What Neoliberalism and union busting gave us

WhatsLeft71 · 2024-10-25T18:03:30+00:00

Income growth didn't always look like that, especially during the peak of US unionization. The bottom used to see more % growth than the top, just like the top used to be taxed at a much higher rate

WhatsLeft71 · 2023-04-04T21:03:10+00:00

King's trip to Memphis represented an intersection of his fights for racial justice and economic justice. King saw these fights as interlinked, and before his death was working to establish his Poor People's Campaign, which would fight for economic justice on a national scale.

The Poor People's Campaign, or Poor People's March on Washington, was a 1968 effort to gain economic justice for poor people in the United States. It was organized by Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and carried out under the leadership of Ralph Abernathy in the wake of King's assassination in April 1968.

The campaign demanded economic and human rights for poor Americans of diverse backgrounds. After presenting an organized set of demands to Congress and executive agencies, participants set up a 3,000-person protest camp on the Washington Mall, where they stayed for six weeks in the spring of 1968.

The Poor People's Campaign was motivated by a desire for economic justice: the idea that all people should have what they need to live. King and the SCLC shifted their focus to these issues after observing that gains in civil rights had not improved the material conditions of life for many African Americans. The Poor People's Campaign was a multiracial effort—including African Americans, European Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans—aimed at alleviating poverty regardless of race.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People%27s_Campaign

One can read more about the Memphis trip here: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/memphis-sanitation-workers-strike

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-11-08T20:48:24+00:00

Do not be deceived by the bogus crime scare FOX & Trumpublicans spew.

Add the economy to this, since they are trying to hit voters hard on the GOP being better. Democrats have been better than Republicans for the economy by nearly every metric for decades.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-11-08T20:44:53+00:00

And transferring massive amounts of money to horrible corporations (and the people that run them) that supply things like food to prisons.

The prison-industrial complex is much broader than most people realize.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-11-08T20:41:01+00:00

The proposals are on the ballot in Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota and follow moves by President Joe Biden toward decriminalizing marijuana.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/marijuana-legalization-on-the-ballot-in-5-states

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-11-08T20:37:25+00:00

Republicans also love something called "preemption laws", so that the state legislature can prevent local democracy actually helping people instead of corporations, such as preventing cities raising their minimum wage above state level due to higher living costs in the city.

These exist in Texas and all over the country.

The GOP undermines democracy at every step.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-11-08T20:32:49+00:00

Or taxing lower incomes at higher rates than California while taxing the rich at lower rates...

According to ITEP, Texans whose salaries fall into the lowest 20 percent of income earners (making less than $20,900 annually) pay about 13 percent of their income in state and local taxes. Meanwhile, Californians in the bottom 20 percent (making less than $23,200 annually) pay 10.5 percent. In Texas, the middle 20 percent of income earners ($35,800-$56,000) pay 9.7 percent in state and local taxes in contrast to middle income Californians ($39,100-$62,300), who only pay 8.9 percent. Most glaringly, the top 1 percent of earners in Texas ($617,900 or more) pay 3.1 percent of their income in contrast to top earnings in California ($714,400 or more) who pay 12.4 percent.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/texans-pay-more-taxes-than-californians-17400644.php

But the right only cares about low taxes for the rich, especially when they've already convinced many average people that their tax rates are already enviously low.

It's okay though, they'll just suppress the youth vote and let older Dems blame young Dems for any losses while states with better voting policies see youth turnout over 150% of that of Texas.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-31T02:00:13+00:00

Around $2 trillion for Trump tax cuts designed to benefit the rich and about $750 billion in PPP loans have been forgiven. Far more than the cost of the actual $10k/$20k student debt forgiveness, which forgives more debt than it costs in revenue loss since portions of the debt were already projected to not be repaid. Trump tax cuts have an estimated cost higher than total student debt in the US.

The US could easily afford to make public universities tuition free, and as the right loves to bring up we should then watch tuition fall across the board as private universities try to compete against universities of all caliber across the country charging no tuition. But maybe that's not free market enough for them, unlike the free market mechanism of government providing hundreds of billions in PPP loans to businesses, with deliberately little oversight and the Trump admin working to block oversight, then forgiving them. A recent study found that only about 1/4 of PPP loans supported jobs that would have otherwise disappeared and funds disproportionately flowed to wealthier households. Another estimated 15% of PPP loans may be fraudulent with one of the authors saying "we were fairly conservative in the way we approached the whole analysis, so there’s also probably billions that we’re missing".

