French Work Week

[shuize]

When I was doing corporate law, I was expected to bill at a minimum 1800 hours a year. It takes about 1.5 hours to bill an hour, so were looking at 2700 hours. Add in the odd extra task and we get to an even 3K. I'm afraid to do the math.

All I know is that there were weeks when a partner or two had a trial, and I'd be in the noon Wednesday meeting and realize that I had already billed 50 hours that week (Sun -Sat.). Good news, as long as I hit my quotas they didn't care how much vacation or personal time I took. Ha Ha Ha.

Then I went half crazy.

So I got into public defense work. My current job, where I only post conviction proceedings like appeals and habeas corpus petitions, I put in an 40 hour week, come and go as I please, and I can do work at home. 16 days vacation, 10 days sick time, and all, and I mean all, state and local holidays. Of course I wind up visiting senic places like the Maximum security prison, and get to be in enclosed spaces with murderers and worse.

I took a huge pay cut, but calculated by the hour I'm actually making more.

I know billing 1800 hours a year takes a hell of a lot of work, but I think your firm was realitively easy-going. Most big firms want you to bill at least 2000+ if you expect have any hope of making partner ....

And that explains why we don't often hear the opinions of corporate attorneys on this board.

 

[Diezel]

Diezel, before replying I'll say again that this appeared on the op-ed page. So, yes, it takes a position. The author does not work for the TIMES.

I understand that, but the way you emphasised it being from "the nation's paper of record", I wanted it to be clear that this wasn't a scholarly work.

I do not see anything controversial with these statements in the piece.

We will have to agree to disagree here.

Here's the thing: people, average people, are working harder and longer, but they're getting a smaller part of the pie. CEO salaries, as well know, has surged in the last few decades. I do not have precise figures off the top of my head, but 1960 CEOs made, what, 40 times their employees? Now they make over 500 times?

Here's the crux and exactly what I said the argument would turn into. Look at my statement above - why does it matter how much the top people are making? Who cares?

The only people that care are the people that feel there should be some type of equity of incomes. I do not.

The poor are getting richer, the middle-class are getting richer, the rich are getting richer. So what that they are doing it at different paces?

Equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Almost everyone is better of now then they were, across the board. I don't buy the "getting their slice of the pie" argument.

Actually, exactly how much slice of pie is each person "entitled"?

In real terms means controlling for inflation and hours worked.

Do they explain and qualify that in the article (I don't want to register again, so I will try to read it at work where I have my password for it.) I didn't see any explaination for what they were defining.

I'm not sure what you're getting at on the 16% figure. The author says they (Scandinavians) work 29% less and only make 16% less, which suggests, rather directly, that they make more money per hour.

I'm saying the figure means very little without different information.

I can tell you that workers in the Detroit area make 20% more in income than the rest of the country. What does that really mean in the context of wealth and quality of living? Nothing. Because what I didn't tell you is that the cost of living in the Detroit area is 25% more than the rest of the country. (numbers used for the purpose of example only, pulled from my a**)

The numbers are deceptive, because they are trying to portray something they don't. The numbers tell us nothing about the buying power of that income.

On the contrary, I see nothing creative or deceptive here.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. Buying power or quality (or maybe luxury) of life is a much better comparision than income. We can't even compare incomes between areas within a state, let alone the US. But here, the author wants us to draw a conclusion based on an income comparison between two countries. I don't buy it.

No, again, the 16% stat clarifies the 29% stat (which pertains to fewer hours worked).

See above my objections to those stats.

Pollsters have regularly asked Swedes if they would work more hours to make more money. They consistently say they prefer leisure to higher income. But hey, I'm sure there are more than few Scandinavians who browse these forums and can educate us all with their first hand experience.

I'm not sure what this proves.

The article's starting year is 1973. Comparing the last *50* years is apples to oranges.

No, it is comparing 30 apples to 30 apples, with 20 older apples to look back on for further consideration. Look at the document I linked, all the years I represented. You can go back to 1973 on all the charts and work forward. But you will find that poverty is down, incomes are up, across the board.

There's something slightly off topic that I want to add. The government's standard for determining poverty, most economists agree, understates the problem. Agencies want to update the criteria, but no sane administration will allow poverty to "increase" on their watch, so it gets blocked. Comparing poverty rates in the United States to Scandnavian countries is instructive.

