2

Author Topic: Why Labour Lost  (Read 3110 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Minister Of Silly Walks

  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Karma: 421
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2020, 12:20:08 AM »
The B List celebrity who was elected 40 years ago was also a slick and experienced politician who took advice from his team, not an orange buffoon who put his foot in his mouth every time he opened it and told transparent lies constantly. I'm not a fan of Reagan by an stretch but was he really comparable to Trump?

Bernie Sanders openly declares himself a socialist. Would the voting public 20 years ago have elected someone like that?

Quote
Doubt there are many people who don't realize the political system is corrupt. Would wager most people simply don't care as much as they care about being about to live their lives comfortably, have a decent income so they can pay their bills, save a little, and take a nice vacation each year. When there's a sizable enough segment of the population who lose that, or fear that there is a very real likelihood that they will lose that and nobody will care, people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Ergo Trump.

Completely agree with that, which probably shows that we aren't nearly as far apart in how we see things as I thought. I added the red bit because I think that is important.
“When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” Frederick Douglass

Offline Minister Of Silly Walks

  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Karma: 421
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2020, 12:44:29 AM »
Not sure I agree with this statement:

Quote from: Jack
In the US, the long term statistical trends for income and class don't support the rhetoric.



“When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” Frederick Douglass

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2020, 06:57:25 PM »
Not sure I agree with this statement:

Quote from: Jack
In the US, the long term statistical trends for income and class don't support the rhetoric.

Those graphs prove my point about the us vs them rhetoric. While poverty lines and class division are relative, they're not only relative to the 1%. Nor does it mean the other 99, or even the bottom 50, suffer something unfair or unjust. If the genuine point of it all is to say gozillionaires simply shouldn't be allowed to exist, then that should be the point made. More people might get on board if it didn't come with a dose of bullcrap. Not sure the data source of those graphs, but these are from pew research and the US Census Bureau.

While it's true the US middle class has declined 11% in the past 50 years, 7 of those 11 percent have joined the upper class. It's also true in the past 50 years the upper class median incomes have grown at greater rates, with the lower class increasing 25%, middle class increasing 27%, and upper class increasing 33%, though that does mean the financial standards for all classes have increased considerably. US poverty rates have been fairly consistent over the past 50 years, fluctuating within 4%.






Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2020, 07:11:11 PM »
The B List celebrity who was elected 40 years ago was also a slick and experienced politician who took advice from his team, not an orange buffoon who put his foot in his mouth every time he opened it and told transparent lies constantly. I'm not a fan of Reagan by an stretch but was he really comparable to Trump?

Bernie Sanders openly declares himself a socialist. Would the voting public 20 years ago have elected someone like that?

Quote
Doubt there are many people who don't realize the political system is corrupt. Would wager most people simply don't care as much as they care about being about to live their lives comfortably, have a decent income so they can pay their bills, save a little, and take a nice vacation each year. When there's a sizable enough segment of the population who lose that, or fear that there is a very real likelihood that they will lose that and nobody will care, people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Ergo Trump.

Completely agree with that, which probably shows that we aren't nearly as far apart in how we see things as I thought. I added the red bit because I think that is important.
It's accepted Americans didn't really identify Reagan as a politician; probably because he never held a federal seat. Both were likely results of recessions, making big promises about economic change, cutting taxes, cutting government, deregulation; they even had the same campaign slogan. Some say Trump used Regan's playbook. Sure the delivery is very different, but to imply Trump isn't slick or following advise means not taking him seriously. Some say that's why his win is such a shock, too many didn't take him seriously. Jack sure didn't.

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2020, 09:15:17 PM »
Was thinking about the graphs you posted, because they start at 1980, and that was a rough time in the US even for big money. However, found a graph on wikipedia charting 100 years of the 1%, and another charting the upper class, both sourced by economic researchers Piketty and Suarez. If you happen to find any predating 1980 which include other incomes, would be interested to see them. While the 1980 economy doesn't appear to be the factor, the graph you posted does display an equal 1980 starting point, so might hypothesis the 30 year lull indicates a 30 year equal ground, and now wondering what was the equalizer.





Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2020, 10:15:23 PM »
Gauging from Piketty's data, it was possibly a global occurrence. What happened to the 1% from 1950-1980?





Offline Minister Of Silly Walks

  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Karma: 421
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2020, 07:15:29 PM »
Jack, if you are interested in “what happened” during that 3 or 4 decade period, where the share of wealth of the 1% was much lower, all I can do is give you some starting points. Any of which I am happy to discuss in further depth.