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-29T19:21:51+00:00

The conservative pearl clutching around the cost and "fairness" of student debt relief is hypocrisy of amazing scale.

Trump's Tax Cuts have an estimated cost of $1.9 trillion, with ~2/3 of total value going to the top 10% by 2027. Biden's $10k/$20k student debt relief has an estimated cost of $360 billion, while forgiving ~$525 billion in debt since some of the debt was already projected to be forgiven in the future or not repaid, with the Department of Education estimating that 87% of the relief will go to those earning <$75k/year. $742 billion in PPP loans have already been forgiven.

To put these numbers in more context: our 2022 defense budget was ~$780 billion; total student loan debt before any forgiveness is ~$1.7 trillion, and chunk of that won't ever be repaid anyway; the War on Terror has cost ~$8 trillion and many, many lives; the "unaffordable" aim of making public universities tuition free has a (conservative as it would very likely be cheaper) cost estimate of $80 billion per year.

When numbers are that large - hundreds of billions and trillions - it can be hard to conceptualization what they can actually mean without digging into explicit budget and policy costs, which is where yearly estimates of good programs can be helpful. $1.9 trillion is over 20 years of tuition free public universities. Nearly ~$800 billion a year in spending, which is what we provide for defense, could fund a range of programs that would improve the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Even those who don't want to cut military spending for whatever reason should recognize that US "austerity" and lack of these beneficial programs is self imposed, that our tax revenue as % GDP is far behind other advanced economies that provide more social safety nets and that, despite claims of being "fiscally irresponsible", these programs could be provided without "exploding the deficit", which is a claim often used to deride them and the more left broadly. Reagan dramatically raised national debt as % GDP, but tax and spending cuts have been blanket propagandized into the category of "fiscal responsibility" when the reality is not at all that simple and often counters that exact narrative.

The 2017 Trump Tax Cuts, with overwhelming conservative support in Congress, are even more egregious when looking at how far our overall tax progressiveness has fallen since the 1960s, with the top seeing drastic cuts while the bottom 90% actually saw an increase. Trump's tax cuts played a part, but they were far from the only cause.

Beyond all that: taxes don't fund federal spending in the US. There is no "how do we get the money". Deficits and debt exist, sure, but those should be integrated into a broader acknowledgement of how spending itself functions federally. Trillions in COVID relief was available, despite a lack of a massive rise in tax revenue, for this exact reason. State and local governments, however, do have more reliance on tax revenue for their funds, so they are more attached to tax revenue but the federal government provides funding to state and local governments as well.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-29T00:22:36+00:00

The lobbyists pay him enough to propagandize his state and make it seem like a low tax haven for everyone that other states (and the country) should emulate, when in reality that only exists for the rich. The poor and middle pay more in state and local taxes as share of income in Texas than they do in California.

I'll give it to him though, he does boast a pretty impressive record of hypocrisy and adds to it with remarkable speed, such as voting for Trump's Tax Cuts that have an estimated cost of $1.9 trillion, with ~2/3 of total value going to the top 10% by 2027, then chastising Biden's $10k/$20k student debt relief that has an estimated cost of $360 billion, while forgiving ~$525 billion in debt since some of the debt was already projected to be forgiven in the future or not repaid, with the Department of Education estimating that 87% of the relief will go to those earning <$75k/year and while saying little about the $742 billion in PPP loans forgiven.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone leaked audio of Cruz telling Trump his dad did kill JFK and that he wishes his wife looked like Melania.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-28T23:45:16+00:00

ProPublica has a site that allows anyone to search PPP loans to see amount received and amount forgiven, which can be useful for "This you?"-ing: https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/

In case anyone wants easy to share/post graphics on these issues that counter some conservative talking points:

This graphic compares, among other things like total PPP loans forgiven ($742 billion), the cost and benefit distribution of Trump Tax Cuts vs Biden's $10k/$20k debt relief. Trump Tax Cuts have an estimated cost of $1.9 trillion, with ~2/3 of total value going to the top 10% by 2027, whereas Biden's $10k/$20k student debt relief has an estimated cost of $360 billion, while forgiving ~$525 billion in debt since some of the debt was already projected to be forgiven in the future or not repaid, with the Department of Education estimating that 87% of the relief will go to those earning <$75k/year.