But at least it is a standard that we can measure by. And by that standard, poverty is down and the poor are living the lives of the middle-class of 30 years ago.

And, again, there are 1000s, if not tens of 1000s more millionaires today than there was 30 years ago.

 

[Diezel]

You shouldn't start threads with titles like "Do You Find My Bald Head Sexy" then.

I had one reply to that thread - yours!

 

[Diezel]

I took a huge pay cut, but calculated by the hour I'm actually making more.

I must add one more thing here, then I'm off to bed and I'll catch up in the morning...

This statement means a lot. Not so much the by the hour statement (most people get over-time), but that he took a pay cut.

Yes, Americans work more. Yes, most Americans feel they must work more. But actually, most Americans could work less and still be financially stable.

Yep, they don't have to work all those hours. The reason they think they do, is because of all the things they think they have to have - multiple vehicles, multiple TVS, VCRS, DVD players, computers, etc.... Most of these things are not needs. They don't have to have them, but in American culture, the disinction is no longer there. We view them as needs, hence we need to work to pay for them.

Most Americans could cut back on their lifestyle and work less hours with no problem. The cultural difference in European countries may be such that they don't feel they need all these luxuries (and I believe many Europeans find our attitudes about what we need silly.)

Personally, I know all of this, but still want all these things, so I work more hours.

 

[a_unique_person]

I had one reply to that thread - yours!

I hope I said "no".

 

[Cain]

I do not think I *emphasized* "paper of record." The point was thati this newspaper has many, many readers and they're apparently interested in the article (since it was the second most e-mailed that particular day).

Here's the crux and exactly what I said the argument would turn into. Look at my statement above - why does it matter how much the top people are making? Who cares?

The only people that care are the people that feel there should be some type of equity of incomes. I do not.

The poor are getting richer, the middle-class are getting richer, the rich are getting richer. So what that they are doing it at different paces?

I perfectly understand what you're saying; I used to be a Libertarian. But why not put in the other direction: let's say poor people *do* get poorer. Big deal, right? They're already "richer" (narrowly defined) than most people in the world, and nearly all people in human history. You're missing a fundamental moral value: that wealth is socially created, and the people responsible for the gains ought to share in it.

Equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Almost everyone is better of now then they were, across the board. I don't buy the "getting their slice of the pie" argument.

There are spillover effects; externalities. For instance, I don't see how the daughter of a single mother working two of those jobs has an equal opportunity, but whatever.

Equality of opportunity is a nearly unimpeachable moral-political value... but it doesn't appear consistent with the rest of your views.

Actually, exactly how much slice of pie is each person "entitled"?

I despise that word "entitled" because it gives off the wrong impression. People have been working harder and it's sort of intuitive that they share those gains. Instead wages have stagnated.

Do they explain and qualify that in the article (I don't want to register again, so I will try to read it at work where I have my password for it.) I didn't see any explaination for what they were defining.

Ah, so you'll read it while on the job Well, the NYTIMES became stingy awhile ago and you'll only be able to access the abstract (unless you want to pay 3 dollars or whatever). I saved the original and I can PM it to you.

In real terms almost always means holding for inflation.

I can tell you that workers in the Detroit area make 20% more in income than the rest of the country. What does that really mean in the context of wealth and quality of living? Nothing. Because what I didn't tell you is that the cost of living in the Detroit area is 25% more than the rest of the country. (numbers used for the purpose of example only, pulled from my a**)

That's also a well-known shortcoming of the poverty line. I'm not sure what you're comparing here, though: US living now compared to living 25 years ago; or now compared to our european counterparts.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. Buying power or quality (or maybe luxury) of life is a much better comparision than income. We can't even compare incomes between areas within a state, let alone the US. But here, the author wants us to draw a conclusion based on an income comparison between two countries. I don't buy it.

The author's also only given 700 words to write the article. You make it sound like he's consciously trying to deceive you.

From the bottom of the article: John de Graaf, co-author of "Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic," is national coordinator of Take Back Your Time Day.

You can probably find more conclusive infomration there.

I'm not sure what this proves.

Well, it's just that those europeans don't really care about money all that much. According to the UN's human development index, Sweden outranks the US (as do five other countries).

No, it is comparing 30 apples to 30 apples, with 20 older apples to look back on for further consideration. Look at the document I linked, all the years I represented. You can go back to 1973 on all the charts and work forward. But you will find that poverty is down, incomes are up, across the board.

