- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Robert Reich delivers lecture on greed while earning $240K for one class
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:14 pm to Clete Purcel
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:14 pm to Clete Purcel
quote:
I agree with you. There is a lot of merit to his argument. I agree with a lot that he says.
He is a hack job. For example, from the website of his movie - the following 'shocking fact'
quote:
"Minority families once had substantial equity in their homes, but after Wall Street caused the housing crash, median wealth fell 66% for Hispanic households and 53% for black households. Now the average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 in net worth."
Notice the dance from median to average. Why switch like that? To distort. Saying the median black household had wealth of $5600 doesn't have the same pizazz so lets move to average. Also with numbers of this size, if you have a median of $5.6K after the 53% drop, it is preposterous to argue there was 'significant equity' beforehand. Again, a 10 year old could crack the distortion.
quote:
Take for instance the financial collapse of 2008 where many Americans who sacrificed and saved saw their savings vaporize.
What caused the vaporization? I didn't lose jack of my 'savings'. Ofcourse I was greedy and trying to get double digit returns during a period of obvious bubble. If you lost money chasing yield then that is on you. You choose your investments; you choose whether you buy a house or not.
1
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:18 pm to igoringa
quote:
And thus we as society need to compensate them for their lack of success? This increased productivity to which you allude not only has increased wealth at the top but has also raised standards of living for all.
You're absolutely right, it has. To reiterate, the "problem" (and I get that many of you don't see it as such, so bare with the terminology), I believe, will present itself much more starkly in the next couple of decades.
quote:
So as Mr. Unsuccessful complains about the wealth gap in his Iphone in front of one of the 4 flatscreen's he has in the house he owns - excuse me for not fighting for his 'plight'.
I agree that there are certainly those that put an undo drain on social welfare systems by choice. And I don't think we'll ever get rid of the free rider problem. But I believe that some level of trade-off is acceptable, if those systems are (primarily) being used as intended: to help those who need help, real help, for the amount of time they need it.
But that's another discussion.
I also think that you have to keep in mind a couple things. Yes, today's baseline for what quantifies as a rough life is indeed much, much higher than 100 years ago. But I think that (again, more so in the near future than today), keeping things in relative terms is important. I could see the lower classes falling way, way behind pretty quickly if we didn't have some sort of contingency plan in mind.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:20 pm to igoringa
quote:
It is not knee jerk at all. Every single proposition from the left is to take from the producers and reallocate to the non producers. Simple as that.
Framing it as "producers" and "non-producers", while technically correct, is a little unrealistic though, in my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that some portion of society is never going to be "producers", in your definition. Despite the claims of being able to easily pull one's self up by one's bootstraps with a little bit of hard work and grit, the reality is that some people simply will not ever have the opportunities or intelligence required to reach certain levels of success. And those people (who aren't intelligent or skilled enough to be lawyers, engineers, programmers, doctors etc) are the ones who are going to be flat out screwed relatively soon.
I'll say once more, to make sure people aren't arguing against a point I'm not trying to make, that I DON'T BELIEVE the Occupy Wallstreet-styled "The 1% are evil!" line of thinking is relevant today.
I DO think that the disparity of income/wealth/production/capital ownership WILL become an issue in the not-to-distant future.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:21 pm to Strophie
quote:
the "problem" (and I get that many of you don't see it as such, so bare with the terminology), I believe, will present itself much more starkly in the next couple of decades.
Could you restate the exact problem and how it will manifest itself? (I'm assuming the tech thing was just a tangent)
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:22 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
90proofprofessional
What do you think about Reich and his opinions (concerning the U.S. labor markets, income inequality, etc)?
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:27 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
What do you think about Reich and his opinions?
Never read them thoroughly, only stuff like op-eds and interviews here and there. I'll say this- I do NOT buy the claim that inequality (either income or wealth) harms a developed economy in the growth sense or overall sense, at all. And the empirical literature supports my position in there, although many people seem to be just shocked at this fact lately.
Reich is not an economist, so I get that he can blithely dismiss this fact, but people treat him and he happily acts as though he's an authority on economics. Really he is just an advocate for labor. And his policy recommendations suck.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:28 pm to Strophie
quote:
To reiterate, the "problem" (and I get that many of you don't see it as such, so bare with the terminology), I believe, will present itself much more starkly in the next couple of decades.