#1: The Purge of the Left: You would need to approach this with a healthy amount of skepticism, but at least It does give you some historical background. I can provide a link to a video Richard Wolff weaves a compelling narrative about the “purge of the left”. Like all good theories it contains significant elements that are verifiably true. And because it’s Richard Wolff he gives the whole thing a Marxist spin, that you probably need to “filter out”.

#2: The Cold War: It wasn’t just about sabre rattling and an arms race. It was also a battle for hearts and minds, a time of unprecedented economic equality in the First World. In 1917 Russia was a poor, undeveloped, agrarian society that could barely feed its own people (not that it really bothered trying). By 1945 in terms of military and industrial strength, and certainly by the early 1950s in technology, the Soviet Union had reached (in around 3 decades) a level of development that it had taken the First World at least several times longer to achieve. This was unprecedented in world history up to that point. You can imagine how terrifying this was to the First World powers. Hence keeping the proletariat in the First World happy was a priority, for obvious reasons.  (Note that I am using the outdated term “First World” in its historical context).

#3: I’ll combine a couple of interrelated ideas. Neoliberalism and globalization are probably the big two economic ideologies that have shaken up the world in recent decades. Both had strong support from both “sides” of politics (or what could better be described as “the extreme centre”). Both neoliberalism and globalization could also be simply called “capitalism on steroids”. The best critique of neoliberalism I’ve seen is “Requiem For The American Dream” with Noam Chomsky. Another good one is a written article by Monbiot. Krugman (seen by many as one of the key architects of globalization) has also made a whiny, half-baked admission that he fucked up. That globalisation didn’t work how he thought it would, and destroyed the livelihood of millions of people. Oops. I can provide a link to any of these. 

Of course I doubt that you will be interested in any of this, like most of us (myself included) you are looking for something that supports your own narrative. But if you want to discuss further, I am happy to. My understanding of any of this stuff barely scratches the surface, of course.

All of that said, and as good as this video by Monbiot is, I think Monbiot is skirting around one big issue. People, generally, don’t vote according to their interests. They vote according to their values. And you can manipulate people by appealing to their values. I won’t delve further now for fear of becoming the new Al or the new Lestat.

The TLDR version, aka the defeatist version that some ascribe to, is that those few decades of relative equality were a blip. An anomaly. Normal service has been restored. The wealth of the top 1% didn’t go anywhere, governments made them pay more taxes and the labor movement (unions) made them pay fairer wages. But the 1% were still doing fine.
“When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” Frederick Douglass

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2020, 09:54:37 PM »
Jack, if you are interested in “what happened” during that 3 or 4 decade period, where the share of wealth of the 1% was much lower, all I can do is give you some starting points. Any of which I am happy to discuss in further depth.

#1: The Purge of the Left: You would need to approach this with a healthy amount of skepticism, but at least It does give you some historical background. I can provide a link to a video Richard Wolff weaves a compelling narrative about the “purge of the left”. Like all good theories it contains significant elements that are verifiably true. And because it’s Richard Wolff he gives the whole thing a Marxist spin, that you probably need to “filter out”.

#2: The Cold War: It wasn’t just about sabre rattling and an arms race. It was also a battle for hearts and minds, a time of unprecedented economic equality in the First World. In 1917 Russia was a poor, undeveloped, agrarian society that could barely feed its own people (not that it really bothered trying). By 1945 in terms of military and industrial strength, and certainly by the early 1950s in technology, the Soviet Union had reached (in around 3 decades) a level of development that it had taken the First World at least several times longer to achieve. This was unprecedented in world history up to that point. You can imagine how terrifying this was to the First World powers. Hence keeping the proletariat in the First World happy was a priority, for obvious reasons.  (Note that I am using the outdated term “First World” in its historical context).

#3: I’ll combine a couple of interrelated ideas. Neoliberalism and globalization are probably the big two economic ideologies that have shaken up the world in recent decades. Both had strong support from both “sides” of politics (or what could better be described as “the extreme centre”). Both neoliberalism and globalization could also be simply called “capitalism on steroids”. The best critique of neoliberalism I’ve seen is “Requiem For The American Dream” with Noam Chomsky. Another good one is a written article by Monbiot. Krugman (seen by many as one of the key architects of globalization) has also made a whiny, half-baked admission that he fucked up. That globalisation didn’t work how he thought it would, and destroyed the livelihood of millions of people. Oops. I can provide a link to any of these. 

