|
|
 Originally Posted by boost
No, I meant 1910. But I could have used any year. The point is that we are discussing classes, and classes are relative to each other. So we can compare the middle class of whatever time, as it relates to the other classes, to the middle class of today, as it relates to other classes. Standard of living have generally been improving at a historically noticeable pace for thousands of years, and at a pace noticeable to a contemporary for a few centuries. But that has nothing to do with the present day contraction of the middle class. If you don't think that wealth disparity is an issue (which I'm pretty sure I know you don't) then go ahead and say it-- but you seem to be trying to mask it as something it's not.
The stagnating wages of middle class people is mostly stat cooking. The poor and middle class have gotten richer (in America) during the last 30 years. It's valid to say that the rich have gotten richer at a faster rate, though. This is probably due to globalization more than anything. The money isn't being displaced from the poor and middle class in our country, it is being created by free trade with other nations.
Re. wealth disparity, it exists because people are disparately productive in the economy. Pure egalitarianism is a vulgar concept because it supposes that incomes and standards of living should in no way reflect how much we contribute to the economy. So yes, I believe that in a free market you will have some disparity, and it is not inherently a problem. Its only a problem when things stop becoming continually better for us all, which hasn't happened.
This is the part where I extoll the virtues of free markets. I'll try to go as little on faith as possible. A completely free market and free society approaches a state of higher equality by increasing everyone's standard of living. It does this by continually reducing the costs of everything we need and desire through competition, increased efficiency via capital accumulation, and decreased inefficiency through the profit and loss system. So while there will be wealth disparity, even the poorest people will be able to afford healthcare when the industry hasn't been cartelized by a state. We approach a state of basically infinitely cheap goods/services and infinite wealth to spend on goods/services, and nearly everything a government does slows down this process by some degree.
Originally Posted by boost
I really don't know, but none of these things will get discussed if we constantly and pre-preemptively devolve our socio-economic discourse into these poliicy-based dichotomies.
Fair enough, but the thread was titled globalization and a shrinking middle class. And even though dozer stated that he didn't think going back on globalization was the answer, its still an original post that is skeptical of free trade at least on some level.
|
Reply With Quote