From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 11:22:46 MDT
Damien Sullivan wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 08:29:02AM -0700, Charles Hixson wrote:
>
>
>>Earlier this morning I was mentally comparing the tax structure, patent
>>laws, copyrights, and social conditions with those of the 1950s. We
>>have gone drastically downhill. The only gain (I admit it's a large
>>one) that I noticed was increased interracial justice. But there have
>>
>>
>Women, and men who like women not in traditional roles, might think there have
>been some improvements as well. Sexual revolution, women admitted more to
>technical colleges and jobs...
>
Those are social gains, I admit. But the costs have been tremendous.
My wife is a music teacher, and she reports that the ability of students
to learn is quite strongly related to whether or not the mother is
working (as other than a mother). Women who choose to be childless have
benefited a lot, and those who needed to escape an abusive
relationship. Otherwise, I'm not at all sure.
>Krugman traces a lot of socioeconomic relative decline to falling productivity
>growth rates. Productivity grew at about 3% in the fifties and sixties, and
>1% since then. I think the message was that Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages, and
>some similar analysis by Marx, were perfectly valid in the static equilibrium.
>The faster productivity grows, the farther we can get from that unpleasant
>state.
>-xx- Damien X-)
>
I think it has more to do with the changing distribution of wealth. It
seems to me that the proportion of the country's wealth controlled by
the top 1% of the population (in wealth) has more than doubled. And the
same, to a lesser degree, for the top 10%. But I must admit I don't
know anywhere to find reliable measures for this.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 11:30:00 MDT