Since this is only marginally related, I'll post an excerpt from a TIMES article on the poverty line:

The problem is that the official definition of poverty no longer provides an accurate picture of material deprivation. The current measure was created 40 years ago by a government statistician, Mollie Orshansky, and hasn't much changed since. "Anyone who thinks we ought to change it is perfectly right," Ms. Orshansky told an interviewer in 2001.

The current procedure takes the 1963 poverty thresholds for each given family size devised by Ms. Orshansky and updates them for inflation. For example, if the income of a family of four with two adults and two children fell below $18,244 last year, they were counted as poor by the bureau. Simple, yes, but there are two basic problems.

First, it fails to capture important changes in consumption patterns since the early 1960's. The research underlying the original thresholds was based on food expenditures by low-income families in 1955. Since her calculations showed that families then spent about a third of their income on food, Ms. Orshansky multiplied a low-income food budget by three to come up with her poverty line. But even she suspected this method underestimated what it took to meet basic needs, and was thus low-balling the poverty rate.

And it continues on. Again, I can send that to you by request.

And, again, there are 1000s, if not tens of 1000s more millionaires today than there was 30 years ago.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "the millionaire next door." I'm not impressed. Who was it that said we should judge a society by how it treats its poor? I think that was Gandhi... but I'm way too lazy to look it up.

 

[Hal 2001]

The problem with the government acting like a labor union (as in France) is that people will elect whoever promises more paid time off and less work hours.

That, and once you grant time off via government law it will never be repealed since every whiner will protest.


Bad, bad, bad..........

That's not necessary true. In fact in France the socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin who introduced the 35 hours, lost the following elections to Chiracs (who is more on the right side).

I'm not saying that the 35 hour week is the reason he lost, but It didn't make him win either. Actually as I recall the french were quite divided on the subject.

But you are right, on the fact that it will be hard to get it repealed.

Mss Hal

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well, it's just that those europeans don't really care about money all that much. According to the UN's human development index, Sweden outranks the US (as do five other countries).

But that only proves you can manipulate statistics to show whatever you want. Take a look at the method used to calculate the human development index and you will see that the method of calculation has at least as much impact on ranking as the raw data.

www.undp.org

 

[Bearguin]

I work for a company with international offices and one thing I've noticed is the amount of vacation time allowed in Europe. I'd have to dig up the actual info, but where most North American companies start at 2 weeks, I think most of Europe gets 5. And fully paid like ours.

 

[Crossbow]

Don't most U.S. Federal, State, and other government employees get about 20 holidays per year?

And is that 35 hours working each week or 35 hours at work?

20 holidays per yer I wish!

I have been working for the state for over 10 years and we get 11 paid holidays per year. Sometimes 12, if the governor signs off on it.

 

[BillyTK]

I work for a company with international offices and one thing I've noticed is the amount of vacation time allowed in Europe. I'd have to dig up the actual info, but where most North American companies start at 2 weeks, I think most of Europe gets 5. And fully paid like ours.

Not strictly true, as it varies from country to country. As Geni posted, "EU law states a maxium of 48 hours a week and at least 2 weeks paid holiday a year".

It's also worth making the point that it's not so much how many hours you're contracted to work, but how much work you get done within that time. Happy staff tend to be more productive than unhappy, stressed staff.

My current contract is for 37.5 hours and any extra hours I work have to be taken as leave, or occassionally, under special circumstances, paid as overtime. Beats one of my earliest jobs when I could work that in two days in an effort to meet printing deadlines.

 

[Diezel]

I do not think I *emphasized* "paper of record." The point was that this newspaper has many, many readers and they're apparently interested in the article (since it was the second most e-mailed that particular day).

Ok, but mass appeal does equal truth.

I perfectly understand what you're saying; I used to be a Libertarian. But why not put in the other direction: let's say poor people *do* get poorer. Big deal, right? They're already "richer" (narrowly defined) than most people in the world, and nearly all people in human history. You're missing a fundamental moral value: that wealth is socially created, and the people responsible for the gains ought to share in it.

Even assuming I agree with your moral value (and I don’t, the way you stated it), tell me who is responsible in the gains. Are the very poor responsible in the gains? Have the very poor put in their fair share in creating wealth? Have they put in an equal share? If you want all people to share in the gains equally, shouldn’t they also contribute to the creation of that wealth equally?

