Why can’t we see that we’re living in a golden age?

[Recursion]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/why-cant-we-see-that-were-living-in-a-golden-age/

Karl Marx thought that capitalism inevitably made the rich richer and the poor poorer. By the time Marx died, however, the average Englishman was three times richer than at the time of his birth 65 years earlier — never before had the population experienced anything like it.

Fast forward to 1981. Then, almost nine in ten Chinese lived in extreme poverty; now just one in ten do. Then, just half of the world’s population had access to safe water. Now, 91 per cent do. On average, that means that 285,000 more people have gained access to safe water every day for the past 25 years.

Global trade has led to an expansion of wealth on a magnitude which is hard to comprehend. During the 25 years since the end of the Cold War, global economic wealth — or GDP per capita — has increased almost as much as it did during the preceding 25,000 years. It’s no coincidence that such growth has occurred alongside a massive expansion of rule by the people for the people. A quarter of a century ago, barely half the world’s countries were democracies. Now, almost two thirds are. To say that freedom is still on the march is an understatement.

...

This has not happened through the destruction of the western middle class. Times have been rough since the financial crisis, yet for all the talk of Americans ‘left behind by globalisation’, median income for low- and middle-income US households has increased by more than 30 per cent since 1970. And this excludes all the things you can’t put a price on, such as advances in medicine, an extra ten years of life expectancy, the internet, mass entertainment, and cleaner air and water.

[seabeckind]

1. Gilded Age -- Not golden.

Very dishonest piece. It tries to use the situation in China as some sort of an example of how the world is better but that is an isolated case. There is no way t could be applied as a baseline for everywhere else.

Ignoring the lack of proof for the global personal benefits of global trade, the median income statement is pure bunk.

It took two points on a graph and the tried to draw a line between them to show a trend. It's not a straight line. It looks more like this:

[bhikkhu]

17. Household income is an easily skewed measure, in both directions

at one time most households were married couples with a single wage earner, so household income was low. Then we had a big increase in working women, in two-earner households, so the household income average increased significantly.

Trends over the last couple decades are toward more single-parent or unmarried people forming a household, so the numbers go back down.

I know the household income number has been used by numerous political campaigns and well-intentioned individuals to "prove" wage stagnation, but it is a metric more strongly impacted by demographic shifts than wages.

[Dustlawyer]

2. And it is all unsustainable!

Our environment cannot handle this ever increasing load as Capitolism demands more and more growth.

[Odin2005]

3. Classic dishonest Capitalist nonsense.

As Slavoj Zizek would say, PURE IDEOLOGY!

[Recursion]

5. Why are you against people having clean water and getting out of extreme poverty?

That's awful

[seabeckind]

6. In Flint, of course.

[Odin2005]

55. In the real world.

[FLPanhandle]

11. What's been the impact on the environment?

This is unsustainable. We may as well enjoy it as the next generation will indeed be looking back at these times as the golden days before the collapse.

[Recursion]

12. Economic development is the most effective contraceptive

For that matter per capita emissions in the West are falling. Develop, and the energy consumption ends up improving.

[hunter]

20. Worldwide fossil fuel use is increasing.

Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are accelerating.

Decoupling fossil fuel use from economic growth, especially economic growth as we now define it, will be near impossible.

Climate change refugees will be an increasingly serious problem even here within the U.S.A..

Well, at least we have Alaska, right?

[The2ndWheel]

13. It's not an objective thing

It's subjective, and relative to the people around you.

We call the access to safe water a basic human right. Basic. Not extravagant. Not luxurious. Basic. It's not a wow situation if it's basic. To the people that didn't have that access before, it's amazing. To people that have had it, it's not a headline in today's news. If something goes wrong, like say in Flint, then it's the top story of the day.

Go back 3,000 years and ask if people thought they were living in what probably would've been called a golden age in relation to 3,100 years ago. Provided the energy is cheap enough, our golden age won't be anything to remember 50 years from now.

There's a golden age all the time. Some people see it in the past, others the future, others right now. It depends on who you ask, and when you ask them.

[Recursion]

14. But, it actually is an objective thing, whatever rich westerners think

Not dying from cholera is very objective.

[The2ndWheel]

15. Easy to make it objective

When you don't count what certain people think.

Even humans not dying for whatever reason isn't an objective good. Not when you count the non-human life that gets killed off or has to move to a zoo somewhere when our society needs to expand in order to accommodate all the still alive humans.

[Recursion]

45. "humans not dying for whatever reason isn't an objective good"

Wow.

Wow.

I've got nothing to say to you at this point...

[The2ndWheel]

58. The planet doesn't care if people live or die

The universe doesn't care. Other species don't care. Only human beings care if human beings live or die on some larger scale. That's simply not objective. It's a completely biased point of view. A valid point of view, but a subjective one.

[Cal33]

16. "Income per household has increased by more than 30% since 1970..." 30% in 46 years averages

out to two-thirds of 1% per year. I think inflation alone is much higher than that -- which comes to
about 2% to 3% per year. We are earning less and less, not more!!

[bhikkhu]

18. Median net compensation is a better way to look at it

as it eliminates changes in household composition and looks at individuals instead:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

There's a lot in the data there, but you should be able to see that compensation has increased at a faster rate than inflation.

