but what the average factory worker made would have to be in the $50-$60k range today. And we're talking about whole medium-sized cities being supported by factory wages. At one point, GM had upwards of 700,000 people on the payroll, and that's not counting Chrysler and Ford. And Bethlehem Steel. And Boeing. And a whole lot of other places.

"Theory"?

And John, please forgive the inclusion of doctors. Yes, medical care can be made more productive, but I doubt a real physical exam takes a whole lot less time that it did 30 years ago. But regardles, take doctors out of the list, and you're still left with a lot of time-intensive professions.

And interesting that Tom only mentioned the Dem millionaires in the Senate. Let's see, what about...Lincoln Chafee?

And whether I'm from around here is irrelevant. Or maybe it's a benefit. RI is a beautiful place, but it has what, 1 million people? I doubt it's particularly representative of the country as a whole. So if you're generalizing about the whole country from RI, I think you're apt to draw some skewed conclusions.

And funny John should mention the VA as an example of medical efficiency. It is, pretty much, real socialized medicine. The doctors work for the gov't.

So, we've got Tom saying that the rich should be taxed more, and John saying that socialized medicine offers a model of efficiency and achievement.

Interesting post.

Posted by: klaus at May 11, 2006 9:04 PM

>> Middle class income did not peak coincident with max union density because it took a couple of decades for the very real union effect to work its way through the system. Wages did not go from minimal to middle class in one fell swoop. Contracts negotiated over the course of 20 years kept raising wages.

Well, you premise (at least in theory) cover the 20-ish year period of the big push in unionization (1930’s) into the 1950’s. But if unions were making so much progress for “working people” why did their numbers stagnate just when the benefits would be most obvious? And why did union density peak in the thirty percent range of the workforce? And why did family incomes keep rising for another twenty-ish years after the peak in union density?

>> As for teachers' performance, you missed my point about productivity growth. An office worker can accomplish much more in 8 hrs than 20 years ago. A school day is a school day. The professions I mentioned are time-intensive; these professions are not producing widgets. Whether the unions would allow it is irrelevant, unless you can come up with a way to allow teachers to teach the same amount of info in two hours that they taught in 6 hours in 1970. That is the analogy.

It is not an issue of productivity, but of quality of output. The teachers’ unions are the first to trumpet how we need “good pay to attract quality teachers” (while avoiding the contradictory subject of why the “not very good” teachers also get raises and tenure). The taxpayers of Rhode Island have been coughing up megabucks for teacher compensation (salary, benefits. pensions) yet the teachers continue to produce dismal results, unless you consider illiterate high school graduates to be acceptable. (And all this with SMALLER class sizes, requiring LESS productivity from each teacher!)

>> Windfall profits on universities. 1) Straw man; 2) see answer above. Another time-intensive situation.

Not a straw man, a “tongue in cheek.” The time intensity of instruction hasn’t changed, so why should tuitions be rising much faster than the overall rate of inflation???

>> FICA is welfare? Whatever. I can't argue with a statement like that. It's pure ideology. But, even if it is, poverty among seniors has plummeted in the past 40 years How is that a bad thing?

How is FICA not welfare. People get checks from the government to cover some of their personal living expenses. In what way does labeling such “FICA” and directing the checks to seniors create a fundamental difference from the government sending a “welfare” check to a 36 year old to cover some of their living expenses?

Using your logic, there is little or no poverty in the United States, for virtually everyone below the poverty rate gets a government check (or in-kind government compensation). Conversely, if those who receive “government assistance” are still “in poverty” because the government handouts aren’t counted, then the same is true of seniors, and so their poverty rate has not plummeted.

>> Rather than put people through that, I'll put up with a little welfare for the elderly. And before you get into how they should be saving their own money, have you ever tried to live on $18k per year? So what are we supposed to do with the elderly who have worked all their lives but haven't been able to save? Are they just out of luck?

For the current elderly, it can’t be changed for they can’t now alter their circumstances. For future elderly, take the current 15% of their income (yeah, that “regressive” FICA tax) and put in an account they own, invest it in some index funds over their lifetime and, at a certain point, cash them out with a private sector (but insured) annuity. Their benefits will be much higher than under Social Security; will be much more secure (currently none of us has a property right in Social Security – Congress can reduce or eliminate benefits at its whim – and ultimately will do so calling it “means testing”); and those elderly will enjoy the dignity of being independent instead of relying upon that big government handout / welfare program called “Social Security.”

>> Guess it's my bad planning that I didn't pick my family more effectively.

