Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

AbusesToilets wrote: »

American workers earned more in real money terms decades ago. Read a post elsewhere from an engineer, who relayed his experience. Worked in a factory as a laborer in his 20s, earning $20 per hour. Cut to present time, working as a engineer, electrical iirc, in a management position, earning $15 per hour.

Between suppressed wages and the devaluation of the Dollar, that isn't an uncommon situation. How can anyone think it's an acceptable state of affairs is beyond me.

Right, so this was initially intended as throwing up a few quick numbers but kind... well it kind of got out of hand.

Before even taking productivity into account, this is what a minimum wage, median, and some higher paid workers would have earned before and after tax (only including federal tax here) per decade since 1950, as well as someone on $250k equivalent and someone on $2.5mn equivalent. I have also included a quick commentary on changes and developments over this time.

1950 (min wage 75c = $8.83 in 2020, 37.5hrs by 52 weeks = 1950hrs/yr)
Min wage: $16,048 / $12,844 (after tax of 20%)
Median: $36,225 / $28,695 (after tax of 20.78%)
$22,774: $250,000 (in 2020 money) / $152,993 (after tax of 38.79%)
$227,739: $2,500,000 (in 2020 money) / $501,419 (after tax of 79.94%)

The typical 1950 min wage worker after federal income tax had $12,844 2020 dollars left, the median worker had $28,695 in 2020 dollars, someone on the same as $250k today would have taken home $153,993 and someone on the equivalent of $2.5mn would have taken home $501,419 - being taxed just a fraction shy of 80% of their total income due to the US having upper tax brackets in the 80-91% range.

1960 (min wage $1 = $8.80)
Min wage: $17,160 / $13,735 (taxed 20%)
Median: $49,305 / $38,598 (taxed 21.42%)
$28,395: $250,000 / $142,368 (taxed 43.05%)
$283,947: $2,500,000 / $446,695 (taxed 82.13%)

By 1960, in the midst of America's 'golden age', taxes on the higher earners had increased even higher again, while median and min wage taxes had kept more or less static. The everyday American was benefitting more than the highly wealthy ones, as was in keeping with 'The American Dream' (the person who coined said term often having derisory comments to make about Europe's "haves and have nots").

GDP from the 1950 to 1960 had increased by just over 30%, the median workers income after tax by 34.5%, the min wage worker's by 7%, the 250k workers having actually gone down by -7%, and the 2.5mn workers having gone down by -11.8%.

---

1970 (min wage $1.30 = $8.87)
Min wage: $17,297 / $ 14,489 (taxed 16.24%)
Median: $67,358 / $52,659 (taxed 21.82%)
$36,632: $250,000 / $149,282 (taxed 40.29%)
$366,320: $2,500,000 / $849,025 (taxed 66.04%)

By 1970, taxes for the median worker remained quite static, while they went down for the min wage worker by 3.74%. The 250k worker saw a slight drop to of 2.7% (though still above their 1950 levels), and the extravagant $2.5mn worker saw theirs drop by a massive 16% - though this person would still pay almost 2/3rds of their income in federal tax.

Per capita GDP had increased from 1960 to 1970 by 32%, the min workers salary after federal tax by 5.5%, the medial workers by 36.5%, the 250k workers by 5%, and the 2.5mn workers' by a whopping 90%.

---

1980 (min wage $3.20 = $10.28)
Min wage: $20,046 / $18,021 (taxed 10.1%)
Median: $78,028 / $60,189 (taxed 22.87%)
$75,397: $250,000 / $138,449 (taxed 44.62%)
$753,960: $2,500,000 / $816,690 (taxed 67.33%)

The period leading into 1980 may have been a bit of a high point in terms of parity, and was an unquestioned high in the post federal tax earnings of the low income and average American.

Per capita GDP had slowed, but still increased by 16%. The min wage worker actually outstretched this for the first period since 1950 - going up by 24.5% after federal tax. The median worker lagged behind it for the first time, though only marginally at 14.3%, while increases in upper tax brackets saw the $250k worker down by 9% and the $2.5mn worker down by 3.8%.

This was also immediately before Reaganomics was to be adopted...

