Inflation, real income, and politics Moved from: Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

[Happy Camper]

Allow me to explain why none of this will actually happen properly or in a constructive manner.

We, as a society, can no longer agree to disagree. Anyone that thinks differently is wrong and needs to be treated like the enemy, obviously. This is proven out by our politicians, who no longer can compromise on anything without threat from their own party. So the other party and everyone in it is a "bad person" and doesn't care about whatever issue. The media pushes the negative polarizing narrative to get views, clicks, and sell advertising.

I think it's very safe to say that most on this forum are of an age when crossing the aisle and making deals that benefited both sides was more likely. No one got everything they wanted, but things moved forward as a whole. That time has passed us by. I'm hopeful for it's return, but we'll see.

 

[Happy Camper]

Nothing to do with EV vehicles. But another example of unintended consequences when making a law.

https://news.yahoo.com/californias-war-plastic-bag-seems-110054347.html

 

[user 22017]

I draw the line at the demographic that has seen a real increase in income since 1980, that is greater than the real increase in per capita GDP.

According to The World Factbook of the CIA, only the top 20% of wage earners saw an income increase since 1980 (adjusted for inflation, but I don't know about your GDP thing).

That info has been on their website for at least 20 years. Just checked... it was recently removed. I copied the quote years ago, though [on an external hard drive]... if you ever want to read it.

 

[user 22017]

Allow me to explain why none of this will actually happen properly or in a constructive manner.

We, as a society, can no longer agree to disagree. Anyone that thinks differently is wrong and needs to be treated like the enemy, obviously. This is proven out by our politicians, who no longer can compromise on anything without threat from their own party. So the other party and everyone in it is a "bad person" and doesn't care about whatever issue. The media pushes the negative polarizing narrative to get views, clicks, and sell advertising.

I think it's very safe to say that most on this forum are of an age when crossing the aisle and making deals that benefited both sides was more likely. No one got everything they wanted, but things moved forward as a whole. That time has passed us by. I'm hopeful for it's return, but we'll see.

It doesn't surprise me at all, because most of us are online. There is a wealth of information and garbage online. We get our news online. Too often from memes. MSM is a mouthpiece for the White House.

Our public schools are WAY behind in teaching kids how to properly check sources. And teaching why it is so vital to check sources.

I don't expect any changes anytime soon, because our schools aren't mandating it (learning how to check sources). God forbid we mandate anything today. Mandates = conspiracies. Sorry... anyway, our public schools are awful. I teach in them as a sub and see it. We should do what Finland did and scrap our educational system and start over.

That can't happen, because it wasn't just Reagan who started the ball rolling toward the mess we have today. It was religion in the U.S.

 

[bullfrog !]

“Study to show thy self approved!” Lol!!!

 

[user 22017]

“Study to show thy self approved!” Lol!!!

I don't get it

 

[user 22017]

Keeping up with inflation just means stagnation... no change in living standard. If that was "normal" we'd all be poor subsistence farmers like 200 years ago. Normal is when real wages and benefits keep pace with real per capita GDP, which has more than doubled since 1980. For the last 200 years it's fluctuated around a trend line of 1.8% increase per year, compounded of course. Since 1980 wages and benefits have been nearly stagnant.

Here is real per capita GDP since the late 40s.

I used to be able to find a chart of this that went all the way back to 1820, but this will have to do...

Find median female income chart

 

[user 22017]

Look at this info about the top 20%

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-this-chart-explains-americans-wealth-across-income-levels/

Maybe a sloppy website, idk. But I was trying to find the income bracket for the top 20%. Concentrating on the top 1-2% is a distraction from true income inequality

 

[rruff]

 

[wanderlust]

when real wages and benefits keep pace with real per capita GDP, which has more than doubled since 1980.

Also we need to take into account how prices of housing, healthcare and higher education (supposed to increase your earning potential) increased since 1980 - increased with rate WAY above inflation-adjusted growth of GDP. Especially housing in last few years. Basically, if someone missed the opportunity to buy a house in last 10 years, his children will likely be renters too. Investors are buying bulk starter homes, paying cash, and renting out with such high rent (lack of competition) that for young families is hard to save for downpayment. Most of the tax benefit of mortgage deduction goes to owners of multiple properties. Exactly the people who don't need the help.