Who has contributed more to the creation of wealth in the US in the last 20 years – Bill Gates or a very poor person?

There are spillover effects; externalities. For instance, I don't see how the daughter of a single mother working two of those jobs has an equal opportunity, but whatever.

Well, first – she has the opportunity to not put herself in the position she is in. Second, she has the opportunity to better her position by hard work and promotions, schooling and promotions, skilled trade and promotions, etc…

Equality of opportunity is a nearly unimpeachable moral-political value... but it doesn't appear consistent with the rest of your views.

I don’t understand why you think that.

I despise that word "entitled" because it gives off the wrong impression. People have been working harder and it's sort of intuitive that they share those gains. Instead wages have stagnated.

But they have shared in those gains. But the major complaint is that they haven’t shared in them at the same pace as others. So I ask again, what “share of the pie” does everyone deserve? (see, I eliminated “entitled” )

Ah, so you'll read it while on the job Well, the NYTIMES became stingy awhile ago and you'll only be able to access the abstract (unless you want to pay 3 dollars or whatever). I saved the original and I can PM it to you.

I would like that, I’ll PM you with my email address.

In real terms almost always means holding for inflation.

Not true. I have often heard “in real terms” used as a way of describing the differences in buying power. Without them telling us what they mean, the term is useless.

That's also a well-known shortcoming of the poverty line. I'm not sure what you're comparing here, though: US living now compared to living 25 years ago; or now compared to our european counterparts.

Neither. I am showing you how using raw data like that is useless in these situations. I am showing you that income is not a good comparison standard, because raw income tells very little about a standard of living. You can have two households with the exact same incomes, but with totally different standards of livings. A household in the Mid-West making $72,000/year would be “well off” with a lot of expendable income. A household in San Francisco making $72,000/year is making just enough to cover its bills (that number is true, from a recent study.) People in the Mid-West made the same income as people in San Francisco, would it mean anything? No.

But I could say that, if I wanted to try to lead you to some conclusion. I wouldn’t be wrong, the numbers are correct. But if I was trying to give an unbiased evaluation of the subject, comparing incomes would not be what I would use. As you can see, comparing incomes is useless.

The author's also only given 700 words to write the article. You make it sound like he's consciously trying to deceive you.

Yes, and in that 700 words he used a comparison of income, which I have shown is a useless, but deceiving comparison. He could have just as well used a better comparison and still stayed within his 700 words.

And I wouldn’t even say he’s consciously trying to do it. I’m sure he has made his decision in the matter and he is just using the evidence he feels best fits his case. The problem is, the evidence he is presenting is not valid to come to the conclusion he does.

[Well, it's just that those europeans don't really care about money all that much. According to the UN's human development index, Sweden outranks the US (as do five other countries).

And I never argued this. What I am arguing is the validity of that particular piece’s substance.

No, it is comparing 30 apples to 30 apples, with 20 older apples to look back on for further consideration. Look at the document I linked, all the years I represented. You can go back to 1973 on all the charts and work forward. But you will find that poverty is down, incomes are up, across the board.

Since this is only marginally related, I'll post an excerpt from a TIMES article on the poverty line:

The problem is that the official definition of poverty no longer provides an accurate picture of material deprivation. The current measure was created 40 years ago by a government statistician, Mollie Orshansky, and hasn't much changed since. "Anyone who thinks we ought to change it is perfectly right," Ms. Orshansky told an interviewer in 2001.

The current procedure takes the 1963 poverty thresholds for each given family size devised by Ms. Orshansky and updates them for inflation. For example, if the income of a family of four with two adults and two children fell below $18,244 last year, they were counted as poor by the bureau. Simple, yes, but there are two basic problems.

First, it fails to capture important changes in consumption patterns since the early 1960's. The research underlying the original thresholds was based on food expenditures by low-income families in 1955. Since her calculations showed that families then spent about a third of their income on food, Ms. Orshansky multiplied a low-income food budget by three to come up with her poverty line. But even she suspected this method underestimated what it took to meet basic needs, and was thus low-balling the poverty rate.

I would have to read it all and get a better feel for the argument, but I already see the start of a flaw when the speak of the changing consumption patterns.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "the millionaire next door." I'm not impressed. Who was it that said we should judge a society by how it treats its poor? I think that was Gandhi... but I'm way too lazy to look it up.