---

1990 (min wage $3.35 = $6.78)
Min wage: $13,221 / $11,238 (taxed 15%)
Median: $55,407 / $45,013 (taxed 18.76%)
$123,463: $250,000 / $167,402 (taxed 25.95%)
$1,234,635: $2,500,000 / $1,805,121 (taxed 37.80%)

Per capita GDP over the 1980s only improved by 17%, basically as much as during the 1970s. However during this time, the post federal tax earnings of the min wage worker absolutely plummeted by over -37.5%, the single biggest drop seen in any bracket to this period and followed behind by a -25.2% drop for the median worker - which also happened during this same decade. During this same period, the 250k earner saw the second highest single increase above per capita GDP levels at a whopping 38.1%, bested only by a the 1970 increase for 2.5mb workers and a 121% increase for the average $2.5mn earner which occurred in this same decade.

The U-turn is simply stunning, and appears to have been the point that really saw the death knell of the 'American Dream'. Nevertheless, Americans scoffed at the idea of returning to higher tax rates and 1984 as well as 1988 saw candidates proposing those ideas crushed in historic fashion against Reagan's second run, and his VP Bush Snr. Because of this, the Democrats shifted away from such policies and candidates, and more towards the 'Clinton era' New Democrats who had more striking similarities to the mindset of Reaganism in many respects, because America flat out refused to consider anything else.

It is fair to say that American sold out it's future for a quick buck here, celebrating cheaper costs and moving from identifying as a nation of workers to a nation of consumers. This period also seeing the promotion of big business that governments of decades past had fought so hard to stop from emerging as they gave those in control of them too much power over the workers, and had believed would lead to a situation antithetical to what America had considered itself to be.

---

2000 (min wage $5.15 = $7.87)
Min wage: $13,221 / $15,346 (taxed 15%)
Median: $48,953 / $40,462 (taxed 17.34%)
$163,580: $250,000 / $163,032 (taxed 28.70%)
$1,635,843: $2,500,000 / $1,544,125 (taxed 38.23%)

In the wake of America's new economic outlook, per capita GDP did not improve to prior levels, and in fact slowed to 13.76% growth during the 1990s. In the lower brackets, the min wage worker did actually see a growth level above this figure (16.1%), though this was still a lot lower than any period prior to Reagan and was not too surprising coming from such a shockingly low floor. The median worker on the other hand, continued to struggle and saw a further drop of -10.1%.

One thing to hold in Clinton's defense however was the balancing of the budget that had gone out of control during the 1980s, leading to a budget surplus by the time he left office. This may also account as to why the 250k earner and the $2.5mn earner saw their taxes go up, and thus their income after federal taxes go down.

America had nonetheless completely rejected those willing to fight for the little guy, and so there was nobody there to do so for them. At this point, the battle was already lost.

This decade and thew following also saw huge growth in corporate mergers that would never have been allowed before the late 1970s (where 'big business' was seen as inherently anti-American, hence companies like Ford being broken up into 32 pieces and others like AT&T being forced to patent and share their transistor technology to all other NATO countries and companies who wanted to learn of it, which encouraged competition and quite directly led to the software revolution that has me typing this post on the internet today). With less companies to for workers to consider as potential employers, and unions crippled compared to where they were before, they had extremely diminished bargaining power, and so median incomes continued to plummet across the US.

But hey... the tax rates were lower! And after all, who wouldn't want to keep 85% of a 7" pizza rather than 77% of a 14 inch pizza, right? This, sadly, is the trick that Americans as a whole have consistently fallen for, while also becoming increasingly interested in making sure that the highest of earners get as much of their own pies as possible, in hopes of having a few crumbs and ends of crusts thrown in their direction at the end of it all.

---

2010 (min wage $7.25 = $8.63)
Min wage: $15,832 / $14,805 taxed 12.04%)
Median: $36,618 / $31,624 (taxed 13.64%)
$209,992: $250,000 / $165,846 (taxed 25.90%)
$2,099,916: $2,500,000 / $1,651,652 (taxed 33.93%)

Bush, 'nuff said really. We're probably all more familiar with this period, but just to drive it home - per capita GDP almost ground to a total halt, finishing up at just 4.4% higher in 2010 than where it was in 2000. $250k earners rose almost perfectly in line with this (3.9%), while the $2.5mn earner's income after federal tax increased above it at 7%.

