The UK

[parmalee]

It's those rich kids, the greedy corporations and the Billionaires. Who is naive now?

If you and Rick were just wealthy, we'd all be playing your music, right? Wait, you both lived though the Golden Age and yet no one has heard of either of you. This is just complaining and little else.

Working from out in the middle of nowhere is fine for people like me (and the people I know) who are either already somewhat "established" and/or have little interest in making art/music their primary or sole source of income, knowing that their work appeals to much smaller, more "niche" audiences anyway (there are avenues for making considerable money in these areas, as well, though they're generally unappealing to leftists and those with a conscience).

Are you really this fucking stupid, or is it all some sort of performance or act?

 

[parmalee]

Also, you frequently whine about how people condescend to you--have you ever wondered why it is that so many feel the need to condescend to you?

Here's a few hints: You have tremendous difficulty when it comes to paraphrasing the words of others; you seem to regularly misunderstand what you've just read; and now you've demonstrated that you can barely follow the thesis of a six minute video essay, in very plain English.

 

[Seattle]

Also, you frequently whine about how people condescend to you--have you ever wondered why it is that so many feel the need to condescend to you?

Here's a few hints: You have tremendous difficulty when it comes to paraphrasing the words of others; you seem to regularly misunderstand what you've just read; and now you've demonstrated that you can barely follow the thesis of a six minute video essay, in very plain English.

Projection?

 

[billvon]

You think programmers weren't paid.

Of course they were. They also were provided with offices, computers, secretaries etc. and the dozens of other things that programmers need.

But C++ came from programmers - not money, or offices, or secretaries. Specifically it came from Bjarne Stroustrup and his team. People, not money, are the reason for that particular increase in productivity.

 

[billvon]

You got that partly right: In the present day it is largely limited to those from vastly more affluent backgrounds.

We run a foundation for smalltime singer-songwriters. They are alive and well. In some ways music is far more democratic; anyone can make it, record it and produce it. But the pool of money people have to pay for music is about the same, so we have far more musicians making far less.

 

[Seattle]

We run a foundation for smalltime singer-songwriters. They are alive and well. In some ways music is far more democratic; anyone can make it, record it and produce it. But the pool of money people have to pay for music is about the same, so we have far more musicians making far less.

No, I'm sure it's the rich kids...

 

[Sarkus]

If productivity comes from capital, then the gains would go to those who provided the capital obviously. If I lend you money, you pay me back and not your neighbor.

If that is the case, then only those that already "have", and thus can provide capital, can ever have more? Screw the rest, 'cos I'm alright, Jack? Is that what you're arguing for?

 

[exchemist]

If you do the same thing for 25 years, why would you expect to make more than an adjustment for inflation?

If productivity comes from capital, then the gains would go to those who provided the capital obviously. If I lend you money, you pay me back and not your neighbor.

Are you arguing then that productivity gains before 2000 were not due to capital investment and that that is what has changed in the years since? Because what you need to do is account for what has changed, to cause the median income to flatline, when it rose steadily before.

And what class of people has benefitted financially from the continuing gain since then?

 

[Seattle]

If that is the case, then only those that already "have", and thus can provide capital, can ever have more? Screw the rest, 'cos I'm alright, Jack? Is that what you're arguing for?

No but is that you Rooster or is this really Sarkas?

Most of us aren't working for the government here so wages aren't handed out willy nilly. We Get market wages. It doesn't work the way you seem to think. That was a Rooster level emote though.

 

[Seattle]

Are you arguing then that productivity gains before 2000 were not due to capital investment and that that is what has changed in the years since? Because what you need to do is account for what has changed, to cause the median income to flatline, when it rose steadily before.

And what class of people has benefitted financially from the continuing gain since then?

We don't have classes here but market wages are market wages. Interest rates were high long ago and they did go to almost zero for a while. Maybe you aren't taking that into account but wages are substantial (here) and again, the market determines that.

In areas that require a lot of capital, yes, that has to be repaid. Most corporate "workers" also have stocks directly or indirectly so it's not just the "rich". Again, first principles thinking would address most of these questions.