You’re not impressed that everybody in the country is doing better now than any other time in history?

And you have yet to say how we are treating our poor, while I have showed our poor are living the standards the middle-class where living 30 years ago. I’m not quite sure what it will take to impress you. I have a suspicion, but I don’t want to put a political ideology on you that you have not directly stated.

 

[Diezel]

Cain:

Given your views on this subject, I am interested in hearing what you think of this story: PARING DOWN AT COMPUWARE: Karmanos to workers: Get ready for pay cut

Read the side bar for exactly who is getting cut and by how much.

 

[Cain]

Even assuming I agree with your moral value (and I don’t, the way you stated it), tell me who is responsible in the gains. Are the very poor responsible in the gains?

The article said people are working longer, right? We do not disagree with that fact, right? We can therefore agree that the poor had a hand in wealth creation, right? Wages have stagnated since 1973. Even up until the 90s wages were below 1979 levels (in spite of Clinton's much touted economic expansion. We can even account for non-wage benefits, where people today have to pay more and more for healthcare). Compare this to the income and wealth of the top 1%, which has surged. Simply sky-rocketed.

We should compare the situtation with other first world countries in the industrialized world. It's not exactly a great scenario.

Have the very poor put in their fair share in creating wealth? Have they put in an equal share? If you want all people to share in the gains equally, shouldn’t they also contribute to the creation of that wealth equally?

It doesn't have to perfectly equal -- that's practically impossible. I'm only saying that working people on the lowest end of the spectrum have received the tiniest sliver.

Who has contributed more to the creation of wealth in the US in the last 20 years – Bill Gates or a very poor person?

This is apples to oranges again and eludes my point.

Well, first – she has the opportunity to not put herself in the position she is in. Second, she has the opportunity to better her position by hard work and promotions, schooling and promotions, skilled trade and promotions, etc…

Certainly... but I do not see the word "equal" here. You insisted on equal opportunity, right?

But they have shared in those gains. But the major complaint is that they haven’t shared in them at the same pace as others. So I ask again, what “share of the pie” does everyone deserve? (see, I eliminated “entitled”)

Yes, I think deserved sounds more appropriate I have no golden ratio in mind. This is just an effort to mitigate the social and economic inequalities of capitalism. If you really must know, I'd like to abolish the system altogether, but a good liberal-capitalist moral principle, if you insist, can be found in political philosopher John Rawls: Income should be distributed in a way that's most favorable to the least advantaged.

Most people I know reflexively agree with that in principle (as a value). How to achieve it is another matter. I am perfectly willing to accept that we have different means to accomplish the same goals. This Rawlsian principle -- one of his famous two principles of justice -- is consistent, for instance, with Reagan's tax cut on the very, very wealthy because benefits trickle down. We can disagree as an empirical matter. But if you're arguing -- and some sentences suggest this -- that whatever the market decides is right, then I reject that view entirely.

I hope this is not too confusing or badly worded because I'm in a hurry.

Not true. I have often heard “in real terms” used as a way of describing the differences in buying power. Without them telling us what they mean, the term is useless.

What do you mean "buying power"? No, that goes back to inflation.

Neither. I am showing you how using raw data like that is useless in these situations. I am showing you that income is not a good comparison standard, because raw income tells very little about a standard of living. You can have two households with the exact same incomes, but with totally different standards of livings. A household in the Mid-West making $72,000/year would be “well off” with a lot of expendable income. A household in San Francisco making $72,000/year is making just enough to cover its bills (that number is true, from a recent study.) People in the Mid-West made the same income as people in San Francisco, would it mean anything? No.

I disagree that it's "useless" but I'll emphatically state that it's inconclusive. San Franciso to a mid-west town is a good comparison (because of housing prices in the Bay Area). Or we could compare Chicago to Tokoyo. But I don't think comparisons to the United States today to thirty years ago is all THAT bad.

[snipped a few things]

Again, as far as I know economists make simillar comparisons between income all the time. They're not useless.

And you have yet to say how we are treating our poor, while I have showed our poor are living the standards the middle-class where living 30 years ago. I’m not quite sure what it will take to impress you. I have a suspicion, but I don’t want to put a political ideology on you that you have not directly stated. [/B]

I remember looking at your chart and not seeing how you can claim this. Maybe I didn't understand it. It's only discussing poverty threshold. (A-1, right?) Well, again, you have to control for inflation. If the poverty line today 18,000 dollars for a family of X (or whatever), this doesn't mean they're rich by comparison to a similar family in the early 70s making $5,000. They're the same. Calculating rates of poverty need to be revamped regardless.

