The Onion Sums Up the GOP's Big Demographic Problem

[Ziggurat]

Can you show me any numbers that suggest this would be the case if the wages of the non-elite classes had risen on par with those of our masters?

I do not know what would have happened if reality were radically different than it is. But I have no reason to think this would be the case. Would benefits to old people have been reduced? I don't see how. Would young people have to pay less into the system? Doesn't seem likely. So while poor young people would be better off by not being as poor, they would still be paying into the system more than they will ever get back out of it.

Call me a naive liberal, but in my mind it seems like the real issue is that wealth is funneled to the rich people at a rate higher than it is funneled to the old people.

One of the problems with this sort of analysis is that for rich people, income is a very flexible thing. For example, capital gains don't need to become income, they only become income if the holder chooses to sell. Taxes provide an incentive to keep various increases in wealth from becoming income. If tax rates drop, then this incentive decreases, and more increases in wealth get turned into taxable income. The point is, you can't treat taxable income as a direct measure of wealth for the very rich. And you can't conclude that an increase in taxable income following a decrease in tax rates corresponds to how much wealthier they are becoming. It's just not that simple. So the metrics that you think indicate the wealthy were getting so much wealthier don't actually prove as much as you think they do.

If we fix that, the young people aren't going to be screwed. Just the rich people.

"Eat the rich" tends not to work so well. When you try to screw them over, they tend to just leave. And that doesn't help the poor, it hurts them.

And, that's basically the difference between the two extremes right now. I don't particularly have much of a problem with rich people being screwed -- after all, they are rich, and after all, they have been screwing everyone else for oh I dunno 50,000 years ? Since our ancestors could even communicate in grunts? Yeah, about that long. So call me extreme, I guess?

You aren't extreme, just mistaken. You're treating wealth like a zero-sum game, but it isn't.

 

[AlBell]

Can you show me any numbers that suggest this would be the case if the wages of the non-elite classes had risen on par with those of our masters?

Call me a naive liberal, but in my mind it seems like the real issue is that wealth is funneled to the rich people at a rate higher than it is funneled to the old people.

Your posts make you one.

If we fix that, the young people aren't going to be screwed. Just the rich people.

Have you run the numbers? Take 100% of rich peoples assets and see how much of an effect that has. Spending must be reduced.

And, that's basically the difference between the two extremes right now. I don't particularly have much of a problem with rich people being screwed -- after all, they are rich, and after all, they have been screwing everyone else for oh I dunno 50,000 years ? Since our ancestors could even communicate in grunts? Yeah, about that long. So call me extreme, I guess?

More silly than extreme; drink some more koolaid.

 

[rocketdodger]

"Eat the rich" tends not to work so well. When you try to screw them over, they tend to just leave. And that doesn't help the poor, it hurts them.

You're treating economics like a zero-sum game. It isn't.

In fact the rich depend on the poor far more than the poor depend on the rich.

It might not be apparent to you because of where you work, but I seriously doubt that. In almost every industry it is painfully obvious that the leadership is far from the most capable of leading.

 

[rocketdodger]

Have you run the numbers? Take 100% of rich peoples assets and see how much of an effect that has. Spending must be reduced.

Um, then why do they call it the 1% and the 99% ?

I thought because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Or is this just badly misinterpreted numbers? Tell me, oh Republican oracle -- when they say "the top 1% owns 35% of the wealth" do they not really mean "wealth?"

When an economist says that the top 1% gained 93% of the additional income created in 2010, am I not understanding those terms correctly? Do I not know what "income" and "created" and "2010" means? My interpretation is that all of the additional income per person, gained in 2010 over 2009, 93% of the gains went to those in the top 1%. Meaning, if you expected a good raise or bonus in 2010, I hope you were in the top 1%. Since they are the ones doing all the work, apparently ? Is that the rationale?

 

[rocketdodger]

You aren't extreme, just mistaken. You're treating wealth like a zero-sum game, but it isn't.

Modern conservatives are trying to make it zero-sum, that's the problem. I have no issue with rich people taking their cut. My issue is with them taking all of it, and that is pretty close to what they have been doing.

Do you really want to dispute that? Do we need to look at the changes in income and standard of living over the last 30 years in this country?

 

[Ziggurat]

In fact the rich depend on the poor far more than the poor depend on the rich.

