Ronald Reagan; Savior or Scum

[bordelais7]

The current middle class maybe worse off in a relative sense compared to the top 1% but in terms of an absolute historical context your statement is absurd.

This right here. There is plenty of data out which suggests that every quintile is better off than it has ever been, despite the fact that the gaps between the top and middle have widened. Thriller and others operate under the fallacy of a zero-sum paradigm.

 

[One Brow]

Confused here. Are you implying that conviceted criminals/incarcerated peopel receive Social Secuirty? Or were you doing a play on words?

I believe, by using lower case, he was not referring to the specific program, but the more general notion of the state needing to care for inmate, and the cost of this to middle-class families.

 

[Revolution 9]

Like everything he was a mixed bag. He was really good at some things, had some great accomplishments, and completely failed in other areas.

 

[Revolution 9]

This right here. There is plenty of data out which suggests that every quintile is better off than it has ever been, despite the fact that the gaps between the top and middle have widened. Thriller and others operate under the fallacy of a zero-sum paradigm.

So you are saying the middle class is better than it has ever been? You can't honestly believe that.

 

[bordelais7]

Following up on that thought and envy in human nature, there are a bunch of fun economic studies out similar to the following:

The moderator has a pool of $100 to give out (no strings attached). There are two participants who will split the money. Participant A is given $10, which means that Participant B gets $90. Participant A is then given the choice to either 1) keep what was given to him, OR 2) forfeit his $10 if it also means that Participant B is required to forfeit his $90.

Logic would dictate that everyone should go with option 1. Results are -- I won't say "surprising".

Variation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

 

[One Brow]

That lifestyle now is considered borderline poverty. What is now considered a middle class lifestyle is above and beyond what any middle class family could have conceived 30 plus years ago. With every generation the bar gets raised higher and living standards and lifestyles become more extraordinary.

450 sq ft/person isn't poverty in any country of which I am aware, not even today. Nor is owning your own, solidly-built furniture, appliances, etc.

I agree with your basic point: families at almost every level in the US have luxuries undreamed of in the 70s. But don't confuse being a Luddite (as a person today who chose to have the life you described would be) with poverty.

 

[bordelais7]

So you are saying the middle class is better than it has ever been? You can't honestly believe that.

Because?

 

[The Pearl]

Following up on that thought and envy in human nature, there are a bunch of fun economic studies out similar to the following:

The moderator has a pool of $100 to give out (no strings attached). There are two participants who will split the money. Participant A is given $10, which means that Participant B gets $90. Participant A is then given the choice to either 1) keep what was given to him, OR 2) forfeit his $10 if it also means that Participant B is required to forfeit his $90.

Logic would dictate that everyone should go with option 1. Results are -- I won't say "surprising".

There is also a study I once read that found out that most people would be overwhelming in favor of choosing to make more money than their neighbors in relative terms than in absolute terms. In other words, people willingly choose to make 60k and be the highest paid in their neighborhood or social circle rather than 100k and be the lowest paid in their social circle.

 

[One Brow]

Reagan turned almost the entire south Republican in 1980 and it's still that way 30 plus years later.

LBJ predicted the Republican South in the mid-1960s.

Reagan gets high marks for transforming the military from the ground up. Our armed forces were in shambles after Vietnam. Reagan threw a lot of money at the Pentagon to build bombs and jets; but he also held senior officers accountable for the quality of soldier they produced.

I hear ending the draft had a lot to do with that.

Reagan did not end The Cold War by himself but he deserves some of the credit.

Agreed.

 

[♪alt13]

The south went Republican because LbJ signed the Civil rights act of 1964.

 

[Siro]

Yes.

We should all be celebrating high unemployment, record underemployment, stagnant wages, record bankruptcies, and lost retirements.

Those 1950s sure sucked.

Look at the distribution of wealth. That's a huge indicator many here are refusing to acknowledge.

Try to see the forest for the trees. Unemployment and underemployment are problems that should be tackled, but they are not the sole criteria for evaluating a civilization, unless you're into transient partisan arrow slinging.

Going to an average grocery store today, I am confronted with ten different kinds of fruits and vegetables that I've never heard of. I can sample all of them in return for what amounts to an hour's work. A hundred years ago, a king couldn't possibly hope to do that if he spent a nation's wealth on the task. My sister is very much a hippie with no interest in making a lot of money, and who makes a living as a freelance photographer. Her part time job still allows her to afford rent, good nutrition, a connected smartphone, and extra money for entertainment and weed.