Much like during Clinton's time the minimum wage earner finished above it also (+13.5%), though continued to earn about 20% less than their 1980 equivalents despite the constant growth in production. And median earners got flushed further down the toilet, finishing up taking home almost -22% less than they had in 1980. Of course, in the process the US also saw it's debt skyrocket as it had previously, and ended in the Great Recession.

By 2010, the median salary in the US after federal tax had been removed was half (48% decrease) that of what it was in 1980, while the take-home pay of the $2.5mn earner had slightly more than doubled (102% increase). The min wage worker was also down about 22%, while the $250k earner was up by about 35%.

All of this resulted in the 2008 financial crash, at the end of which the average person was told to foot most of the bill and very little action at all was taken for the shady issues that had led to this due to (as those from decades past had warned of, fought against and continuously prevented from happening) many of these companies were deemed "too big to fail", due to there being a lack of competitors to pick up the slack were they allowed to do so.

This decade was completed with the passing of the ironically named Citizens United, allowing large businesses and donors to basically stop pretending to be anything other than in almost utter control of government.

---

2020 (min wage $7.25 = $7.25)
Min wage: $15,347 / $13,698 (taxed 10.74%)
Median: $35,977 / $31,854 (taxed 11.46%)
$250k: $250,000 / $166,874 (taxed 25.08%)
$2.5mn: $2,500,000 / $1,610,013 (taxed 35.96%)

Per capita GDP growth again slowed, increasing only 1.68% over this decade. The median income bracket actually saw a minor reversal and at least earned a relative increase, though the damage had long since been done and this increase (0.73%) still lagged behind growth.

Minimum wage workers on the other hand got hammered in a way they have not since Reagan, and are hurtling back towards those levels of desperation. Failure to increase the minimum wage will lead to dire consequences across all of American society, but has been consistently fought against by Republicans in control of Congress (it had been proposed to increase to $10.10 as far back as 2013).

$250k earners increased slightly above median workers which continues to be a slap in the face, while $2.5mn earners saw a marginal decrease though remain twice as well off as they were in 1980, and about 3.5x as well off as they were in the 1950s and 1960s during the eras of 30%+ per capita GDP growth, while those on the bottom and median rungs flounder.

What we have seen in America particularly since the 1980s has been nothing short of disgusting, and yet is the very fault of the American people themselves.

One other thing to take into account is that Reaganism and all that followed after was supposed to built on the concept of lower costs - but since at least the early 2000s, costs of many essential goods such as food and rent have been rising noticeably above inflation levels, making these squeezes even harder on the min wage and median income earners whom they impact most.

Scarier again though is that rather than 108.9%, allowing for inflation that compensation line should read 53.4% when you allow for inflation (albeit using 1970 rrather than 1973).

Assuming productivity is based purely on economic output, applying the same inflation based on 1970 rates rather than 1973 would put it at a 165.8% increase.

So the top line would go up at a slightly lower incline, while the latter would plummet in a decline back to about where it is in the beginning of the graph (probably 1951).

serfboard wrote: »

Excellent and all as your analysis is, it only provides part of the income inequality story.

Look at things like Capital Gains Tax and Estate Tax to see how inequality in the US has soared since 1980.

The 40 years since then have seen massive giveaways to the rich with only minimal reversals by Democrats. It's no wonder people are so p1ssed off.

As for the Republicans, Trump was not an outlier - merely the latest in a long line of liars.

The greatest legacy of Reagan was convincing the Democrats of his policies.

The Democrats were originally of course the party of small government.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I appreciate the effort you put into that.

It, however, completely side-steps the question. I never said that a minimum wage is a bad thing. The question is "why should it be a nationwide $15 value," your national figures provide no rational basis for either regional numbers nor the actual value of that number.

The people who live in those Southern states obviously don't want it, so apparently we're down to the elected representatives of non-Southern states (Since we're talking about them, but I'm sure it applies to many flyovers as well) telling those states what's good for them.