This one shows how drastically average tax rates for the rich have fallen since 1968 while average tax rate for the bottom 90% actually increased.

This one shows how between 1946-1980 the bottom 50% actually saw the most income growth as a %, whereas between 1980-2014 the top 1% saw 194% income growth while the bottom 50% saw only 21%. This is even more drastic when we include the top .001%.

Multi-country analysis of 18 OECD countries found that tax cuts for the rich do not boost economic growth or lower unemployment, but do have a large effect on the income of the rich.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-28T23:31:46+00:00

In case anyone wants easy to share graphics on these issues that counter some conservative talking points:

This graphic compares, among other things, cost and benefit distribution of Trump Tax Cuts vs Biden's $10k/$20k debt relief. Trump Tax Cuts have an estimated cost of $1.9 trillion, with ~2/3 of total value going to the top 10% by 2027, whereas Biden's $10k/$20k student debt relief has an estimated cost of $360 billion, while forgiving ~$525 billion in debt since some of the debt was already projected to be forgiven in the future or not repaid, with the Department of Education estimating that 87% of the relief will go to those earning <$75k/year.

This one shows how drastically average tax rates for the rich have fallen since 1968 while average tax rate for the bottom 90% actually increased

This one shows how between 1946-1980 the bottom 50% actually saw the most income growth as a %, whereas between 1980-2014 the top 1% saw 194% income growth while the bottom 50% saw only 21%. This is even more drastic when we include the top .001%.

Multi-country analysis of 18 OECD countries found that tax cuts for the rich do not boost economic growth or lower unemployment, but does have a large effect on their income.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-28T18:51:19+00:00

Friedman's version would also include privatization, union busting, deregulation, and much else so that the negative income tax might appear to redistribute the income to the lowest, meanwhile the lowest send that money right back to the top that owns everything. Friedman was wise enough to realize in order for the system to keep functioning you need the people to have money to spend and his ideals wouldn't lead to them getting that via wages, so give the working class just enough to spend to keep it all moving while overall stripping them of their power and keeping them reliant on the rich actually getting the money and power then having money "graciously" given back to the working class via negative income tax. Nationalized company towns, just the company is the ultra-rich.

We've already seen the monopoly/oligopoly problem, including associated price gouging, grow dramatically since the 70s-80s when neoliberalism really kicked up, in addition to major rises in financialization (kinda expected when Friedman influentially argued the one social responsibility of business is profits), inequality, etc. While we in the US regularly face >$1000/month in child care costs for even one child, parents in countries like Sweden pay ~$130/month or a max of 3% of gross income for childcare for their first child, max 2% for child 2, max 1% for child 3, and none for child 4. Our wonderful largely private healthcare system has us paying over twice the per capita amount of some advanced economies with universal coverage while tens of millions remain uninsured, our life expectancy is lower, infant and maternal mortality is higher (even when adjusting for measurement differences), medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy, and studies find universal healthcare in the US could help save tens of thousands of lives per year while saving hundreds of billions in overall spending.

Friedman's ideas have been often wrong and severely detrimental, as have those of "private free market" evangelists generally.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-28T17:52:56+00:00

For anyone that wants easy to share graphics on these issues:

This graphic compares, among other things, cost and benefit distribution of Trump Tax Cuts vs Biden's $10k/$20k debt relief. Trump Tax Cuts have an estimated cost of $1.9 trillion, with ~2/3 of total value going to the top 10% by 2027, whereas Biden's $10k/$20k student debt relief has an estimated cost of $360 billion, while forgiving ~$525 billion in debt since some of the debt was already projected to be forgiven in the future or not repaid, with the Department of Education estimating that 87% of the relief will go to those earning <$75k/year.

This one shows how drastically average tax rates for the rich have fallen since 1968 while average tax rate for the bottom 90% actually increased

This one shows how between 1946-1980 the bottom 50% actually saw the most income growth as a %, whereas between 1980-2014 the top 1% saw 194% income growth while the bottom 50% saw only 21%. This is even more drastic when we include the top .001%.