No one is sitting at a central command post and deciding this class gets one amount and another class gets something else.

This isn't informed or logical...but it is a good emote. There's a lot of that going around it seems. Do we all need a group hug or can we all at least just shout out "that isn't fair" and get that out of our system?

 

[exchemist]

We don't have classes here but market wages are market wages. Interest rates were high long ago and they did go to almost zero for a while. Maybe you aren't taking that into account but wages are substantial (here) and again, the market determines that.

In areas that require a lot of capital, yes, that has to be repaid. Most corporate "workers" also have stocks directly or indirectly so it's not just the "rich". Again, first principles thinking would address most of these questions.

No one is sitting at a central command post and deciding this class gets one amount and another class gets something else.

This isn't informed or logical...but it is a good emote. There's a lot of that going around it seems. Do we all need a group hug or can we all at least just shout out "that isn't fair" and get that out of our system?

The graph is of income in real terms, so corrected for inflation. So that is not the explanation.

As for what I mean by “class of persons”, I simply mean the group within society, however it is appropriate to define it, that has benefitted.

 

[Sarkus]

No but is that you Rooster or is this really Sarkas?

Is that you, Cluelusshusband? Or is it really Ceeatall?

Most of us aren't working for the government here so wages aren't handed out willy nilly. We Get market wages. It doesn't work the way you seem to think. That was a Rooster level emote though.

Sure, and when that market is controlled by the "haves", who are unwilling to play the trickle-down game they are given, you end up with one of the most unequal incomes in the developed world, and an almost neglected sizeable swathe of the population. But, hey, if you "have" then that's not a design flaw, it's a feature.

To me, a country should be judged by how it treats its less fortunate, not by how much richer the already wealthy can get. After all, a country is all of it's citizens. And the UK, while not perfect, is a far more comfortable fit for my values. Sure, our economy could be doing much better, and productivity is very low, but productivity, to me at least, is not the best metric by which to compare economies. It is a better measure for comparing different timeframes of the same economy.

 

[Seattle]

Is that you, Cluelusshusband? Or is it really Ceeatall?

Sure, and when that market is controlled by the "haves", who are unwilling to play the trickle-down game they are given, you end up with one of the most unequal incomes in the developed world, and an almost neglected sizeable swathe of the population. But, hey, if you "have" then that's not a design flaw, it's a feature.

To me, a country should be judged by how it treats its less fortunate, not by how much richer the already wealthy can get. After all, a country is all of it's citizens. And the UK, while not perfect, is a far more comfortable fit for my values. Sure, our economy could be doing much better, and productivity is very low, but productivity, to me at least, is not the best metric by which to compare economies. It is a better measure for comparing different timeframes of the same economy.

That's cool. You stay there and misunderstand how capitalism works and feel content. It's probably better that way.

 

[Sarkus]

That's cool. You stay there and misunderstand how capitalism works and feel content. It's probably better that way.

I understand how capitalism works, thanks, and your misframing of the issue is noted. The discussion at hand is not about capitalism but about how governments interact with that capitalist economy. But, hey, that's cool. You stay there and misunderstand what people are talking about, and feel content. It's probably better that way.

 

[Pinball1970]

That's cool. You stay there and misunderstand how capitalism works and feel content. It's probably better that way.

This is not an awful lot to do with the UK is it? Considering the thread title? Your opening seem to be along the lines of "You all think Trump is bad, well look at the UK, the NHS is shit and prince Andrew is a pervert too."

Now you are discussing the benefits of capitalism, GDP, QOL etc which is fine but only loosely linked to living in the UK. I think it's just worth pointing it out for visitors to the thread.

 

[TheVat]

I know, I just emojid my way through the thread, but I just don't think there's any traction in trying to detach Seattle from his invisible hand. It's given him a nice HJ and that's what matters. The poor are just shiftless and lazy who sit around playing the victim card while those Cubans are stoic and clever laissez-faire economists who start out cleaning the grease reservoir in the taco truck and claw their way up to owning a bodega and blah blah blah....