Well, we can’t all be Kennedys.

>> The middle class pays most of the taxes? That's funny. When people complain that the wealthy benefit the most from tax cuts, Rush & his ilk always claim that the wealthy pay most of the taxes, so they're entitled to most of the tax cut. Which is it?

The “rich” (as I recall to Democrats this means anyone making more than $30k a year) pay a hugely disproportionate share of income taxes. But taxes are fungible – include add in sales and excise taxes and FICA taxes (though you liberals prefer to call them “contributions”) and the middle class provides most of the revenue, and damn near it. If you reduced “middle class” taxes the current leviathan government could not survive, even with a 99% tax rate on the “rich.”

>> So I agree with you that we need to make income taxes more progressive by raising the top marginal rates. The top 10% should be paying 65% of all the taxes. Sounds fair.

Speaking of tongues planted in cheeks. To me the presumption should start with a per capita tax as being the most fair … along with no government expenditure being made on the basis of income, race, occupation or industry, place of residence etc. So called “progressive” income taxes are nothing more than retributive and set us the “road to serfdom.”

What is “fair” about taking money from someone who worked their whole lives to get to a certain station in live and handing it over to some loser who couldn’t be bothered to apply themselves and graduate from high school? Collectivists call this “social justice” when it is really nothing more than government sanctioned robbery.

Posted by: Tom W at May 12, 2006 12:20 AM

OK, this is what seems to be happening:

I am writing you detailed narratives, with facts and figures; in response, you pick out certain sections and try to make it appear that my entire line of reasoning is invalid based on some sort of quibble over a term.

Secondly, I'm frankly astonished that you seem to believe that the effects of unionization are some sort of moonbat conspiracy theory. To this, all I can say is that you don't have to take my word for it. Read some US History, econ history, social history, whatever history of the period. And, by "history" I mean legitimate, scholarly history, and not some popularized version written with an agenda. Better yet, go to the library, read some contemporary news accounts. Better yet, get out of RI and talk to some old-timers. They'll tell you.

Third, wages are a lagging indicator. They increase over time (see my response to John; I won't repeat it). It took decades for wages to increase. As they did, union wages put upward pressure on other employers. In the meantime, workers with higher incomes spent more money, which distributed wealth to more people, who in turn spent more money, and so on in a virtuous cycle. It's called "economic expansion." Prime the pump by putting real money into the hands of a lot of people and the economy grows.

That's the fallacy of supply side: don't matter how much you produce if no one has any money to buy it. Cross ref: see "Depression, Great."

Fourth, while I am trying to present conclusions based on evidence gleaned from what I have read, it seems like you are working from ideology. "Case closed" when discussing AFDC and all of the unwed mothers sucking off the public teat. Referring to taxes as "gov't sanctioned robbery" and claiming that this is the road to "serfdom" when you're not at all clear on what serfdom is, how it originated, or what it actually means or meant.

Taxes are the price we pay for living in society. If you want roads, sewers, schools, courts, a military, these have to be paid for. We all benefit from the protections offered by law. Those who benefit the most, should pay the most. Seems fair to me, especially when their "leftovers" are more than I'll ever see. For example, that $42k that millionaires will be getting as a tax break is a pretty substantial chunk of what I'll make this year.

It comes down to a choice: do you want to live in a society where it's every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost? Or do you want to live in a society that takes care of its weaker members?

If the former, you really need to read some more history. The idea of "every man for himself" pretty much describes the conditions known throughout virtually all recorded history. That was the revolution of the 20th Century: society would take care of its members. Otherwise, what you got was a concentration of wealth in a very few hands, and the rest of the population wass on its own.

Except, the problem with that is that people who have money have a tremendous advantage over people who don't. Ever read Thucydides? The Melian Dialogue? There is a line that "the strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must." In essence, he's saying that might makes right. And, let's face it, money is power. Without some ameliorating force, money will prey on those without. If you doubt that, I advise you to go read some more history. Any period, any country prior to the 20th Century and this is what you will find.

Personally, I do not want to live in that kind of society. In fact, it's not a society at all. Rather, there is a cabal of rich living behind gated walls and everyone else is fighting over the scraps that have trickled down.

Conservatives used to claim that they were so hard-headed, while liberals were all mushy in their thinking. I think that's changed. Conservatives want to go back to some golden age when slackers had to pull their weight because of they were afraid of starving. The reality is that we tried it your way. It was horrible. People did starve, and through no fault of their own. Poverty is not a moral defect. And you can call me overly cynical, but read the history and you'll see that I'm being very realistic.