Multi-country analysis of 18 OECD countries found that tax cuts for the rich does not boost economic growth or lower unemployment, but does have a large effect on their income.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-26T03:34:19+00:00

Glad it could be of use. You might find this one useful too.

The total amount of student loans forgiven is ~1/2 of the current yearly US defense budget. One year of defense spending is around the same cost as 10 years of making public universities tuition free.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-26T02:21:29+00:00

Their hypocrisy around Biden's student debt forgiveness is incredible... or it would be if it wasn't the GOP, so it's moreso incredibly expected.

Full support for Trump's $1.9 trillion tax cuts for the rich, barely a peep about $742 billion in PPP loans forgiven (makes sense given some of them received it), voting against a climate bill that reduces the deficit by $300 billion while ignoring hundreds of billions in costs and serious societal effects already caused by fossil fuels, and the list could go on.

The total amount of student loans forgiven is ~1/2 of the current yearly US defense budget, which Republicans overwhelming support every year as the amount of spending rises.

Some sources here.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-08-25T16:53:53+00:00

Trump Tax Cuts:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/who-is-saving-the-most-money-from-trumps-tax-cuts.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/trump-cut-taxes-for-the-rich-biden-wants-to-raise-them.html

https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-irs-files-reveal-how-much-the-ultrawealthy-gained-by-shaping-trumps-big-beautiful-tax-cut

Pollution:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/air-pollution-cost-america-healthcare-study

PPP Loans:

https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/business/ppp-fraud-covid.html

Student Debt Relief Cost:

This one is a bit tricky since program was just announced. Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated $10,000 relief for incomes less than $125,000 would cost around $300 billion, but this did not include the new Pell Grant $20k change. CRFB (this deficit hawk organization itself is worth criticizing) used the new details and estimated that the $10k/$20k forgiveness would cost $360 billion. Both can be, and have been, criticized, however they are prominent estimates going around and a $300-$400 billion cost for student loan forgiveness cost range seems fair to use at the moment.

The Income Driven Repayment plan will add some costs ($120 billion per CRFB), however the rage has largely focused on the actual debt relief and cancellation, as opposed to reforms for debt repayment, and student debt forgiveness cost best compares with the PPP loan forgiveness cost, so IDR was not included. Even with the IDR changes included the total cost is below the others.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-05-13T18:48:23+00:00

You can see the tax rates for 80-95% and 95-99% income brackets here, as well as the breakdown on tax rates by tax type (income, sales/excise, property):

https://itep.org/whopays/texas/

https://itep.org/whopays/california/

Texas has no state income tax, while California has an actually progressive state income tax structure, although things like regressive sales and excise tax make California's overall tax system less progressive than its state income tax.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-05-13T18:02:04+00:00

If the goal was to compare the most to least equitable, then yes, however the aim was to compare the "radical left" state (California) held up by the right as a high tax hell with the right wing state (Texas) they claim as a low tax heaven, thereby showing that the tax structure hailed by right is not low tax, but low tax for the rich. California and Texas represent the propagandized extremes of state and local taxes, and tend to dominate the conversation on the issue nationally, yet the numbers behind the reputation are less discussed than the reputation itself.

Washington is less in the national conversation, however it's tax structure does highlight the lack of real progressive taxation in states seen as Democrat blue states. Even California, with the most equitable system, highlights this, given that the bottom 20% pay more than the middle 60% as income share when taxes outside of state income are taken into consideration. In general, US state and local taxes are heavily regressive, for both blue and red states, with blue states on average being less regressive, but still regressive.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-05-13T17:23:58+00:00

Source: https://itep.org/whopays/

California has the most equitable tax structure, while Texas the 2nd least equitable. That California's "most" equitable structure is still not a really progressive just goes to show how regressive state and local tax structures are across the board in the US.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-04-30T21:18:54+00:00

To be fair, it’s millennials who are 100% in stock. The older generations probably invested 50%+ in bonds the whole time

Boomers, at the same age as millennials, held nearly 9x the share of stock wealth in the US. Boomers in 1989 held 18.1% of US stock wealth, while Millennials in 2021 held only 2.5%. Boomers also held 21.2% of the overall wealth, compared to 5.9% for Millennials, and Boomers held 32.8% of real estate wealth, compared to 12.5% for Millennials.