Of course I doubt that you will be interested in any of this, like most of us (myself included) you are looking for something that supports your own narrative. But if you want to discuss further, I am happy to. My understanding of any of this stuff barely scratches the surface, of course.

All of that said, and as good as this video by Monbiot is, I think Monbiot is skirting around one big issue. People, generally, don’t vote according to their interests. They vote according to their values. And you can manipulate people by appealing to their values. I won’t delve further now for fear of becoming the new Al or the new Lestat.

The TLDR version, aka the defeatist version that some ascribe to, is that those few decades of relative equality were a blip. An anomaly. Normal service has been restored. The wealth of the top 1% didn’t go anywhere, governments made them pay more taxes and the labor movement (unions) made them pay fairer wages. But the 1% were still doing fine.
The TLDR version is close to what I was thinking when only looking at the 1% graphs for the US, though don't know enough about the economic history of other countries to explain the statistical mirroring. Similar to the 1% graphs, it's difficult to find well sourced decade snapshots of median income. Did find this one from the same source of the 1% graphs, displaying tax rates for the 1%. While Roosevelt did enact wealth tax, taxing the rich doesn't really fit the big picture of the other graphs.



Also found this one for median family incomes, sourced by the US census and Tax Federation, which also accounts for inflation and tax burden. While median incomes increased during the 50s-80s, those increases aren't remarkable compared to subsequent years. Judging from these two graphs, higher taxes for the rich and higher incomes for the middle class wasn't what happened. Would have to say it was lower taxes for the middle class combined with greater purchasing power of the dollar. Maybe it just took 30 years for business to figure out they could compensate for those higher wages by charging more. :laugh: Serously, have no clue. It doesn't make sense, especially the global aspect.


Offline Minister Of Silly Walks

  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Karma: 421
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2020, 11:02:09 PM »
Beware of stats being used misleadingly. Check for biases.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tax-foundation/

Here is another graph on the actual effective tax rates payed by the 1% and the richest 400:



Of course the Centre for American Progress isn't biased. Or are they?????

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-american-progress/



Corporate tax rates have declined sharply, refer to above graph. Corporations tend not to be owned primarily by poor people. Reducing tax on corprations that already make massive profits is a direct benefit to the oligarchs.

Personal taxes can be minimized in a number of ways. Warren Buffet, 4th richest man in the world, famously pays a lower rate of tax than his secretary.

A fall of tax rate from 42% to 36% (indicated by the graph you provided) is significant. Maybe not as big a drop as you'd expect based on some of the rhetoric being bandied about, but still significant enough. But is that the headline rate or the actual rate of tax paid after creative accounting?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 11:07:30 PM by Minister of silly walks »
“When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” Frederick Douglass

Offline Minister Of Silly Walks

  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Karma: 421
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2020, 11:05:02 PM »
Global mirroring (in the First World) in terms of inequality makes sense in the context of the Cold War. Which started and finished at the same time for everyone. Also the ideologies that disrupted the (temporarily more equal) status quo kicked off around the same time around the world.

So the mirroring makes perfect sense in terms of my world view.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 11:08:49 PM by Minister of silly walks »
“When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” Frederick Douglass

Offline Minister Of Silly Walks

  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Karma: 421
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2020, 11:16:45 PM »
Also found this one for median family incomes, sourced by the US census and Tax Federation, which also accounts for inflation and tax burden. While median incomes increased during the 50s-80s, those increases aren't remarkable compared to subsequent years. Judging from these two graphs, higher taxes for the rich and higher incomes for the middle class wasn't what happened. Would have to say it was lower taxes for the middle class combined with greater purchasing power of the dollar. Maybe it just took 30 years for business to figure out they could compensate for those higher wages by charging more. :laugh: Serously, have no clue. It doesn't make sense, especially the global aspect.



Are we looking at the same graph? The blue line is the most striking, adjusted for inflation.

The red line is almost as striking, adjusted for tax burden so a better indicator of actual disposable income. From around 1940 to the peak in the late 1970s real incomes more than doubled. If you draw a straight line from that peak to the end point of the graph, it's a flat line.