Their dependency isn't the issue here. Their mobility is. The rich don't depend on any particular set of poor people. They can up and leave. But poor people can't. And when rich people leave, they take their money with them. That hurts poor people. Poor people are not better off with no rich people around.

It might not be apparent to you because of where you work, but I seriously doubt that. In almost every industry it is painfully obvious that the leadership is far from the most capable of leading.

So first we had liberals = good, conservatives = bad. Now we have poor = good, rich = bad. What's next: four legs = good, two legs = bad?

 

[Robrob]

Poor people are not better off with no rich people around.

"And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
― Matthew 15:27

“The "trickle-down" theory: the principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.”
― William Blum

 

[mikedenk]

OMG! What is the GOP going to do when the country is 51% minorities?!?!?!

ha ha

The Democrats led the charge against Civil Rights. Now, 50-odd years later, they pull 90% of the black vote. Times change.

As far as the Onion article, aren't old people a voting bloc that is constantly refreshed? Are the "new" old people in future elections no longer going to be conservative... or are older people going to continue being more conservative RELATIVE to younger generations?

 

[Ziggurat]

"And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
― Matthew 15:27

“The "trickle-down" theory: the principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.”
― William Blum

That second quote implies that the government is cooking the meals and giving it out. But that's not the case. The government takes. And that's what we're discussing: how much the government should take from the rich. And yes, there's a difference. Furthermore, it doesn't even address my argument. This isn't about exactly how progressive our tax code should be. It's about whether or not the rich are the villains here. You can argue that a more progressive tax would be beneficial, but you can't seriously argue that driving rich people away can help. It can't. It never has.

But I'll leave you with a quote of my own:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."

 

[seayakin]

Future old people. Also known as young people.

This seems to be the problem with the assumptions of the OP. It assumes peoples opinions never change. It also seems to make an assumption that all people of color always vote liberal.

Here is an interesting analysis of the current demographics from the Pew Center. It doesn't really address how changes in demographics will affect elections. However, it does indicate that Millennials do think a bit differently than previous generations.

There is also this New York Times Article.

...it would be mistake to assume that today’s young are going to be Democrats for life...

However, I'm always hopeful that we can marginalize the religious right.

 

[Ziggurat]

This seems to be the problem with the assumptions of the OP. It assumes peoples opinions never change.

In the current context, I think you have that backwards: the Democrats are gambling that nobody will change their minds about Medicare. Which is why so many of them have been caught flat-footed.

It also seems to make an assumption that all people of color always vote liberal.

I see liberals trying to enforce that more often than I see conservatives assuming that.

 

[rocketdodger]

Their dependency isn't the issue here. Their mobility is. The rich don't depend on any particular set of poor people. They can up and leave. But poor people can't. And when rich people leave, they take their money with them. That hurts poor people. Poor people are not better off with no rich people around.

Well, the mathematics implies that if the rich people left, the poor would cease to be poor. After all, rich and poor is relative.

My point is that the hypothetical situation of all the wealthy folks somehow being the drivers of society, that are indispensable, is wildly inaccurate. That hypothetical is so far from reality it isn't even funny, primarily because the fact that wealthy folks latch onto that hypothetical is the main reason we need a class war in this country ( and many others ).

The wealthy simply are not smarter, harder working, or otherwise better, by any metric. All they have above and beyond anyone else is, well, their wealth.

And before you show me some statistic about how many more hours some lawyer works than a plumber, I would question whether you really think the hours worked in such different conditions can even be fairly compared.

So first we had liberals = good, conservatives = bad. Now we have poor = good, rich = bad. What's next: four legs = good, two legs = bad?

That has nothing to do with anything. I'm simply pointing out that the notion of the current managers and executives, at any company in the country, being those in the organization that are the most capable of doing that job, is an utter fantasy.

If you randomly rotated every employee in the company through executive and leadership positions, I bet more than 90% of the time you would find out that those in the current leadership positions are not the best at it.

 

[AlBell]

Um, then why do they call it the 1% and the 99% ?

I thought because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Or is this just badly misinterpreted numbers? Tell me, oh Republican oracle -- when they say "the top 1% owns 35% of the wealth" do they not really mean "wealth?"