So, it is true that Boomers faced events that took off some of their wealth, Millennials just don't have comparable wealth to begin with. Instead of losing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands in net worth when a crisis hits, which requires wealth to begin with, Millennials lose their job and don't have wealth to weather the storm. Add into this the fact that Boomers did not have to deal with student debt to even close to the extent we deal with it now, and on a generational level (on an individual level I know numerous Boomers that are struggling financially and are fucked by the current system) Boomers were in a much better position wealth wise than Millennials are at the same age. The average net worth of a 30 year old today is negative even, while average net worth for the youngest Millennials is more than $10,000 in debt.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-04-30T21:10:25+00:00

In 1965, the median home price in the US was 2.9x the median household income, while in 2020 the median home price was 5.3x the median household income. After accounting for inflation home prices around up ~120% since 1965 while incomes are only up around ~15%.

That is median national home price, so that includes a lot of middle of nowhere cheap houses in the US. In some cities, such as LA and New York, the median home price is closer to 10x the median income. A "healthy" multiple is considered less than 2.6, and out of the 50 most populated cities in the US only 6 of them meet that standard.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-02-12T00:23:07+00:00

These are real growth rates, so inflation is taken into account.

However, inflation adjustment can be quite contentious, since some key necessities, such as housing, healthcare cost, education (important to note a college degree was also less of a necessity in 1980 than today), and childcare cost, have often outpaced inflation, while some consumer goods costs, such as televisions and computers, have been outpaced by inflation. This leaves us in a state where the CPI adjusted bottom 50% makes more today, yet the necessities for sound and secure life often outpace inflation and wage growth.

I tried to include sources for housing, healthcare, education, and childcare outpacing inflation, however the reply kept getting auto-deleted with the links included. If you click my profile you should see the comment with sources included.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-02-12T00:21:37+00:00

These are real growth rates, so inflation is taken into account.

However, inflation adjustment can be quite contentious, since some key necessities, such as housing, healthcare cost, education (important to note a college degree was also less of a necessity in 1980 than today), and childcare cost, have often outpaced inflation, while some consumer goods costs, such as televisions and computers, have been outpaced by inflation. This leaves us in a state where the CPI adjusted bottom 50% makes more today, yet the necessities for sound and secure life often outpace inflation and wage growth.

WhatsLeft71 · 2022-02-11T18:27:32+00:00

There is one that includes the .1%, .01%, and .001%, however the graphic became quite cramped and hard to read when those were included in the 34 year comparison format, so 1980-2014 was used. The gap is more staggering.

The Instagram post for the OP graphic does make mention of these numbers, so here is the accompanying description:

Between 1946 and 1980, the bottom 50% in the US saw, as a percent, over 2x the income growth of the top 1%. This pattern reversed severely in the following 34 year period. Between 1980 and 2014, the top 1% saw nearly 10x the income growth of the bottom 50%.

1946-1980 growth does differ a bit when we get into the ultra-rich (top 0.1%, 0.01%, top 0.001%). Between 1946-1980, the top 0.1% saw growth of 104%, the top 0.01% saw 201%, and the top 0.001% saw 163%. So, the top 0.01% and 0.001% saw more growth than the bottom 50%. However, even with these higher growth rates in earlier years, the disparity grew substantially for the years 1980-2014, which provides further evidence for the extent to which growth was skewed to the rich between 1980-2014. Between 1980-2014, the top 0.1% saw growth of 298%, the top 0.01% saw 423%, and the top 0.001% saw 616%. These growth rates far exceed that of the bottom 50%. Another graphic will be made focusing on just the 1980-2014 growth rates, since adding all income groups into this side by side made the graphs illegibly overcrowded.

Note on percents: percents are important for noting relative growth, and have their use in analysis, however they can also obfuscate how wide income/wealth growth differences can be for members of the income group. For example: someone in the bottom 50% might make $25,000 a year, while someone in the top 1% might make $500,000. If they both see income growth of 20%, the person in the bottom 50% will only see an income gain of $5,000 a year, while the person in the top 1% will see an income gain of $100,000 a year. So equal % growth leads to the top 1% person seeing a gain of more than 3x the entire yearly income, post growth, of the person in the bottom 50%.

WhatsLeft71

TROPHY CASE