I agree, but the problem is self imposed greed and envy. A group of people that are markedly better off in real terms than they historically are mad at those who have provided that improvement and constantly get baited into class warfare by those who want to mobilize and control that group. Simple as that.
quote:
I agree that there are certainly those that put an undo drain on social welfare systems by choice. And I don't think we'll ever get rid of the free rider problem. But I believe that some level of trade-off is acceptable, if those systems are (primarily) being used as intended: to help those who need help, real help, for the amount of time they need it.
We spend $2.1 trillion a year in social entitlement at the federal level in this country. $2.1 trillion! And that is not enough. A married family of five with household income of $55K would have an effective income tax rate of ZERO and actually would get a refundable tax credit check for $397. But it is an unfair burden on him - he is being held back.
quote:
Yes, today's baseline for what quantifies as a rough life is indeed much, much higher than 100 years ago. But I think that (again, more so in the near future than today), keeping things in relative terms is important. I could see the lower classes falling way, way behind pretty quickly if we didn't have some sort of contingency plan in mind.
Falling way behind what? Are those people better off now then in 1970? or 1980? or 1990? Undoubtedbly yes and it is not even close. It is not a zero sum game.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:31 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
I do NOT buy the claim that inequality (either income or wealth) harms a developed economy in the growth sense or overall sense, at all. And the empirical literature supports my position in there, although many people seem to be just shocked at this fact lately.
That appears to be the central tenant of his "teachings" though.
I watched his movie recently and he does a good job of presenting his beliefs and arguments so I was just inquiring as to an informed opinion of them.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:32 pm to Strophie
quote:To e fair... It's capital that provides the "increased technology". In otherwords capital investment is now contributing more to a business than the labor. Naturally the returns are shifting.
The issue I see is that increased productivity, primarily from increased technology, is causing more of the profits of business organizations to pool at the top, naturally. More automation = less need for labor = higher payout to capital.
quote:The obvious solution is... Don't be a laborer! There are many ways to profit from the "new" economy. Being a manual factory laborer isn't one of them.
he problem, insofar as I see it, is that I only see this increased productivity continuing, and at a rather faster clip than it has been. The result being, of course, that more capital will then be collected by an increasingly smaller portion of individuals. So what happens to those who don’t (or can’t) replicate the success of the small number of business owners?
But it's not up to the business owner or government to hand-hold its citizens to success. Success is the responsibility of each citizen.
quote:You are correct. The day of :
I don’t think “get educated and work hard” is really a fair solution.
1. Go to college
2. Get degree
3.
4. Make lots of money at high paying job.
Are over. I'm not sure they ever existed. But if what you're doing isn't working--it's up to you--the individual to try something else until you find what works for you.
That's neither a fast nor cheap process. But failure lasts longer and is a hell of a lot more costly.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:36 pm to igoringa
quote:
Falling way behind what? Are those people better off now then in 1970? or 1980? or 1990? Undoubtedbly yes and it is not even close.
Not sure I agree as I think people work longer and harder now than then for relatively the same purchasing power in goods and services. Sure we have more "neat" stuff, but I'm not sure the cost of that more neat stuff makes the middle class better off considering they are working harder for it.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:37 pm to Strophie
quote:
Framing it as "producers" and "non-producers", while technically correct, is a little unrealistic though, in my opinion.
It is what it is. Always been that way and always will.
quote:
The fact of the matter is that some portion of society is never going to be "producers", in your definition.
And they should be damn thankful to those that do produce and through that production give them a lifestyle beyond what they could ever dream of being provided if it was based off their labor alone.
quote:
Despite the claims of being able to easily pull one's self up by one's bootstraps with a little bit of hard work and grit, the reality is that some people simply will not ever have the opportunities or intelligence required to reach certain levels of success.
Completely agree on intelligence but completely disagree on opportunities. There are so many opportunities out there it is ridiculous. The key is that hard work and grit includes intellectually. Which is why I agree on intelligence limitations.
quote:
And those people (who aren't intelligent or skilled enough to be lawyers, engineers, programmers, doctors etc) are the ones who are going to be flat out screwed relatively soon.
you keep saying they are going to be screwed. Their standard of living has done nothing but increase constantly. They think they are getting screwed because they are being fed that and measuring themselves not against where they were 15 years ago, but against others.
If I get a 10% raise and you get a 15% raise, I am still better off eventhough the gap between us has grown.
quote:
I DO think that the disparity of income/wealth/production/capital ownership WILL become an issue in the not-to-distant future.