Poor people are not poor because they're just inferior or whatever nonsense one hears from demagogues. Just as rich people cannot credit their success to their awesome genes. We are all the product of our make up, environment, and happenstance. And the government can help in creating a better environment, had it not been so utterly broken. I think that's where our efforts should be. Fixing the government. Not waging a war on a functional, but flawed, economic system that enriched our lives in almost every objective measure.

 

[candrew]

So you are saying the middle class is better than it has ever been? You can't honestly believe that.

Agreed - the middle class has more access to easy credit and crappy stuff from Wal-Mart but I don't know if they're better off.

 

[green]

Yes.

We should all be celebrating high unemployment, record underemployment, stagnant wages, record bankruptcies, and lost retirements.

Those 1950s sure sucked.

Look at the distribution of wealth. That's a huge indicator many here are refusing to acknowledge.

LOL. You are an idiot. How many tv's did the middle class have in the 70's? Now?

How many vacations to Disneyland did the middle class take in the 70's? Not as many as now.

How many cars did the middle class have in the 70's? For their kids? Not as many as now.

How big was the average sized house in the 70's? It's bigger now.

How many newly married couples went out and bought a home right away in the 70's? Not nearly as many as do now.

There is no way in the 70's someone living below poverty could afford a cellphone. They can now.

The rich are A LOT richer now than they were 30-40 years ago. So is everyone else.

You are the perfect example of the moron MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc has created. We have never had it better than we do now, yet you believe the crap they spew out and think we have never had it worse. It's ridiculous.

More people eat better than ever before IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. More people have access to healthcare than every before. More people have more free time than ever before. More people have bigger houses, nicer cars, cell phones, televisions, satellite/cable tv, vacations, etc than EVER BEFORE.

 

[Harambe]

I think that's way over thinking things. The way I see it is we've become a nation of snooty self righteous christians who've shunned the basic tenet of the religion: forgiveness and compassion. We want to throw those dirty devils in prison and swallow the key. Forget the fact that it's immoral for a parent of a starving child to not steal to keep his child alive... forget making him a job to replace the crime... we have this ideology that free markets will save everything and these dirt bag freeloader ******** are getting in the way. Lock 'em up, close your eyes, and when you open them in the morning the market fairies will have made everything better. It's magic, God said so the Bible clearly lays out free market God said so you're turning America evil by not doing what God said in Bible.

And BTW, it's only good to have make jobs programs once their behind bars. We can't ever have FDR CCC outside of prison, only inside. Get it?

I could not agree with you more. And the article presented goes the same way at times. Making money became a religion in disguise.. something that someone decided they could silk screen right behind whichever form of Christianity you believe in. Something that somehow is magically a part of what you've always believed, and if you believe any different(ie, don't have a job, don't have a home, drive a crappy car, etc) YOU'RE A F***ING COMMIE ****STAIN ON THE BAL***** OF LIFE! BURN!.. GET OUT OF MY WORLD!!!! PRISON!

I guess now that we break it down, your statement is just level one. We don't accept others like we need to. Forgive and tolerate just don't exist right now. We abandon the principles that we so proudly lived by... that which we saw as what made us great.

And then the next step was our doom.. instead of accepting benign attitudes and actions that we perceived as "character flaws", we found ways to exclude those "afflicted" and "put away".

Third, we found ways to exploite those we've already removed from society to "better ourselves".

And fourth, creating more and more laws to further filter and identify those we "don't like", to put them in the same box as everyone else.

Carry on, good sir.

 

[♪alt13]

There is no way in the 70's someone living below poverty could afford a cellphone. They can now.

More people have more free time than ever before.

Yep Afghanistan has more cell phones than 1970's America. They are more wealthy.


No, people do not have more free time than ever before. As a matter of fact there are more households that rely on 2 incomes than ever before. Compensation(salary and wages) has gone down since the 1970's. Many things that we think as luxury items are quickly becoming necessary to function in our modern society. Lower middle class people have a hard time paying for a cell phone and internet access. Can you imagine trying to look for a job these days without those two things.

 

[Harambe]

This is really a winner bro. I think you just won the thread.

LOL. You are an idiot. How many tv's did the middle class have in the 70's? Now?

The price of technology historically drops in the long term.