When an economist says that the top 1% gained 93% of the additional income created in 2010, am I not understanding those terms correctly? Do I not know what "income" and "created" and "2010" means? My interpretation is that all of the additional income per person, gained in 2010 over 2009, 93% of the gains went to those in the top 1%. Meaning, if you expected a good raise or bonus in 2010, I hope you were in the top 1%. Since they are the ones doing all the work, apparently ? Is that the rationale?

Assuming that all true, not what I asked. Evasion noted. Can you provide meaningful numbers vis-a-vis GDP and debt?

 

[MattusMaximus]

This seems to be the problem with the assumptions of the OP. It assumes peoples opinions never change. It also seems to make an assumption that all people of color always vote liberal.

Here is an interesting analysis of the current demographics from the Pew Center. It doesn't really address how changes in demographics will affect elections. However, it does indicate that Millennials do think a bit differently than previous generations.

There is also this New York Times Article.

However, I'm always hopeful that we can marginalize the religious right.

This is my big point as well. The religious right forms the majority of the base and the "foot soldiers" for the GOP. As the population becomes more ethnically diverse and less overtly religious, the power of the religious right will wane; and I think the power of the Tea Party will likewise decrease. The problem for the GOP is how to make that transition without alienating the religious right/Tea Party base to which they've pandered for so long.

Case in point: look at states like Virginia and New Mexico which have become bluer due to these shifting demographics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, the mathematics implies that if the rich people left, the poor would cease to be poor. After all, rich and poor is relative.

In that sense you'd still have poor people. But would they be better off? No. They'd shortly end up much worse off. They always do.

My point is that the hypothetical situation of all the wealthy folks somehow being the drivers of society, that are indispensable, is wildly inaccurate. That hypothetical is so far from reality it isn't even funny, primarily because the fact that wealthy folks latch onto that hypothetical is the main reason we need a class war in this country ( and many others ).

Thank you for being honest about your Marxism.

The wealthy simply are not smarter, harder working, or otherwise better, by any metric. All they have above and beyond anyone else is, well, their wealth.

Sometimes that's true. Very often it isn't. Doctors, for example, really are smarter than janitors, on average. And whether or not they work harder than janitors (I think they do), they certainly do a much higher-skill job. Don't confuse hard work with skill, OR with productivity.

And before you show me some statistic about how many more hours some lawyer works than a plumber, I would question whether you really think the hours worked in such different conditions can even be fairly compared.

I wasn't going to do anything of the sort. Especially since plumbers aren't poor. They make very good money.

That has nothing to do with anything.

It's got everything to do with your position.

I'm simply pointing out that the notion of the current managers and executives, at any company in the country, being those in the organization that are the most capable of doing that job, is an utter fantasy.

Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it isn't. Especially at small businesses built by the people running them.

If you randomly rotated every employee in the company through executive and leadership positions, I bet more than 90% of the time you would find out that those in the current leadership positions are not the best at it.

There is no workable mechanism that ensures the very best possible person fills a given role. It's simply not possible. So this really doesn't signify anything except the impossibility of perfect information, which any fool already knows is the case. That's not the relevant metric. The relevant metric is whether or not what we have is better than the available alternatives. And you have presented no actual alternative at all. All you've offered is cheap Marxist rhetoric.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

In college, I did workstudy as a janitor. My boss had a degree. Hard work is worthless, skill is worthless, productivity is worthless. Opportunity is everything.

 

[MattusMaximus]

In college, I did workstudy as a janitor. My boss had a degree. Hard work is worthless, skill is worthless, productivity is worthless. Opportunity is everything.

No, these DO matter, but they don't amount to much without opportunity. Opportunity is necessary but not sufficient.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

They matter only if they're important to someone with money, most jobs that work people hard are of low value and pay very little. Like my current job.

 

[SezMe]

Have you run the numbers? Take 100% of rich peoples assets and see how much of an effect that has. Spending must be reduced.

I'm unaware of anyone proposing to take assets. I think the idea is to tax income at a higher rate.

 

[SezMe]

Their dependency isn't the issue here. Their mobility is. The rich don't depend on any particular set of poor people. They can up and leave. But poor people can't. And when rich people leave, they take their money with them.

Did the rich flee the country during the Gilded Age when tax rates on high income people were much higher?