 

[Seattle]

This is not an awful lot to do with the UK is it? Considering the thread title? Your opening seem to be along the lines of "You all think Trump is bad, well look at the UK, the NHS is shit and prince Andrew is a pervert too."

Now you are discussing the benefits of capitalism, GDP, QOL etc which is fine but only loosely linked to living in the UK. I think it's just worth pointing it out for visitors to the thread.

I think it's all pretty on point.

 

[Seattle]

Is that you, Cluelusshusband? Or is it really Ceeatall?

Sure, and when that market is controlled by the "haves", who are unwilling to play the trickle-down game they are given, you end up with one of the most unequal incomes in the developed world, and an almost neglected sizeable swathe of the population. But, hey, if you "have" then that's not a design flaw, it's a feature.

To me, a country should be judged by how it treats its less fortunate, not by how much richer the already wealthy can get. After all, a country is all of it's citizens. And the UK, while not perfect, is a far more comfortable fit for my values. Sure, our economy could be doing much better, and productivity is very low, but productivity, to me at least, is not the best metric by which to compare economies. It is a better measure for comparing different timeframes of the same economy.

"Unwilling to play the trickle-down game they are given" isn't economic talk. It's ignorance.

Unequal income means little other than you can achieve a lot or just stay mediocre, your choice and either is fine. That's why people from the UK move here. The standard of living for "the poor" is pretty good as well.

 

[Sarkus]

"Unwilling to play the trickle-down game they are given" isn't economic talk. It's ignorance.

It isn't meant to be "economic talk". It's a comment on the success (or lack thereof) of policies. And it isn't ignorance. But, again, nicely avoided.

Unequal income means little other than you can achieve a lot or just stay mediocre, your choice and either is fine. That's why people from the UK move here.

Sure. And people that want to prioritise other things move elsewhere if the UK doesn't offer what they want. So what? More people emigrate to Spain, similar numbers move to Australia as move to the USA, with Canada usually 4th on the list.

The standard of living for "the poor" is pretty good as well.

In the USA? Relative to people in 3rd world countries perhaps. The official "poverty line" in the USA is around $16,000 for a single person. Are you honestly telling me that you think the standard of living for someone living on their own earning just $16k is going to be "pretty good"? I'm not talking about those earning up to $16k but living off considerable assets (mortgage-free home, shares etc), but those with minimal savings and only earning up to $16k, as most of those under the "poverty line" would be. You're going to have to talk me through how you think that, 'cos I'm smelling something approaching the whiff of bullshit.
Of course, that's the top end of the "poor", so most have an income less than that. So, yeah, what exactly is this "pretty good" standard of living you're referring to?

 

[Seattle]

It isn't meant to be "economic talk". It's a comment on the success (or lack thereof) of policies. And it isn't ignorance. But, again, nicely avoided.

Sure. And people that want to prioritise other things move elsewhere if the UK doesn't offer what they want. So what? More people emigrate to Spain, similar numbers move to Australia as move to the USA, with Canada usually 4th on the list.

In the USA? Relative to people in 3rd world countries perhaps. The official "poverty line" in the USA is around $16,000 for a single person. Are you honestly telling me that you think the standard of living for someone living on their own earning just $16k is going to be "pretty good"? I'm not talking about those earning up to $16k but living off considerable assets (mortgage-free home, shares etc), but those with minimal savings and only earning up to $16k, as most of those under the "poverty line" would be. You're going to have to talk me through how you think that, 'cos I'm smelling something approaching the whiff of bullshit.
Of course, that's the top end of the "poor", so most have an income less than that. So, yeah, what exactly is this "pretty good" standard of living you're referring to?

The $16k is before subsidies, after it's about $35k. They have a decent material standard of living. Not great, but not bad, which was my point. That's for one person. Many/most Are families and it gets better.

The goal is still to take advantage to get off the bottom rather than just staying there but as I said, it's not bad materially.