[Recursion]

21. That makes zero sense (nt)

[davidn3600]

19. People are pessimistic because they realize this can't last

Computer projections show civilization is heading for very serious problems by around 2040-2050. The human population will exceed 10 billion. We will be reaching a point where the Earth can no longer sustain us. There will be an ever-increasing fight for limited resources.

Global climate change will increasingly be a problem. We are eventually going to have shortages with fossil fuels likely by the end of the century. Our rain forests are depleting.

You also have more powerful pathogens than we ever had. Many diseases are becoming resistant to our treatments. Doctors continue to warn that we will likely see the end of the antibiotics age within our lifetime. Already, diseases that we thought we conquered are making a comeback, like Tuberculosis. Pandemics will become a greater and greater threat moving forward as the population continues to increase as well as our speed and volume of international travel.

Call this a "golden age" if you want....but it won't last. History proves that prosperity never lasts forever. All empires rise and fall. America won't be an exception.
And this isn't fear-mongering. Super computers recently showed the downward spiral of our civilization could begin as soon as 2030. It's mathematics. What the world is doing today is simply unsustainable. That's not theory, it's fact.

[Nye Bevan]

22. But to be fair, non-capitalist countries like Venezuela are also doing well.

Oh wait.....

[Recursion]

28. .

*snort*

[rug]

23. Come on.

Johan Norberg (Swedish pronunciation: [ˈjuːˈan ˈnuːrˈbærj]; born 27 August 1973) is a Swedish author and historian, devoted to promoting economic globalization and classical liberal positions. He is arguably most known as the author of In Defense of Global Capitalism. Since March 15, 2007 he has been a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Norberg

Oh, and Marx never said that. He did say this though:

It appears then, that capitalist production comprises conditions independent of good or bad will, conditions which permit the working-class to enjoy that relative prosperity only momentarily, and at that always only as the harbinger of a coming crisis.

Capital Vol. II, Ch. XX,

[Recursion]

30. Yeah, I've read both Hegel and Marx. Both were wrong.

There is no materliast or spiritual phenomenology. Period. There's not a magic "spirit" or "empirical" figure somewhere writing history.

Literally everyone today is incomparably richer than when Marx was writing.

[rug]

33. Speaking of spiritual phenomenology, Norberg is describing crisis capitalism.

The problem is, you're both leaving out the crises that accompany the capitalism. Put an overlay of the wars, empires, and economic crashes on top of the rosy view of the 200 years of capitalism that Norberg celebrates. What is a golden age for some is unrelenting crisis for most of the world.

[Recursion]

34. Huh. Because wars are much, much, much, much less common today

And much less deadly

So... ?

[rug]

38. Why can’t you see that we’re living in a golden age?

The raw fact is that the crises are inextricable from the capitalism. The better things get (for some) the worse things get (for most). You read Hegel. That's the core dialectic.

[Recursion]

41. Well, so, Hegel was objectively wrong

Because things are better universally.

[rug]

46. Penicillin and sewers do not cure capitalism.

[Recursion]

47. No, they cure cholera and typhoid. And capitalism pays for that.

I just spent three years in a city where those are endemic (but it's developing, so they're on the retreat). I have little patience for people who consider them small obstacles.

[rug]

50. Yes, I enjoyed your posts From Mumbai.

Some other facts about poverty in India should also give us pause: India is estimated to have one third of the world's poor. According to a 2005 World Bank estimate, 42% of India, 456 million people, fall below the international poverty line of $1.25 a day. Almost 30% of workers are casual workers who work only when they are able to get jobs and remain unpaid for the rest of the time. Only 10% of the workforce is in regular employment. The lack of adequate sanitation, nutrition and safe water has significant negative health impacts. It was estimated in 2002 by the World Health Organization that around 700,000 Indians die each year from diarrhea.

http://gabrielprojectmumbai.org/Poverty_in_India.html

More people died in India from diarrhea alone in one year than the entire population of Washington, DC.

Yay, capitalism.

[Go Vols]

24. Requiem for the American Dream

REQUIEM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM is the definitive discourse with Noam Chomsky, widely regarded as the most important intellectual alive, on the defining characteristic of our time - the deliberate concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a select few.

Through interviews filmed over four years, Chomsky unpacks the principles that have brought us to the crossroads of historically unprecedented inequality - tracing a half century of policies designed to favor the most wealthy at the expense of the majority - while also looking back on his own life of activism and political participation.

Profoundly personal and thought provoking, Chomsky provides penetrating insight into what may well be the lasting legacy of our time - the death of the middle class, and swan song of functioning democracy. A potent reminder that power ultimately rests in the hands of the governed, REQUIEM is required viewing for all who maintain hope in a shared stake in the future.

Its on Netflix or streaming here: http://123movies.to/film/requiem-for-the-american-dream-11956/watching.html

[Recursion]

25. "Widely regarded as the most important intellectual alive"

So he keeps telling me.

Seriously, no: he's not.

[Go Vols]

51. What part of the Documentary did you find false?

It was pretty spot on for what I remember back to the '60s.Both parents watched it and found it true back to the '40s.