I agree but it will be self imposed and not as a result of the economic ramifications. Because again, economically the standard of living has gone nowhere but up for these folks even though they are being brainwashed to argue otherwise.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:37 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Well I appreciate the vote of confidence.
If his argument is more along the lines of increased political access of the wealthy eroding democracy, like Piketty suggests, I think there's possibly a bit more merit in that. But it's still just a speculative outcome proposed to happen eventually- no empirical support for developed economies.
I keep saying "for developed economies" because for undeveloped ones the growth/inequality tradeoff possibly seems to go away until they are more developed, possibly because of large-scale corruption
If his argument is more along the lines of increased political access of the wealthy eroding democracy, like Piketty suggests, I think there's possibly a bit more merit in that. But it's still just a speculative outcome proposed to happen eventually- no empirical support for developed economies.
I keep saying "for developed economies" because for undeveloped ones the growth/inequality tradeoff possibly seems to go away until they are more developed, possibly because of large-scale corruption
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:38 pm to Strophie
No offense taken, Strophie. I was talking about Robert Reich's political leanings. I don't presume to know your political leanings. I've just not seen wealth redistribution championed by conservatives.
I favor a smaller government. I don't think forcibly taking from someone and giving to another is an effective strategy. That's just my opinion. I think people react to incentives. If you incentivize sloth or low productivity, you'll get more of it. If you punish productivity, efficiency, and hard work, you'll get less of it. Neither is good for society as a whole.
You mentioned idealism. I am an idealist. I want to believe that if the government steps back, men and women of character will be charitable on their own without coercion. I want to believe that if the government has a diminished role, churches and civic organizations will step up to fill that void and support their neighbors in their communities. I want to believe that in the absence of government being the Daddy, that Daddys will be Daddys and take up their responsibility to lead their families and raise up the next generation.
Simplistic? Yeah. Too idealistic? Absolutely. Will we ever go back to those days? Probably not. But that's the way it is supposed to work. You know, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Sure, we're imperfect people and mess it up quite frequently, both now and in the past. But, I'm an old fashioned guy and I have more faith in local governance than an intrusive Federal Government.
I favor a smaller government. I don't think forcibly taking from someone and giving to another is an effective strategy. That's just my opinion. I think people react to incentives. If you incentivize sloth or low productivity, you'll get more of it. If you punish productivity, efficiency, and hard work, you'll get less of it. Neither is good for society as a whole.
You mentioned idealism. I am an idealist. I want to believe that if the government steps back, men and women of character will be charitable on their own without coercion. I want to believe that if the government has a diminished role, churches and civic organizations will step up to fill that void and support their neighbors in their communities. I want to believe that in the absence of government being the Daddy, that Daddys will be Daddys and take up their responsibility to lead their families and raise up the next generation.
Simplistic? Yeah. Too idealistic? Absolutely. Will we ever go back to those days? Probably not. But that's the way it is supposed to work. You know, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Sure, we're imperfect people and mess it up quite frequently, both now and in the past. But, I'm an old fashioned guy and I have more faith in local governance than an intrusive Federal Government.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:41 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Could you restate the exact problem and how it will manifest itself? (I'm assuming the tech thing was just a tangent)
Sure.
My position boils down, essentially, to this:
CURRENTLY, the wealth/income disparity bitching doesn’t have a ton of merit. I think there are arguments that can be made, on an idealized basis, for business owners voluntarily providing more of the market generated profits to labor, BUT (and please read the but here before writing a long reply on how wrong I am), I also fully realize that this is incredibly unrealistic for many reasons, the least of which is that capital will just flow to competition where labor rates aren’t as high and effectively torpedo any business that made such a choice, all else being equal. I fully understand the tenants of capitalism and that said tenants mean that there will always be winners and losers. I get all that.
As a result, the current wealth inequality arguments tend to boil down to people being pissed that someone is making a shite-ton of money while they struggle (again, in relative terms) to get by. I can live with that, though it’s not how I’d make the country (we’ll ignore a world view) if I could snap my fingers.
The issue I DO see is in the near future. My tech thing wasn’t a tangent, as it’s fairly central to what I see as the root cause. Essentially, within the next X years (take a guess, yours is as good as mine, but I’d say 15-30), I personally believe that increasing technology (of which you seem to be acutely aware) will facilitate, primarily by means of advancing AI and machine learning, the automation of a vast majority of the economic output required of the country. As a result, I think a very large portion of the workforce, starting at the bottom but working up through much of what is now considered "skilled labor", will be not just displaced, but pushed to obsolescence. Further, (and this is key) UNLIKE with the industrial revolution, I don’t believe that this displacement will be temporary, and that labor will find new areas to bleed into. I think it will be gone.