I'm not sure what to say on that company, or what it proves. The executives have taken pay cuts (and the workers will pay higher premiums).


_____________________________

But that only proves you can manipulate statistics to show whatever you want. Take a look at the method used to calculate the human development index and you will see that the method of calculation has at least as much impact on ranking as the raw data.

Of course if they changed the method it would have a strong impact. If they put greater value on per capita GDP and less emphasis on mortality rates, then the United States would rank comparitively higher. All indices are open to this criticism. Nonetheless, it's still a fair, in my opinion, approximation (unless you care to disagree with any standard of their's you find absurd).

 

[Diezel]

The article said people are working longer, right? We do not disagree with that fact, right? We can therefore agree that the poor had a hand in wealth creation, right? Wages have stagnated since 1973. Even up until the 90s wages were below 1979 levels (in spite of Clinton's much touted economic expansion. We can even account for non-wage benefits, where people today have to pay more and more for healthcare). Compare this to the income and wealth of the top 1%, which has surged. Simply sky-rocketed.

We should compare the situtation with other first world countries in the industrialized world. It's not exactly a great scenario.

Can you cite references in your stats above? Everything I have seen shows wages going up across the board. Also, what most of these articles that refer to these stats in the fashion you have forget to mention is that inflation has been stagnant throughout much of that period.

Again, buying power is a much better indication of the state of personal economy.

It doesn't have to perfectly equal -- that's practically impossible. I'm only saying that working people on the lowest end of the spectrum have received the tiniest sliver.

And I am saying the working people on the lowest end of the spectrum have also contributed the tiniest sliver.

This is apples to oranges again and eludes my point.

No, it directly addresses your point. You have stated twice now that it isn’t fair that the lowest wage earners aren’t getting their “fair share”. You have side-stepped the issue of what that “fair share” is, so I have asked a direct question on what you feel is fair. Since you feel a person should get a share for their contribution to the wealth in this country, I assume you feel they should receive a share that is equal to their share of contribution.

Or do you feel they deserve a share that is more than their share of contribution?

Certainly... but I do not see the word "equal" here. You insisted on equal opportunity, right?

Ok, then place “equal” in front of all my opportunities. I still feel the same. I will be first to admit that it won’t be as easy for some people, but you there is nothing you can do about that, nor should there be.

If you happen to read Fast Company, check out the cover story for Nov, 2003, about Russell Simmons. This is a person, while growing up, that most people would be screaming that he “didn’t have the same opportunities” that everyone else did. If you don’t know who he is, let’s just say he has done pretty good for himself.

Yes, I think deserved sounds more appropriate I have no golden ratio in mind. This is just an effort to mitigate the social and economic inequalities of capitalism. If you really must know, I'd like to abolish the system altogether, but a good liberal-capitalist moral principle, if you insist, can be found in political philosopher John Rawls: Income should be distributed in a way that's most favorable to the least advantaged.

Most people I know reflexively agree with that in principle (as a value). How to achieve it is another matter. I am perfectly willing to accept that we have different means to accomplish the same goals. This Rawlsian principle -- one of his famous two principles of justice -- is consistent, for instance, with Reagan's tax cut on the very, very wealthy because benefits trickle down. We can disagree as an empirical matter. But if you're arguing -- and some sentences suggest this -- that whatever the market decides is right, then I reject that view entirely.

I hope this is not too confusing or badly worded because I'm in a hurry.

Don’t worry, I have yet to meet a person with your beliefs that has been able to answer that question.

Here’s the thing – while a lot of people think the system is unfair and think it should be changed, nobody has found a better system. Sure, the system isn’t perfect, but it does work, which is something that can’t be said for most others.

Nobody can answer the question, because it is unanswerable. You obviously know that “All slices should be equal” is a bad answer, yet you don’t like the system as it is. So your only answer is “somewhere between the way it is now and equal”, which, of course, is no answer at all.

As for John Rawls, I am not familiar with him. But it must be explained why he believes it should be distributed to the least advantaged (other than it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling to think that way) and exactly who he thinks the “least advantaged” are.