Also, GDP per capita vs median male income - obviously, GDP per capita is average, not median income. Apples and oranges.

Example of the difference: If Bezos walks into a bar, average income of everybody is billion plus, but median income barely changed.

 

[wanderlust]

We, as a society, can no longer agree to disagree. Anyone that thinks differently is wrong and needs to be treated like the enemy, obviously. This is proven out by our politicians, who no longer can compromise on anything without threat from their own party. So the other party and everyone in it is a "bad person" and doesn't care about whatever issue. The media pushes the negative polarizing narrative to get views, clicks, and sell advertising.

Yes, but why? Because politicians were forced by our political system (winner takes all, so all you need 51% votes) made the partisan gerrymandering into a science. With latest computer databases, they are able to design safe district (55% votes guaranteed). So real elections are made in primaries, where only 5% of most partisan voters participate, and politicians are punished for making compromises.

Different voting systems are possible (there is whole mathematical theory about voting systems). I really like the "jungle primaries" for all parties, and top 4 candidates (regardless of the party) run in the general election - but with "order of preference" system with instant runoff. So say a Green voter, if not enough votes for a Green candidate to win, can transfer votes to another candidate, presumably "greener" one (votes are not lost, no spoiler candidates), and candidates are strogly interested to be a second choice of a voter. Such system would encourage non-polarizing candidates. I think Alaska did that.

It is all about political will. Why change the system which gave me power and keeps me in power? Voters are NOT choosing representative, instead the politician is choosing the voters (the district) which is safe to win.

 

[user 22017]

Yes, but why? Because politicians were forced by our political system (winner takes all, so all you need 51% votes) made the partisan gerrymandering into a science. With latest computer databases, they are able to design safe district (55% votes guaranteed). So real elections are made in primaries, where only 5% of most partisan voters participate, and politicians are punished for making compromises.

Different voting systems are possible (there is whole mathematical theory about voting systems). I really like the "jungle primaries" for all parties, and top 4 candidates (regardless of the party) run in the general election - but with "order of preference" system with instant runoff. So say a Green voter, if not enough votes for a Green candidate to win, can transfer votes to another candidate, presumably "greener" one (votes are not lost, no spoiler candidates), and candidates are strogly interested to be a second choice of a voter. Such system would encourage non-polarizing candidates. I think Alaska did that.

It is all about political will. Why change the system which gave me power and keeps me in power? Voters are NOT choosing representative, instead the politician is choosing the voters (the district) which is safe to win.

The Democrats and Republicans worked together to control the presidential debates. The League of Women Voters used to run them. So if you read up on the history of the debates, you'll see that both parties control the questions asked and, I presume, who is allowed in the debates. I'm sure there are many other ways they work together to insure that the two party system remains.

So we end up with election after election in which we have to hold our noses as we vote. Again & again voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[camperdan]

It doesn't surprise me at all, because most of us are online. There is a wealth of information and garbage online. We get our news online. Too often from memes. MSM is a mouthpiece for the White House.

Our public schools are WAY behind in teaching kids how to properly check sources. And teaching why it is so vital to check sources.

I don't expect any changes anytime soon, because our schools aren't mandating it (learning how to check sources). God forbid we mandate anything today. Mandates = conspiracies. Sorry... anyway, our public schools are awful. I teach in them as a sub and see it. We should do what Finland did and scrap our educational system and start over.

That can't happen, because it wasn't just Reagan who started the ball rolling toward the mess we have today. It was religion in the U.S.

RE our failed education system. Carla, I am way behind on history. ie, how did Reagan negatively impact the education
system? And, would you explain your comment "it was religion in the US" ?

FWIW, I think religion is a construct that should not have been allowed. Yes, the Scandanavian countries have created a
truly wonderful education system, Denmark, for example, perennially scores no. 1 in the world in education. A country with
statesmen instead of career politicians would take a look and say "let's copy Denmark".

A final thought.....what do some of you think about strict term limits? Would that maybe be the start of a more effective, and less embattled Congress?

 

[user 22017]

>>>> ie, how did Reagan negatively impact the education
system?

I said it wasn't only Reagan that brought us to where we are

>>>>And, would you explain your comment "it was religion in the US" ?

I'm not discussing religion, because it was a specific religion, or denominations, that caused so much division in our country

>>>FWIW, I think religion is a construct that should not have been allowed.

