How Are People Getting By?

[hetron]

Adios, see my repost in response to yours in the globablization thread. The article I linked should be an eye opener.

[adios]

Thanks for pointing that response out to me. Actually it's not a surprise to me. I've stated many, many times that the distribution of income among quintiles has been skewed such that the upper 2 quintiles are getting more of the income. However, the top 50% of wage earners look like their doing ok to me. In another post about this subject recently I stated that I thought about 25% of the wage earners were doing a lot better, 50% about the same and 25% about a lot worse over the last 40 years or so. The median income has risen at a faster rate over the last 20 years. To sum it all up I fully concede and always have that some people are doing a lot better and some are doing a lot worse. I also have always fully conceded that the distribution of income has been skewed more heavily towards the upper two quintiles. Before I support tax increases to subsidize less skilled, lower paid wage earners I want to know the distribution of income that is being sought. Don't think I'll ever see a politician come out tell me.

I've stated repeatedly on this forum that the manufacturing sector in the U.S. has been in a long decline and that the demand for unskilled labor is waning. The effects of globalization have a lot to do with this but what's the alternative? Protectionism? At one time in the United States agriculture accounted for 90% of the jobs. The truth is that the economy changes alot over time and workers have to keep their skill levels up. I also stated that I believe that our educational system has failed us. Whatever measure you use for students from 4th grade to 12th grade, they're doing a lot worse than they were 40 years ago. At least that's my take. That's just one example. You may not believe this but I feel for people who don't have the skills required to obtain higher paying jobs. However, I'm not willing to endorse some heavy handed government measure to try and subsidize unskilled labor who basically have been priced out of a job. I read an article today about economic growth in China. Really unbelievable stuff and it's obvious that the standard of living is on the rise there. I've asked this question many times, why are people in the United States more deserving of a higher standard of living than people in 3rd world countries especially when the skills are roughly equal? I don't think that people in the U.S. are entitled to a higher standard of living just because they live here. So I guess the short answer is that globalization is good for some people and bad for others. In this case it's probably not good for a lot of U.S. workers that have skills that are common that can be obtained from workers in other countries who will work for less money. Globalization is a good thing for those workers. Consumers pay less for goods and eventually the profits being produced will be reinvested in economic growth in the U.S. (at least that's the theory). Don't get me wrong though, there are a lot of things that need to change in the U.S. where the undeserving get subsidized. Nicky and Chris Alger convinced me (I went kicking and screaming though) that the susidies to cotton farmers in the U.S. need to go for instance. Cotton farmers have a good lobby and that sucks big time IMO.