It all began with Reagan and his trickle-down economics. Seems the trickle turned to a gush of money going to the rich and less to the middle-class and poor.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Great Prosperity -- The Great Regression
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Astoundingly misguided and dishonest attack piece. The rise of worker productivity in the 1980's and beyond is directly tied to the increase in use of desktop computers.
And as productivity increases so should salaries. What has happened is the American worker is producing more but not receiving benefits from harder work and increased production. The chart holds and shows how the GOP has aided the rich at the expense of everyone else.
And yet, you and others seem unable to see what they have and are doing to you.
Even if the graph is correct it is merely showing the failed policies of the Democrat party. The trend began in 79. Since that is the starting point there was no time to have any of Reagan's policies to have effected the economy or wages at that point. If a President is to blame here it can only be a result of the Carter years. It is also obvious from the graph that the Clinton years produced no better results than the Carter years.
So what we see in the graph compared to the claim in the op is there is a very clear and dishonest claim being made here.
So what we see in the graph compared to the claim in the op is there is a very clear and dishonest claim being made here.
Break it down for us. Show us exactly how the chart shows the GOP has done any such thing. Also, prove your theory that if production increases so must wages.
Last edited by a moderator:
Salaries did not increase as much as you would expect because businesses were constantly spending money on all those new computers, monitors, printers, servers, etc. First MS-DOS machines, then Windows 3.1, then Windows 95, then Windows 98, then Windows XP. I worked at a high-tech company in the 80's and those bare bones MS-DOS machines with monochrome monitors were about $3,000 per setup.
Please, please tell me how a low to middle class worker gets money taken away from them when the wealthy get wealthier? I've asked you this question at least a half dozen times over the years and you've never answered it.
I know the answer to this, I'm just curious to hear Crabby's response.
BTW, I wouldn't call the 1970's an era of Great Prosperity. It was basically a lost decade for the stock market and with inflation driven by high oil prices, wages and purchasing power stagnated. You can see this on the graph plain as day.
If you receive no wage increase and there is inflation but the CEO received millions in bonuses how is it that your spendable money was not decreased?
How is the amount of money a CEO received applicable?
This is not an answer, it is another question.
Firstly, the supply of money is not a fixed quantity, especially during times of inflation. During inflation there is too much money in the system.
Secondly, inflation has the effect of decreasing wages because prices are rising.
Thirdly, the fact that the CEO gets a bonus does not mean he took the money from his workers, just as if you get a 7% raise and your co-worker friend gets a 2% raise, you took money from your co-worker.
Please, just answer the question!
One thing is for sure. Increasing taxes never increases wages.
And if you factor in inflation over the time period in the chart wages have actually been reduced.
If things are so good, as you seem to believe, why has the middle-class shrunk during the time period, from 1980 to now?
Just answer my question and I'll think about answering yours. The answer is obvious.
How does the rich getting richer deny the poor and middle class more money?
Simple. The more that goes to one person or group the less can go to another.
OK, now answer my questions as you promised.
Ok you need to provide evidence of this. It is certainly not a given in any situation. Just because someone has more does not mean that has caused someone else to have less.
This would be true if the money supply were constant and finite, but it's not.
The reason why the middle class has been shrinking is because of over taxation, primarily to fund government entitlement programs (and others) which is a massive money redistribution scheme. Money is leaving the middle class and it's going to the poor. Also, the middle class in the age group of over say, 40 years old, are not keeping up with the changing jobs in the economy.
Really?
Remember Bush's tax cuts. Of course they helped the rich very much, but did nothing for the middle class. You are completely wrong on taxes.
In 2000 the top rage for ordinary income was 39.6%. Now it is 35.5
In 2000 the top rate for earned income was 42.5%. Now it is 37.9%
In 2000 the top rate rate for capital gains was 28%. Not it is 15%