Actually, it really wouldn’t matter to me much (although I am interested in finding out those answers), because I noticed those two familiar words – income distribution. I’ve studied almost all of them and almost all of them fail. The main reason is that almost all of them go against human nature (the big reason Communism looks great on paper and the big thing Marx didn’t take into the equation.)

What do you mean "buying power"? No, that goes back to inflation.

No, not entirely. This is a pet peeve of mine that I see often. Too many people think inflation is the only factor in cost of living. It is not.

Look at the electronics market. For $200 bucks, I might have been able to buy a black and white, 13” TV 30 years ago. Now, for $200, I can buy a 27” color TV. Hell, it may even have a VCR thrown in. Inflation has nothing to do with that. My $200 has more buying power now than it did then.

Look at the price of gas. Even at the higher prices of today (around $1.60/gallon around here), gas is still cheaper today than it has been in 50 years.

Buying power is usually calculated on how many hours you need to work in order to afford [X].

I disagree that it's "useless" but I'll emphatically state that it's inconclusive. San Franciso to a mid-west town is a good comparison (because of housing prices in the Bay Area). Or we could compare Chicago to Tokoyo. But I don't think comparisons to the United States today to thirty years ago is all THAT bad.

I think you may have worded this wrong, but I think I understand your intention. But you have missed my point, the article didn’t compare incomes in the US to the US. The only mention (that I have seen) was that “the poor, in real terms, are poorer.” That is not an income comparison. The only income comparison was the direct comparison between the US and Sweden.

Again, as far as I know economists make simillar comparisons between income all the time. They're not useless.

Yes, economists will make similar comparisons, but they will do so in a context that is proper. My statement that it is useless is based on the fact that, in the context the author used this comparison, the data means nothing.

I remember looking at your chart and not seeing how you can claim this. Maybe I didn't understand it. It's only discussing poverty threshold. (A-1, right?) Well, again, you have to control for inflation. If the poverty line today 18,000 dollars for a family of X (or whatever), this doesn't mean they're rich by comparison to a similar family in the early 70s making $5,000. They're the same. Calculating rates of poverty need to be revamped regardless.

Actually, I was referring to the other charts that I mentioned previously, where I posted the topics from the table of contents, where it shows poverty is decreasing everywhere.

And sure, they can restructure the poverty level, but it will take another 10-20 years for that new standard to mean anything. And if they do, they should base it on buying power, expendable income, etc…

I'm not sure what to say on that company, or what it proves. The executives have taken pay cuts (and the workers will pay higher premiums).

According to many people that hold your same views, what happened at Compuware can never happen. But it did. If you look at who got cut, it was all the executives and the high paid workers. You notice that none of the lower paid workers took any cut at all, other than the medical premiums, which were across the board. The CEO took a 69% pay-cut himself!

What I was trying to show is that, while the huge layoffs and “screw the workers” scenarios get played out in the news all the time, things like this happen also. Compuware decided that it would rather piss off their high paid workers and have them take a pay-cut, then layoff all the lower end workers. According to many, this happening is as impossible as perpetual motion.

 

[Cain]

Can you cite references in your stats above? Everything I have seen shows wages going up across the board. Also, what most of these articles that refer to these stats in the fashion you have forget to mention is that inflation has been stagnant throughout much of that period.

See Paul Krugman's _Peddling Prosperity_ (published in 1994, I believe). In the later part of the 90s wage levels finally surpassed 1979, but were still below 1973 levels (controlling for inflation, of course).

No, it directly addresses your point. You have stated twice now that it isn’t fair that the lowest wage earners aren’t getting their “fair share”. You have side-stepped the issue of what that “fair share” is, so I have asked a direct question on what you feel is fair. Since you feel a person should get a share for their contribution to the wealth in this country, I assume you feel they should receive a share that is equal to their share of contribution.

Or do you feel they deserve a share that is more than their share of contribution?

I'm not sure what you're interested in or how many times I have to repeat it. People work longer now. Two-hundred or so more hours a year. Now, in the "boom" times (late 90s, early 2000) wages for the lower end of the spectrum remained flat. That is to say they didn't share in this prosperity -- which they're undeniably responsible for helping to create.

Ok, then place “equal” in front of all my opportunities. I still feel the same. I will be first to admit that it won’t be as easy for some people, but you there is nothing you can do about that, nor should there be.