[NuclearDem]

62. Well, if he told you that, you know it's true.

He's the most important intellectual alive, you know.

[Recursion]

63. I can't argue with that logic... (nt)

[tenderfoot]

26. Written by a fellow at the Cato Institute.

Libertarian drivel.

[Recursion]

27. So critique his argument (nt)

[tenderfoot]

29. You're not supposed to link to right wing sources.

libertarian shit spewer.

[Recursion]

31. Interesting

I take it you have no response? You are just angry that humans are objectively better off now? Does it interrupt a narrative you preferred?

[Recursion]

36. So, again, no response

"easily refuted", but apparently too difficult for you to actually refute?

Yeah, I've heard that one before...

[guillaumeb]

35. No matter if one uses median income or average income or GDP,

the inescapable fact is that all of these numbers are pushed upward by the fact that the top 1% have profited massively and are far richer that ever before.

Median income means 1/2 are above and 1/2 are below the median. So if 1/2 of the US makes less than the median, they are certainly not doing well. And the fact that household indebtedness is very high, and retirement savings is very low shows how these numbers are meaningless as a way of proving people are doing well.

Average income and GDP are also not a means of proving how the vast majority of people are doing well because again, the 1% who own 83% of common stock distort the numbers.

Global trade has led to an expansion of wealth........for the already wealthy.

[Recursion]

37. Except the median income doesn't get pushed up by the top 1%

Do you understand how "median" works?

[guillaumeb]

40. Assuming you read my response, I will defer to that response.

And the benefits of increased GDP are mainly received by the top 1% of wage earners.

Your "golden age" is indeed a golden age for those who have the gold. But closer examination of the numbers reveals that the gold is actually brass for the mass of the workers.

Thus is right wing Libertarian nonsense disguised as analysis.

[Recursion]

42. Nope. Ideology is blinding you. The number of humans in extreme poverty

is lower today than 30 years ago.

You are against that, for reasons that I will leave to your conscience to parse. But you're on the side of evil

[DLevine]

54. "You're on the side of evil". WTF?

I can't believe you said that to a fellow DUer. He/she never said they were against lowering extreme poverty, so no need for the "I will leave it to your conscience to parse".

[guillaumeb]

61. Your leaps of logic are amazing.

But unconvincing.

[Kingofalldems]

39. The Spectator-'a weekly British conservative magazine.' ---Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spectator

Good try.

[Recursion]

43. So, no answer?

Funny how frequent that response is here...

[Kingofalldems]

44. Not to right wing sources.

This is Democratic Underground and you might want to check the rules.

[Rex]

53. I guess this is a golden age for the plutocrat that can buy whatever they want.

not so good for others.

[CentralMass]

48. The middle class is shrinking.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/
The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground
No longer the majority and falling behind financially



More at the link..

[Recursion]

49. So that says the middle class has shrunk because more people are upper income

Why are you against that?

[Warpy]

52. Probably because all the gold is in only a few places and its hoarders refuse to share

In some ways, the last 60 years have been a Golden Age. Most of us grew up with enough to eat, immunized against the diseases that used to kill half of all children by the time they were five, and with antibiotics that work for the rest. Modern dentistry is great, too.

However, wealth concentration means a lot of kids out there now are not getting enough to eat. While schools require vaccinations, some of the stupid parents are phobic so the kids are increasingly at risk and home schooling with bible school curricula keeps them ignorant. The bugs are fighting back against antibiotics. We still have great dentistry....for those who can afford it.

Our golden age is morphing very quickly into another age of Robber Barons. We're losing ground and purchasing power daily while some of them have enough money for thousands of lifetimes, lived end to end.

Golden Age? Likely some of the hoarders will view it as such many years down the line. The rest of us know better.

[dawg]

56. From a global perspective ... yes.

From a U.S. perspective, not so much.

Look again at the graph of U.S. median incomes in reply #1. They peaked just before the year 2000 and still have not recovered. That was over 16 years ago.

[Recursion]

57. They're way, way up since the 1970s. They're even up since the 1990s

The point being we're all richer than the "old economy" days people seem to long for

[dawg]

59. Most people don't have that long of a perspective.

Many who post here have spent their entire working lives in the 16 years since median U.S. household incomes peaked and started to decline. You're not going to convince them that they are living in a golden age because it was worse in the early 1990's. For many, you might as well draw a comparison to the Middle Ages.

[seabeckind]

60. Excellent point.

As I tried to point out earlier in the thread where I posted the graph, the argument was that if we draw a straight line from 1970 to 2015, it looks awesome.

Even more awesomer if you pick 1993 to 2008. That was phenomenal.

But if the dates are 2000 to 2015, it's man the lifeboats time. As you point out, that is what most of the people are experiencing right now.

And then add in some of the other changes, like 1970 having a primarily single income family versus multiple incomes coming into play in the 1980s and the age doesn't seem quite so golden.

[TheKentuckian]

64. Since I make less in real dollars much less adjusting for inflation than I did 12 years ago

Have been in five buyouts/shutdowns and burned up any and all savings over and over again.

I'm not feeling golden age, just crunched.