Replies to post #445792 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[12yearplan]

It's in the article:

How big is this elephant? A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades.

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

Price and Edwards calculate that the cumulative tab for our four-decade-long experiment in radical inequality had grown to over $47 trillion from 1975 through 2018. At a recent pace of about $2.5 trillion a year, that number we estimate crossed the $50 trillion mark by early 2020. That’s $50 trillion that would have gone into the paychecks of working Americans had inequality held constant—$50 trillion that would have built a far larger and more prosperous economy—$50 trillion that would have enabled the vast majority of Americans to enter this pandemic far more healthy, resilient, and financially secure.

As the RAND report [whose research was funded by the Fair Work Center which co-author David Rolf is a board member of] demonstrates, a rising tide most definitely did not lift all boats. It didn’t even lift most of them, as nearly all of the benefits of growth these past 45 years were captured by those at the very top. And as the American economy grows radically unequal it is holding back economic growth itself.

[blackhawks]

No matter how you word it you won't get the answer you're looking for.

Distinctions AND differences; another kick in the nuts not just for bothsidesism but to your wishful thinking alt-reality as well.

Wages and new jobs under both Parties

ChatGPT

It's important to note that the impact of political parties on wages and job creation can vary significantly depending on the country, the specific time period under consideration, and the policies implemented by the respective parties. I can provide a general overview of the approaches taken by different parties, but it's important to remember that these are broad generalizations and may not apply universally.

Democratic Party (United States): The Democratic Party in the United States has generally advocated for policies aimed at improving workers' rights and income equality. They have supported initiatives such as increasing the minimum wage, expanding access to healthcare, strengthening labor protections, and promoting progressive taxation. These policies are often intended to uplift low-income workers and reduce income inequality.

Republican Party (United States): The Republican Party in the United States tends to prioritize free-market principles, limited government intervention, and business-friendly policies. They often focus on reducing taxes and regulations, which they argue can stimulate economic growth and job creation. Republicans typically support policies that they believe will incentivize businesses to expand and hire more workers.

It's important to note that the impact of these policies on wages and job creation can be influenced by numerous factors, including the broader economic environment, global trends, technological advancements, and the specific implementation of policies.

To evaluate the specific impact of these parties on wages and job creation, it is necessary to analyze data and studies that provide a comprehensive assessment of economic outcomes under different administrations and policy environments.

[fuagf]

B402, That was about inequity, you dick.