Money, power, and privilege concentrate, and "the strong prey on the weak" (more Thucydides) unless something stops it. The mass of the population can do this, if some form of gov't prevents it.

Ever read about factory conditions in the 1890s? Do so. Child labor. 60-80 hour work weeks. No breaks. Meager pay. People out of work for chunks of the year with no safety net. Why did that change? Because business was forced to change, first by the Progressive Movement, then through unions. Oh, and read about the Pinkertons and their role as strikebreakers if you want to discuss might = right.

Did you look at that picture? "Christmas Dinner"? Here's the link again.

http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/greatdepression/stevens-fogel-photos.html

This is black-and-white proof of what can happen if we dismantle the social safety net that you so perjoratively call welfare. It's a pic of farm kids in Iowa; not exactly slackers or welfare queens, but hard workers who busted their humps but couldn't make it work. And that can happen, even today. Ever try to live on $18k a year? That's about $8/hr. Do the math: take out for rent, food, and transport and see what you're left with. Then try to save.

Oh--the privatized Social Security system you espouse. What happens if you have the bad luck to live in a period like 1966-1981, when the Dow went up by a grand 1 point? Man, are you SOL. The stock market does not always go up. The supposedly "automatic" 7% a year is an historical average. But, you know what? 3-4% was based on dividends, not capital appreciation. How many companies pay a 3% dividend now? Answer: very, very few, which means you are counting on cap appreciation. That's not investing; that's gambling.

Like I said: I hope you never lose your job or get really sick because then you'll see the fruits of what you try to sow.

And, in addition to Thucydides, read Ezra and Nehemiah in the Old Testament. The basis of both is how the rich were exploiting the poor, and how this was such a heinous offense in the eyes of God. Man, what a bunch of commies!

And serfdom came about because the local strong man could coerce the peasants to support him. It happened because there was no central gov't (as in Empire, Roman) to stop it. Hence, it came about as a result of a LACK of taxes, not as a result of too many.

I like living in a society that cares for all its members. Oh--remember the possibly spurious interview that Grover Norquist gave? Where he said he couldn't wait until all the "Greatest Generation" died off? He called them "unamerican" because they colluded in the creation of the welfare state. You know why they did? Because they remembered how horrible it was before the New Deal. It's not an accident that this whold "gov't is bad" movment has come about as the generation that lived through the Depression is dying off.

But you know what, I don't have time to educate you. Take the initiative. Read some history.

Posted by: klaus at May 12, 2006 11:52 AM

Klaus:

Take the initiative. Visit Rhode Island. We spend proportionately more than almost every other state on social welfare programs. Why? Because our benefits are the most generous (across cash assistance, subsidized daycare, free health insurance, etc) and people stay on them here longer than in any other state. Oh, yes, and because our rate of fraud is very high. The lowest estimate is $14 million annually, and our Democratic Attorney General has noted it could be much, much higher. Even if we conservatively just double it, that makes welfare fraud in RI equal to what we as a state spend each year on school books and other instructional materials. And what has all this wonderful spending brought us? Not a booming economy. Rather, we have the 4th highest tax burden in the country, and the absolute worst one if you are retired or affluent. Our Latino population is up 13%in the last four years, and they now have the lowest median income in the nation. Wonder why they're coming here? Oh, yes, and we now rank just above Mississippi and Louisiana (but no other state) in the percent of children not living in a married couple family. And our child poverty rates are, as a result, skyrocketing. Sounds like a real paradise, doesn't it? This is what your theories look like in the real world. Why don't you move here and enjoy the results with the rest of us? Talk like yours is cheap, my friend.

Posted by: John at May 13, 2006 7:13 AM

>>I am writing you detailed narratives, with facts and figures; in response, you pick out certain sections and try to make it appear that my entire line of reasoning is invalid based on some sort of quibble over a term.

Let’s see … “The whole 'welfare queen' who sucks up all of your tax money is a stereotype from the 1980s. It's way out of date” … now that’s a detailed narrative with facts and figures. I provided you a real world example of where you can witness with your own eyes the fact that the genus welfarus queenus is thriving and reproducing, right here in the State of Rhode Island and Welfare Plantations.

>> Secondly, I'm frankly astonished that you seem to believe that the effects of unionization are some sort of moonbat conspiracy theory. To this, all I can say is that you don't have to take my word for it. Read some US History, econ history, social history, whatever history of the period. And, by "history" I mean legitimate, scholarly history, and not some popularized version written with an agenda. Better yet, go to the library, read some contemporary news accounts. Better yet, get out of RI and talk to some old-timers. They'll tell you.