How many vacations to Disneyland did the middle class take in the 70's? Not as many as now.

I haven't taken a trip to disneyland since high school with the band. I'm pretty sure I qualify as at least middle class.

How many cars did the middle class have in the 70's? For their kids? Not as many as now.

There weren't anywhere near as many running, used cars on the road in the 1970's. Nor were there parts for those cars readily available.

How big was the average sized house in the 70's? It's bigger now.

Just the same as technology, the housing industry has been able to stretch that dollar more now than they were in the 70's in both more sturdy less costly options, as well as being budget oriented.

How many newly married couples went out and bought a home right away in the 70's? Not nearly as many as do now.

Yeah bro, banks giving out crap loans that they know won't work out in the long run is great for society!

There is no way in the 70's someone living below poverty could afford a cellphone. They can now.

This is probably the dumbest line ever. In 1982 Motorola released it's $3995, Motorola DynaTAC 8000X. I don't even want to think about what that would cost in 2013 money.

The rich are A LOT richer now than they were 30-40 years ago. So is everyone else.

This is actually the smartest thing you've said. But let me alter it a bit.
The Rich are a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot richer than they were 30-40 years ago.
The middle class is a lot lot lot richer than they were 30-40 years ago.
The poor are moderately richer than they were 30-40 years ago.

You are the perfect example of the moron MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc has created. We have never had it better than we do now, yet you believe the crap they spew out and think we have never had it worse. It's ridiculous.

More people eat better than ever before IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. More people have access to healthcare than every before. More people have more free time than ever before. More people have bigger houses, nicer cars, cell phones, televisions, satellite/cable tv, vacations, etc than EVER BEFORE.

I don't really mean to call you out, but this is either the worst thought out response this board has ever seen, or you're a troll, you got me, and I owe you rep.

 

[The Thriller]

LOL. You are an idiot.

Ah yes. Beginning a post insulting another poster is always a great way to begin a helpful discussion. Your post isn't even worth responding to. And, thankfully, I've seen Roach destroy your arguments, point by point.

 

[The Thriller]

Ask women and African-Americans or other minorities how they felt about the 1950's.

Really? First off, it would depend on where and who you asked. I don't think many African Americans found northern and western cities very unjust. Secondly, as far as civil rights go, I would agree, we are more ahead than before. However, we are discussing economics. Specifically, the health of the middle-class. Or are you giving up already and looking to change the subject?

The current middle class maybe worse off in a relative sense compared to the top 1% but in terms of an absolute historical context your statement is absurd. I grew up in the 70's and graduated in 1981. We were solid middle class, maybe even upper middle class in comparison to our town. One TV with 3 channels, no AC in either car or the home. For most of my early childhood we owned one automobile. Our house was 3 bedrooms, one bath, one kitchen, one small dining room, one living room. Ranch style with less than 2000 square feet. 4 people.

Nothing is more persuasive than anecdotal information. "Back in my day, we walked 10 miles to the bathroom... ONE WAY!"

I've heard enough of these stories from my grandparents, thank you very much.

 

[The Thriller]

This right here. There is plenty of data out which suggests that every quintile is better off than it has ever been, despite the fact that the gaps between the top and middle have widened. Thriller and others operate under the fallacy of a zero-sum paradigm.

This is like using MJ or Lebron as a standard that all basketball players need to aspire to. You literally, could use this argument to justify the inequality, crony capitalism, and government corruption of any country today. Just how far are you going to take this weak argument? You easily could say, "Those in Afghanistan shouldn't complain, back 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals did x to y. Today, those types of crimes and unjust actions don't happen!"

It's unfair and completely misses the mark when we're talking about our present-day economic situation.

 

[The Thriller]

I find distribution of wealth without additional context to be completely meaningless.

Fair enough. I'll add more context to this. It will only make my argument stronger.

But also, lets admit that the distribution of wealth isn't completely meaningless. First of all, just basic common sense. If 1 percent owns nearly everything, what do you think that type of society is like? Secondly, basic economics, when the majority doesn't have purchasing power, what will happen to that system? First, people will go in debt. Secondly, the economy will stall (layoffs, people not purchasing the crap they make, etc). Thirdly, wages fall, the work force becomes desperate and will work for anything, the economy continues to decline... The standard of living falls. It's a vicious cycle that (for some reason) many repubs want to ignore which was so prevalent in the late 20s and 30s.