Levinson’s inability to perform a Bohm-Bawerk grade undermining of Schiller is shameful and the attempt appalling
Marc Levinson’s article, linked below, offers details about the post WWII “golden age” which are thorough for casual interest readers to understand and to gain insight as to events which may have cause and effect relationship related to modern economic conditions and how to proceed. However there were key places Levinson chose to selectively not educate the reader. One, he fails to discuss financing the “golden age” with taxes on income 25x poverty levels. Though realistically everyone paid higher rates to help finance the needs and support structures he thoroughly describes as essential to the success during that period. Continue reading Marc Levinson’s selective education
Real Wage has remained the same and flexible spending has decreased on average per year since 1964 (see previous post).
One of two ways I will discuss viewing this is that I would like to see a real wage growth as incentive to keep working as part of paying for enjoyment in life. This seems fair and reasonable in the sense that the cost of living increases. In order to maintain a lifestyle and pay for a retirement and healthcare expenses as time passes.
The second way I look at this is that perhaps this is a plateau minimum standard of living wage, or that cost of living with regard to true necessities has little growth, and that without Wage Growth – others who were not at the minimum standard of living wage are getting closer to it partly at the average Wage earners expense.
I think it is desirable to increase the speed at which we meet this equilibrium so that perhaps we may all enjoy a life that sustains one another. The difficulty with a decrease in the amount of time to reach equilibrium is that societal shock is considered personally negative. Individual A does not necessarily wish to remain at a constant wage as personal performance improves; it is more preferable for another personal, rather than self, to sacrifice wage growth for the betterment of all others.
It is challenging to think that we can all increase productivity and wage at a fast enough rate to take care of those left behind through charitable means. In fact this is where society is at and has been. I find that perhaps we are going in the right direction at an uncomfortably slow pace but we are getting there.
Short of shocking the system, creating an equilibrium, and disenfranchising those ahead of average real wage to the detriment of the entire capitalist approach, we should be philosophically wise to remember that we as an individual are not the only one involved. In fact to consider anyone else it is valuable and necessary to consider all others at the same time.
This does not mean I believe either of my two ways is the best solution to a stagnancy in average real wage; but it does mean that I would like to see all the information on all others (this is especially important in the global economy).
The largest group is in the middle income range. There is no growth in the real wage. High income earners have seen significant increases. And global poverty has significantly decreased. This seems the appropriate direction at an uncomfortably slow rate. The next step is to see how we are accomplishing this and if it is truly at anyone’s expense or if it is at a flexible spending expense (which would include charitable spending).