Perhaps you could come up with evidence for your assertions?
Because a market with negative unemployment can't sustain itself, and rapidly destabilizes and then collapses.
Ok, what is a real world example of this? Because I find it hard to believe that it can even happen much have such a negative effect.
Oh, so this is theft and actual violent removal of private property by the state under the name of 'taxation' is not theft? The actual theft happens when the violent means of a state are used to forcefully take property of a person or his business regardless of what the name is. A rose by any other name... Ireland is the best thing that happened in this insane world.
I assume you are referring to the teachers arrested and jailed last month in Minnesota.
Again with the false equivalence. Let's read that story in question.
Minneapolis police reported 21 protesters were arrested willingly after blocking Eighth Street at Nicollet Mall and refusing orders to disperse.
When I said "cross someone", I didn't mean block a road. And what were the consequences?
All 21 of the protesters arrested in Minneapolis were ticketed and released, according to the St. Paul Federation of Teachers.
The ACFTU is a government run umbrella organization for labor unions in China. But unions do NOT have to join. Even for unions that do join, they have the right to independently declare strikes. The links you provide point out (correctly) that unions in China face big challenges. How is that different than America, where union membership has dramatically declined, and service workers are proving difficult to organize?
One huge difference is that you can get thrown in jail for crossing someone. There's no equivalence here between the Chinese and US labor situations.
The horrible exploitation of labor during this period is what gave rise to Unions and the "Progressive Era."
The "horrible exploitation of labor" is what gave rise to the US as superpower and developed world society. And I doubt labor unions and the "Progressive Era" would have had much traction without the high demand for US labor spurred by the Gilded Era.
It's remarkable how poorly understood and interpreted the Gilded Era is. Somehow they built up a superpower, a vast economy, a set of world-class universities, and the current modern medical system. Yet it's supposedly all bad because labor was exploited. Well, China isn't going to get a shiny developed world society without a vast amount of labor exploitation any more than the US could.
In volume (# of people, ideally as a percentage of total population) or in net worth?
All three. It's worth noting here that the study in question dishonesty spins the results as "The American Middle Class is Losing Ground" (the title of the report) without noting that the upper two classes (five in total with the middle one being loosely defined as "middle class") in their study increased in percent of total population by 7% of total population for a 50% growth in the size of the two categories.
Meanwhile the lowest category increased in size by 4% of total population for a 25% growth. I don't see the numbers of the original claim supported here, but it is a considerable improvement despite the claims to the contrary.
So yes, there was some growth in the poorest category, but more people by fraction of population and by raw population become more wealthy rather than less.
Finally, income inequality is not impoverishment of the middle class. It is dishonest to equate the two. Sure, there are some problems with a rise in income inequality such as the wealthiest having somewhat more power in society. But I don't see those problems really discussed.
It's even worse in the "stats" link above which dishonestly claims that wealth inequality is somehow undemocratic, even though it's painfully obvious that not everyone has the interest or ability to maximize their wealth. There will be wealth inequality in a democratic society where people have control over their wealth.
Nor is all wealth equivalent. You can't eat or live in some obscure financial security, for example. And any analysis which roundly ignores the quality of the wealth is doing a major disservice.
My view is that developed world societies have done remarkably well at reducing poverty. But good news like that doesn't fit the narrative of societies needing massive change. So instead we see this obsession with other metrics. The wealth inequality metric is particularly dishonest because we would see a natural increase in wealth inequality from the basic demographic and global trade shifts of the past half a century.
Current increases in wealth inequality don't come from the society becoming less democratic, but rather from labor competition with the many billions of people in the developing world. What do you expect when people who depend on their labor for their wealth are competing with billions of people who are willing to work for much less, while rich people whose wealth is in capital do not? Yet somehow this never was mentioned in this thread or in the links that have been provided.
There's no real fix for this except to wait till developed world societies have near income parity with the developing world.
Yeah, they're perfectly free to go back to dire poverty and hunger if they want.
- correct, the key word in your sentence being *back*. Back is where they would have to go in order to get away from these 'horrible companies' that are giving them something they never had before - a choice of not going back, from where they came.
I guess they are making their own choices every day regardless of what you think they should do.
No one is holding a gun to their heads to force them to feed their kids and have basic shelter.
- precisely, nobody is forcing them to eat and to feed their kids. They are choosing to do so by working for the companies that are offering them these jobs. They can go *back* of-course, back from whence they came.
That's the point. You create a situation where people have more money to spend than there are workers to supply, and then you boost the labor expense of anything they want to buy by restricting labor hours. Suddenly everything becomes more expensive, but nobody has any more money; the capacity to buy products beyond what our labor force can supply goes away, because we're suddenly all poorer.
And that leads to an obvious question. Why would we want to make everyone poorer?
The whole point of any sort of universal basic income is to make most people less poor. Yet here, you state your fix makes all people poorer. So that sounds to me like we should do the opposite of work week restrictions and restrict them less rather than more.
Uh yeah, you paid into it for a purpose, you're entitled to get that back.
And who again promised you this entitlement? Weren't me.
The key problem here is that many people are taking out several times what they put in.
Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 - more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.
In a decade or so, Medicare is going to be one of the largest Federal expenditures - entitlement programs indeed.
We didn't evolve to live so long. Medical science has outpaced our biology and it's taking a toll on our society.
We didn't evolve for a lot of stuff that we currently do. And I doubt you had to evolve yourself in order to type your message.
As to those medical care costs, I think most people would agree that US medical care is way overpriced for what it does. Sounds like you might agree. But my view is that this overpriced system is not a consequence of the technology, but rather of political systems operating on increasingly empty promises.
Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him. - Fyodor Dostoevski