Bear in mind that there was substantial increase in the size of the economy during that period, and big increases in productivity. Also bear in mind that the median income is only a tiny part of the story.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 11:18:47 PM by Minister of silly walks »
“When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” Frederick Douglass

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2020, 01:15:16 AM »
Beware of stats being used misleadingly. Check for biases.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tax-foundation/

Here is another graph on the actual effective tax rates payed by the 1% and the richest 400:



Of course the Centre for American Progress isn't biased. Or are they?????

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-american-progress/



Corporate tax rates have declined sharply, refer to above graph. Corporations tend not to be owned primarily by poor people. Reducing tax on corprations that already make massive profits is a direct benefit to the oligarchs.

Personal taxes can be minimized in a number of ways. Warren Buffet, 4th richest man in the world, famously pays a lower rate of tax than his secretary.

A fall of tax rate from 42% to 36% (indicated by the graph you provided) is significant. Maybe not as big a drop as you'd expect based on some of the rhetoric being bandied about, but still significant enough. But is that the headline rate or the actual rate of tax paid after creative accounting?
Not sure what you're trying to say. Was looking for a century graph and found one by the same source as the 1% income graphs. While the first half of the 100 yr tax graph agreed with the income graph, the years since the 80s didn't. If Picketty's data is crap, then his entire study of the 1%, including the 50s-80s bears no discussion. If this similar graph makes you feel better about Pikkety's data, it's from the wikipedia article for Progressivity in United States income tax and sourced by the US Congressional Budget office, although it doesn't show 50-80 which makes it unhelpful to the current conversation.   
Also not sure what you're trying to say with the corporate tax graph. Corporations are publicly owned and traded entities. It's true the 1% own half the country's stock and lower taxes can increase profit which is important to the value of corporations, but the economy drives the value of stock, and dividends from profit paid to shareholders are personal income to be taxed for income tax. If anything, the government gets double duty out of corporations, though with the exception of Roosevelt's tax reforms the US federal income doesn't have much of a history of relying on the taxes on corporations. The bulk of federal income comes from income and payroll tax. Payroll tax are for Social Security and Medicare.

IRS data shows In 2016, the bottom 50% paid about 3% of all income taxes. The top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about 30.5 percent of all income taxes. Those numbers leave out the top 2-9%, but my math tells me the top 10% are supporting federal tax revenue to the tune of 70%.


https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/ This link for the graph also has a data table with average tax rates since they were questioned.

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2020, 01:24:38 AM »
Also found this one for median family incomes, sourced by the US census and Tax Federation, which also accounts for inflation and tax burden. While median incomes increased during the 50s-80s, those increases aren't remarkable compared to subsequent years. Judging from these two graphs, higher taxes for the rich and higher incomes for the middle class wasn't what happened. Would have to say it was lower taxes for the middle class combined with greater purchasing power of the dollar. Maybe it just took 30 years for business to figure out they could compensate for those higher wages by charging more. :laugh: Serously, have no clue. It doesn't make sense, especially the global aspect.



Are we looking at the same graph? The blue line is the most striking, adjusted for inflation.

The red line is almost as striking, adjusted for tax burden so a better indicator of actual disposable income. From around 1940 to the peak in the late 1970s real incomes more than doubled. If you draw a straight line from that peak to the end point of the graph, it's a flat line.

Bear in mind that there was substantial increase in the size of the economy during that period, and big increases in productivity. Also bear in mind that the median income is only a tiny part of the story.
Yes, we are looking at the same graph, and seemingly saying the same thing but differently. Inflation is what made spendable income level off in the 80s. That's why I made the joke about raising prices.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 02:22:39 AM by Jack »

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2020, 05:46:54 PM »
like most of us (myself included) you are looking for something that supports your own narrative.
Not really certain I have a narrative for this, other than not buying into the poor vs very rich narrative. All stats aside, the narrative is a lie because it's based in the cause of equal distribution of wealth. The median income is the median income, so in order for an equal distribution to occur then the entire upper class, and the top half of the middle class, thus half the population, would have to experience a downgrade in their income and standard of living. One way to convince them that's a good thing is to lie and have them believe they have something to gain from it, by only going after those pesky very rich people who make everyone else feel so poor by comparison.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 05:50:13 PM by Jack »

Offline Minister Of Silly Walks

  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Karma: 421
Re: Why Labour Lost
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2020, 01:09:00 AM »
Just gonna drop this here, will get back and comment later.

This is superb. A plutocrat (very rich dude) explains the consequences of rising inequality.

“When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” Frederick Douglass