Well, we are supposed to have a separation between church and state, but some religions want to influence our government and our checks and balances

>>>>Yes, the Scandanavian countries have created a
truly wonderful education system, Denmark, for example, perennially scores no. 1 in the world in education. A country with
statesmen instead of career politicians would take a look and say "let's copy Denmark".

Not all of Scandinavia. I have only read about the success of Finland, the country that repeatedly ranks number one in education. I haven't checked the rankings in more than six years.

>>>>A final thought.....what do some of you think about strict term limits? Would that maybe be the start of a more effective, and less embattled Congress?

If everything else remains as it is, how will term limits help anything? I prefer age limits for all positions, like there is for airline pilots. They must retire at 65. Once they know they must retire at 65, maybe they will groom a replacement(s).

 

[rruff]

Also, GDP per capita vs median male income - obviously, GDP per capita is average, not median income. Apples and oranges.

I don't understand your comment. The point is that the *growth* rate of the median income used to keep pace with the average, and it no longer does... it is not increasing at all, in fact.

What this means is that the considerable income/wealth disparity that we had in 1980, is continually getting larger. Or if you know what the Gini coefficient is, it keeps getting bigger. Our disparity is closer to that of a 3rd world country.

 

[RonDean]

I don't think the income charts fully explain the problem. If I am already making $1000 an hour and get a 10% increase that is a significant increase. If I am making $1 an hour and it gets increased to $1.10 an hour, I haven't really changed my buying power much. But both have gotten the same percentage increase. As far as GDP, that might be meaningful for a government or corporation, but it sure doesn't buy me any oatmeal. There are far too many people being left behind and showing them a chart that shows them why this is really not happening will get a laugh at the best of times.

As far as the polarizing politics, I think congress does more than reflect our inability to compromise. They actually encourage it. The two major parties agree on at least one thing. They want to keep our political structure exactly like it is. Until we change that, not much else will change. If I had my choice, I would prefer a parliamentary structure. That would break the power of the two-party system and allow alternatives.

Where was I? Oh yah - EVs. Several times I have seen people say something about not wanting EVs mandated - or forced on them. I agree. I would be fine if we just made EVs affordable and functional and let us make our own choices. Of course, I would also like the cost of operating them to reflect the harm they could be proven to do. If fossil fuel was shown to add to global warming and health problems and EVs were not, wouldn't it be fair to increase the price of gas to help pay for those problems. Then let each of us decide what we are willing to pay for our chosen transportation.

 

[camperdan]

Keeping up with inflation just means stagnation... no change in living standard. If that was "normal" we'd all be poor subsistence farmers like 200 years ago. Normal is when real wages and benefits keep pace with real per capita GDP, which has more than doubled since 1980. For the last 200 years it's fluctuated around a trend line of 1.8% increase per year, compounded of course. Since 1980 wages and benefits have been nearly stagnant.

Here is real per capita GDP since the late 40s.

I used to be able to find a chart of this that went all the way back to 1820, but this will have to do...

GDP has been the "be all, end all" index forever. What a shame it doesn't measure anything important. Doesn't measure
the trust Americans have in the gov't. Or healthcare. Or access to higher education. General sense of well-being,
happiness. There is an actual Happiness Index. The US ranks 16th in the world. The "greatest country in the world" ??
We sure could be. Is this too political?

 

[camperdan]

Good thoughts.

 

[wanderlust]

I don't understand your comment. The point is that the *growth* rate of the median income used to keep pace with the average, and it no longer does... it is not increasing at all, in fact.

What this means is that the considerable income/wealth disparity that we had in 1980, is continually getting larger. Or if you know what the Gini coefficient is, it keeps getting bigger. Our disparity is closer to that of a 3rd world country.

Sorry I missed that you already know the difference - because many do not. Especially journalists don't - because if they were better at math, they would get different job

Yes, I know about the Gini index (or "inequality index" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality ) and how it increases, and how the gap started widening since 1980'ties.

Funny that the same gap which is between bottom 90% and top 10%, is also between 90% of the top 10% (9%) and the very top 1%. Basically most of the gains of top 10% is going to top 1%, so the 9% feel squeezed too.

 

[user 22017]

so the 9% feel squeezed too.

Please.