In which case, why aren't they taking care of their own problems first? As I look, the minimum wage in California is currently $14/hour, it's been escalating to $15 from $10 since 2016. Cities can do more. San Francisco, one of the most expensive places in the world, has a minimum wage of $16.07, it just went up again. I guarantee you that if you believe $15/hr is inadequate for Arkansas, there's no way on God's green earth that it's adequate for California. The minimum wages in the Southern States (since we're talking about them, $8.75 for WV, $9.25 for Arkansas, $10.30 for Missouri) are already, on a relative basis, far better compared to cost of living for them than they are for the Northern/Western states, yet such an increase is going to have a disproportionate effect on the cheaper states. I don't see it doing much for the areas where the income/cost of living disparity is bigger.

Or maybe the local areas like San Francisco have it right, and $16.07 is correct for San Francisco right about now, in which case $15/hr is well overkill for Huntsville.

The correct answer is surely to tie minimum wage with buying power, that the standard of living at the lower end is roughly equal nationwide. That is, however, a bit impractical for a Federal law, but fortunately, the US has a system in place to address that, let the locals deal with their own problems and figure out what is appropriate in their own circumstances.

What evidence is there of this bit in bold? Apart from them being resistant to the concept of federal mandates?

Think the reason the federal government is paying attention to this now is that they are aware that it has been federally mandated in 14 years and that in many of the locals to which you are referring to, as well as others, it hasn't matched inflation over the last 20/30 years from what it was. This was neatly pointed out with a Republican senator who argued that as he worked for $6 an hour when in college. In the 70's. That would be over $20/hour today.
Link

He was a teenager in the 1970s. Earning $6 an hour back then is equivalent to earning more than $20 an hour today, because inflation has reduced the purchasing power of each dollar.

The median age of fast food workers in the US is 29 apparently. To suggest that your average person, at 29, could support themselves to have a meaningful quality of life on such income is just not realistic. Conservatives cannot have it both ways, they cannot both refuse to pay people a reasonable wage, and be so dead set against social welfare programs. Many of which are heavily utilised in red states where you argue there is no need to increase the wage.

Sorry, but anyone comparing a small town in West Virginia to San Francisco is either purposely ignoring a mountain of other issues at play or is, at best, being disingenuous in the comparison.

Just for completeness, the famed Huntington WV from the example has a population of just over 45,000 and roughly 25% of those people are living under the poverty line, so it's a bit rich for someone to start posting on boards.ie about how overkill it is to increase their minimum wage.

Oh, let's also let everyone know who the "small businesses" are that employ the vast majority of these people in Huntington: a public mediocre university and the hospital affiliated with it, a private Catholic hospital which is combining with the other hospital and a customer service centre from a little company called *checks notes* Amazon? (never heard of 'em)... Also the US army.

All just your typical mom and pop institutions struggling to get by.

Manach wrote: »

An interesting article from The Independent today on the mis-steps Mr. Biden's team has had this week on the diplomatic scene with Russia and China. While the paper does acknowledge the underlying American assertions about those two countries, too effectively blurt it out meant antagonising two of its near-peer rivals at once, which it stated in a back-handed complement is something Mr. Trump never managed. Summing up, not an impressive start.

Calling Putin a killer and saying he had no soul was inflammatory to say the least.

It gave Russia an open goal to point out the murderous past and present of US foreign policy, making Biden look like an idiot.

Manach wrote: »

An interesting article from The Independent today on the mis-steps Mr. Biden's team has had this week on the diplomatic scene with Russia and China. While the paper does acknowledge the underlying American assertions about those two countries, too effectively blurt it out meant antagonising two of its near-peer rivals at once, which it stated in a back-handed complement is something Mr. Trump never managed. Summing up, not an impressive start.

Biden & Blinken knew exactly what kinds of reactions their comments would have in Moscow and Beijing. Viewing them as "mis-steps" is entirely subjective. The intention was to draw a line under the past 4 years and recalibrate expectations of what the USA will and will broach with these countries.

Whatever about China, it would have been extremely difficult for Trump to antagonise Russia when he literally threw his own country under the bus, repeatedly, rather than say anything critical of Putin.