But that's demonstrably false because it's not equal.

Here’s the thing – while a lot of people think the system is unfair and think it should be changed, nobody has found a better system. Sure, the system isn’t perfect, but it does work, which is something that can’t be said for most others.

Nobody can answer the question, because it is unanswerable. You obviously know that “All slices should be equal” is a bad answer, yet you don’t like the system as it is. So your only answer is “somewhere between the way it is now and equal”, which, of course, is no answer at all.

No, the problem is that you're seemingly looking for a specific, exact answer, and that's impossible and proves nothing. What's more, as I already implied, it's difficult -- if not impossible -- to finger a "fair" distribution in a *fundamentally* unfair system.

As for John Rawls, I am not familiar with him. But it must be explained why he believes it should be distributed to the least advantaged (other than it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling to think that way) and exactly who he thinks the “least advantaged” are.

John Rawls, the most important political philosopher since J.S. Mill, has written an entire book called the _Theory of Justice_ elaborating the underlying principles. Without straying any further, he uses the concept of the "veil of ignorance" to adduce the principle above. This scenario asks us to imagine that we are going to create a just society, but we're unaware of our characteristics. We don't know if we'll be smart, dumb, poor, rich, black, white, male, female, etc. Under these imaginary conditions, we figure that it would be wise (and against our self-interest) not to create a society that oppresses black people because we might be black. Or one that oppresses women (because you might be a woman). It's easy to see why people would want to create a society that adopts policies benefiting the least advantaged.

Look at the electronics market.

That's deflation.

the only mention (that I have seen) was that “the poor, in real terms, are poorer.”

Then you're misread it: "the very poor earn even less in real terms than they did then, and the largest share of the increase went to the richest Americans."

It's not saying that the poor are poorer.

Actually, I was referring to the other charts that I mentioned previously, where I posted the topics from the table of contents, where it shows poverty is decreasing everywhere.

So you were referring to this:

Poverty
4.1 Poverty for Most Races Has Declined Since 1959 ............................................................................................................. 45

In my previous objection I said the article starts from 1973, a high point in the business cycle (the scholarly practice is to compare peaks). 1959, which is before the publication of Michael Harrington's _The Other America_, the book that caused policy makers to focus on poverty (Great society)... so, yeah, of course poverty is down since then. But we're not even talking about that. We're talking about wages. (Shanek fondly, and repeatedly, posts a chart "proving" that government programs had the unintended effect of halting progress against poverty, even creating more of it). Simply stated, 1959 is inappropriate for comparison.

According to many people that hold your same views, what happened at Compuware can never happen. But it did. If you look at who got cut, it was all the executives and the high paid workers. You notice that none of the lower paid workers took any cut at all, other than the medical premiums, which were across the board. The CEO took a 69% pay-cut himself!

Again, I'm not impressed How fast did the CEO's pay accelerate until now? What about the workers? Most of their compensation comes in the form of stocks anyway.

 

[DrChinese]

When I was doing corporate law, I was expected to bill at a minimum 1800 hours a year.

Some lawyers could bill that many in a summer.

(Har har har)

 

[DrChinese]

As I understood it, the French government gave tax incentives to reduce the work week, hoping that business would add jobs to make up for the reduced hours per employee.

The French corporations - naturally - pocketed the tax savings and did very little new hiring. For them it was a win-win, but the government is not looking too sharp since their net tax receipts dropped by billions of dollars.

 

[kittynh]

Well, nothing like all these wonderful devices for adding in the hours! Home computers, Blueberries, cell phones. I've been with Pool Boy driving to the airport and he's been on his 2 cell phones - one for International, one domestic. While waiting in the airport he's emailing, and basically keeping up with everything. He can't get away from work. Add that to his Navy Reserve work, and he barely has time to clean his thong and make me tropical drinks!

Things keep getting invented that are supposed to save us time, but instead are just another way to get us to work at home and even in the car.

The French work week makes problems for American companies that have offices there. The concept of "let's work until it's finished" doesn't go. When it comes to important conversion work that has to be done while the stores are closed...PoolBoy brings in Belgiums, Italians, Portugese, Germans - anyone but a Frenchman!

But yes, we work too much, but technology makes it possible....

 

[Diezel]

I haven't abandoned this thread, I just haven't had time to post any full responses (they tend to be long in this thread.) I will try to respond this weekend.