As a result, I think we will need to have some sort of plan in place or ready to be implemented to provide a livelihood for said individuals. Because, absent direct “hand-outs” (if you want to use that term), I literally don’t believe such individuals will have any recourse to provide for themselves.
(As an aside, thanks for remaining civil. I really appreciate that this is staying a discussion, and isn’t an inflammatory argument, like most threads on the poliboard here tend to be.)
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:44 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Not sure I agree with now than then for relatively the same purchasing power in goods and services.
I disagree. Whether we are talking about the purchase price (and abundance) of staples such as food or the purchase cost of information, communication or housing or transportation - it is really not comparable.
quote:
Sure we have more "neat" stuff, but I'm not sure the cost of that more neat stuff makes the middle class better off considering they are working harder for it.
They are choosing to want the neat stuff and working to buy it. If we are arguing their choices are not making them better off, that is a different debate.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:47 pm to igoringa
quote:
"The moral crisis of our age has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion; it’s insider trading, obscene CEO pay, wage theft from ordinary workers, Wall Street’s continued gambling addiction, corporate payoffs to friendly politicians, and the billionaire takeover of our democracy,"
This is what I was agreeing with. His other stuff, not so much. He's using 'divide and conquer' tactics to pit rich against the poor, white against black and brown, fueling anger and resentment. I don't agree with that at all.
quote:
I didn't lose jack of my 'savings'.
I'm not talking about those flipping houses. There are some people who were in the stock market that got caught up in emotion and fear and sold stocks as they were falling. Yes, that is on them, but I feel some compassion for them. They weren't being greedy. They didn't cause the crash. But they paid for it dearly.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:48 pm to Strophie
quote:
I personally believe that increasing technology (of which you seem to be acutely aware) will facilitate, primarily by means of advancing AI and machine learning, the automation of a vast majority of the economic output required of the country. As a result, I think a very large portion of the workforce, starting at the bottom but working up through much of what is now considered "skilled labor", will be not just displaced, but pushed to obsolescence. Further, (and this is key) UNLIKE with the industrial revolution, I don’t believe that this displacement will be temporary, and that labor will find new areas to bleed into. I think it will be gone.
What exactly is it that makes you think it will be different then the industrial revolution? Back then no one foresaw the massive wave of evolution into what we consider white collar service type professions. What is different this time?
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:51 pm to Strophie
quote:
As an aside, thanks for remaining civil. I really appreciate that this is staying a discussion, and isn’t an inflammatory argument, like most threads on the poliboard here tend to be.
Not to pile on, but I won't ever fire the first flame, and I might even overlook one or two if it's coming from someone who says interesting things. I don't disagree with you in many ways. Really, I do just in one significant way, I guess:
quote:
Because, absent direct “hand-outs” (if you want to use that term), I literally don’t believe such individuals will have any recourse to provide for themselves.
If we get to this point, there will necessarily still be a human "productive class", probably augmented by significant machine intelligence, or at least extremely complex analytic decision-aids.
At this point, I do not believe for a second that much of the non-productive class will last very long in generational terms, or that it will be permitted to "thrive". It could be in some simple way (such as the basic income being firm and not expanding for families with more than one child or two), or it could be something more direct and cruel like straight-up sterilizing the underclass, but if the amount of human labor demanded truly falls by that much, the population will follow.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:52 pm to Clete Purcel
quote:
There are some people who were in the stock market that got caught up in emotion and fear and sold stocks as they were falling.
Completely agree which goes back to the old adage - understand what you are doing with your money and investing in before you do it. I am amazed that humans will spend hours deciding what shirt to buy but will blindly through their life savings in the air without educating themselves.
quote:
Yes, that is on them, but I feel some compassion for them. They weren't being greedy. They didn't cause the crash. But they paid for it dearly.
I can understand compassion but I am not sure I buy the greedy claim. Why were they not in Tbills? Only one reason - they wanted higher return. Higher return requires higher risk and the rest is history. It is not like they didn't have choices. And those that lost in the stock market were either ignorant or got burned by the risk of such high return investments. Both of which are on them.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:54 pm to Quidam65
quote:
Robert Reich delivers lecture on greed while earning $240K for one class
Democrats Thy Name Is Hypocrite.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News