I have … and beyond the drivel written by Howard Zinn. Try some Professor Leo Troy from Rutgers or Professors Vedder and Galloway from Ohio University to examine the impact of unionization.

>> It's called "economic expansion." Prime the pump by putting real money into the hands of a lot of people and the economy grows. That's the fallacy of supply side: don't matter how much you produce if no one has any money to buy it. Cross ref: see "Depression, Great."

The premise of supply side is about putting money in the hands of people – producing something that no one has the money to buy is the nature of a planned / collectivist economy. Cross ref: see “Union, Soviet.” The Great Depression was caused by missteps on the part of the government – the Federal Reserve and Congress (can you say Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act?). The Great Depression was prolonged by the “New Deal” and ended by WWII.

>> Fourth, while I am trying to present conclusions based on evidence gleaned from what I have read, it seems like you are working from ideology. "Case closed" when discussing AFDC and all of the unwed mothers sucking off the public teat. Referring to taxes as "gov't sanctioned robbery" and claiming that this is the road to "serfdom" when you're not at all clear on what serfdom is, how it originated, or what it actually means or meant.

We’re both working from ideology. Mine from the ideology underlying the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, i.e., individual liberty … and yours the ideology of collectivism / Marxism. My reference to serfdom was an allusion to Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom.”

>> Taxes are the price we pay for living in society. If you want roads, sewers, schools, courts, a military, these have to be paid for. We all benefit from the protections offered by law.

Yes, but what have to above got to do with welfare? The above have nothing to do with wealth confiscation / redistribution.

>> Those who benefit the most, should pay the most. Seems fair to me, especially when their "leftovers" are more than I'll ever see.

Why? If someone works harder and defers immediate gratification in order to enjoy a better lifestyle later, how is it that they “benefit” the most? A high school dropout vs. an educated professional is not a comparison of relative benefits, but of ambition and responsible vs. irresponsible life choices.

>> It comes down to a choice: do you want to live in a society where it's every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost? Or do you want to live in a society that takes care of its weaker members? … Personally, I do not want to live in that kind of society. In fact, it's not a society at all. Rather, there is a cabal of rich living behind gated walls and everyone else is fighting over the scraps that have trickled down. [And your related comments …]

Klaus, your comments betray your world-view. You equate “society” with “government” and vice-versa. Define “weaker members.” In today’s America by far most of those “weaker members” are in the situation they are in at their own hand. If one chooses to not apply diligence within the public education system that is provided them gratis, they have only themselves to blame. If they choose to drop out of school, they have only themselves to blame for their subsequent restriction to low-paying jobs. If one chooses to pump out babies that one can’t support, one has no one else to blame. Funny how, in this “unjust society” Asian children seem to lift themselves up - even coming from inner-city schools.

I’m not rich (except perhaps by Democratic politicians’ standards of making more than 30k a year). And likely never will be. But I don’t waste my time resenting those who - through work, diligence, ambition and yes, perhaps some good fortune – are rich. I do resent – after having come from modest means and having stuck it out in high school, college, graduate school and proving myself in the working world by actually performing, and after those years of effort and responsible behavior finally getting into a position to finally be “grossing” some decent money - to find that I’m being effectively punished through “progressive” tax rates to provide for the “underprivileged” who couldn’t be bothered to, e.g., finish high school.

Neither am I worried about “wealth” being concentrated “at the top.” I am worried about the decimation of the middle class – people like me – which is occurring not because of the rich, or the decline in union density rates – but by the ever-increasing burden government is placing on middle-class family finances, and the economy as a whole, in order to subsidize the lazy and irresponsible.

I AM worried about the ever-increasing size of government, for inevitably a tipping point is reached, and government becomes tyrannical. Rich people don’t take my earnings – or otherwise boss me around - by force, but government does. Want to talk history Klaus? Read up on the history of people living in societies – not in which free markets and limited (Constitutional) government reign – but in which government is the locus around which “society” is organized, with individuals being nothing but members of the “collective society” (big brother of “collective bargaining units”). Communist China. Nazi Germany. The “workers paradise” called The Soviet Union. Want to read some history Klaus? Try reading The Gulag Archipelago.

They had rich people in the Soviet Union too – they were called “Party Officials.” But hey, at least there was single-payer health care, even in the Siberian camps!

“Socialism is like a dream. Sooner or later you wake up to reality.”
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Sir Winston Churchill

Posted by: Tom W at May 13, 2006 3:39 PM