Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday October 09 2016, @03:39AM   Printer-friendly

The "quiet catastrophe" is particularly dismaying because it is so quiet, without social turmoil or even debate. It is this: After 88 consecutive months of the economic expansion that began in June 2009, a smaller percentage of American males in the prime working years (ages 25 to 54) are working than were working near the end of the Great Depression in 1940, when the unemployment rate was above 14 percent. If the labor-force participation rate were as high today as it was as recently as 2000, nearly 10 million more Americans would have jobs.

The work rate for adult men has plunged 13 percentage points in a half-century. This "work deficit" of "Great Depression-scale underutilization" of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt's new monograph "Men Without Work: America's Invisible Crisis," which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this:

Is it an aberration, or a harbinger of things to come?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 09 2016, @06:24AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 09 2016, @06:24AM (#411971) Journal

    ""The solution is relatively straightforward, increase the top bracket tax rate to something north of 50% on both capital gains and income tax. Then use the money that's generated through that to fund infrastructure projects, welfare and education."

    Right, that worked great for other countries! ... um, except when it didn't. In fact, income and capital gains are among the easier things to avoid taxes on, so right there you have a bad start."

    It worked fine right here in the United States of America, during and after the Second World War. First couple thousand taxed at very low rates, next couple thousand at low rates, starting around 10,000 the rates increased right up to 95% for top tier earners. And, they still built the world's biggest economic machine of all ages.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @05:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @05:01PM (#412118)

    Wrong on a number of fronts. Taking this by stages...

    "It worked fine right here in the United States of America, during and after the Second World War."

    First, the situation in question was artificial. Capital mobility during the war was very low, and even after the war (and during the aftershocks) it was quite constrained. This is no longer true, and is unlikely to be true again in the foreseeable future.

    Second, the USA was in the artificially beneficial situation of being politically dominant as well as being the only industrialised power that got out of the war with its industrial base more or less intact. The whole of the rest of the world became a market for american exports, which is no longer the case (and hasn't been since at least the '70s). Again, this is unlikely to be true again for the foreseeable future.

    Looking at less constrained environments, such as the high top tier taxes of the nordics (as well as the social pressures against the ambitious) and you can see how you have serious underinvestment problems there. Norway's sovereign fund is the classic example; they'd love to invest more in Norway, but they can't because the counterincentives are so strong.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 10 2016, @05:05AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 10 2016, @05:05AM (#412311) Journal

    It worked fine right here in the United States of America, during and after the Second World War. First couple thousand taxed at very low rates, next couple thousand at low rates, starting around 10,000 the rates increased right up to 95% for top tier earners. And, they still built the world's biggest economic machine of all ages.

    That doesn't explain the Gilded Age in the US - low tax combined with huge growth in the country. That created the conditions for superpower status in the first place. Nor does it explain the swapping of the US and Japanese fortunes in the late 80s and early 90s. If low marginal rates are truly bad, then why did the US have a decade and a half of substantial economic growth after implementing said changes compared to Japan which had the higher income and corporate tax rates (50% for each in 1990, if I understand correctly)?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @05:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @05:53AM (#412323)

      Population growth, immigration, younger people, more flexible culture and work environments.
      You cant just assume everything else was the same so the tax rate is the only reason for any differences.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @07:23AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 10 2016, @07:23AM (#412338) Journal

      You seem to have placed my comment into a context which wasn't meant. Low tax rates are not "bad". There is a time and a place for them. At this point in time, the country has been over budget and in the red for half a century. We are in debt, to damned near every nation on earth, as well as many corporations and individuals.

      Now, let's go back to WW2, the extremely high tax rates, and the REASON that the tax rates were set so high. We were in serious debt at that point in time. The government was funding a major war effort, not only on our behalf, but on behalf of half of Europe. We were supplying a huge portion of the British war effort, a sizeable portion of Russia's, and basically carrying most of Western Europe. We were so deep in debt, it scared people. And, there was a will to PAY OFF THAT DEBT.

      Today, we are seriously in debt. In point of fact, our taxes aren't paying for much of anything these days. Our taxes are barely sufficient to service the debts. For decades, we have collected enough taxes to service debts, then BORROW MORE MONEY to run the government, the military, social services, etc.

      Why are we so far in debt? We've discussed that often enought right here. People like Trump and Clinton pay a pittance in taxes, if anything at all. Major corporations like Microsoft and Apple are hiding profits in bogus accounts around the world, through offshore banking. Even without all that offshore banking, the tax rates are simply to damned low - evidence the steady accumulation of wealth in the hands of the top .001% of the country's wealthiest people.

      And, Congress, the body responsible for our economic health, has screwed the pooch. The balanced budget and line item veto idea was implemented years ago, and the line item was used once, as I recall, by Bill Clinton. Then, some fucked up assholes who should never have graduated from high school, much less been elected to Congress, bitched and bellyached that their pork was cut. The line item veto was thrown out, and the stage was set for us to spiral deeper and deeper into debt.

      Today, we need a graduated tax. We need to do more than merely service the debt. We need to start paying the debt down. We desperately need a balanced budget amendment, and the line item veto. We need the ~500 rotten bastards in Washington to understand and exercise FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

      The economy is in the toilet, no matter how many soothsayers tell us that we are "recovering" or whatever the hell they call it.

      I don't even want to get started on the Federal Reserve. They carry a lot of the responsibility for our shitty situation. Congress abrogated it's right and responsibilites when they created that Central Bank. WTF does the US government pay interest on every dollar in existence, when the constitution clearly states that only Congress has the authority to mint/print money?

      Taxes. Raise 'em sky high, pay the debt down to manageable levels, then lower the taxes.

      I've not said that high rates are good, or that low rates are good. I'm saying that there is a time and a place for both high and low tax rates. And, NO ONE appears to understand that the tax rates are merely a tool, to be used to keep the economy healthy. Those who understand taxes at all see them as a tool to enrich themselves, their family, and their freinds.

      Jack up the taxes on the wealthiest 5% of citizens and businessmen, enforce tax laws on the corporations, and eliminate loop holes. A modest increase on the next 5% of the wealthiest is probably in order as well. The next 10% in line probably shouldn't be taxed at any higher rate than they are already paying. Those are the entrepreneurs, the small business men and women, the people who actually HIRE PEOPLE and CREATE JOBS.

      Once again, I remind you that major corporations don't create jobs. Small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs in good times and in bad. In good times, large corporations buy up succcessful small businesses, and in bad times, corporations consolidate and downsize.

      How many downsizing stories have you read in the past few years?

      They call it "efficiency" - I call it "fucking the little people".

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 10 2016, @01:58PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 10 2016, @01:58PM (#412438) Journal
        I don't see the point of raising taxes when spending is so far out of control. Raise taxes and they'll find a way, and it won't be hard at all, to spend that. There is never a time for high taxes when the corrupt and the fiscally innumerate are in charge.
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @07:40PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 10 2016, @07:40PM (#412601) Journal

          Despite everything I wrote above - you're right. If the current crop of miscreants in Washington ever did raise the taxes, they'd waste the money on nonsense, rather than do any good with it.