[Kooler] Unions (Was: Gnome / KDE / Any Linux desktop)

[Mike Marion]

Quoting Stewart Stremler <bofh at stremler.net>:

> > http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040105&s=krugman
>        
> Hmmm.... harsh.

And awfully slanted...

  America experienced what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert 
  Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing of income gaps, 
  probably as a result of New Deal policies

What?  New Deal policies?  Please.. I've read serveral economic articles that
not only say it wasn't these that helped the country recover from the
depression (it was the war, the massive new trained workforce that came from
that, and the rebuilding and such afterwards that gave the US it's huge
rebound), but that if anything, the New Deal programs likely prolonged the
depression and quite often hurt those it was supposed to help more then anyone
else.

  And the new economic order persisted for more than a generation: Strong 
  unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate profits and high incomes; close 
  public scrutiny of corporate management--all helped to keep income gaps 
  relatively small.

In other words, massive taxes and gov't controls that redistributed money were
supposedly what made income gaps small... sure, you keep taking far more from
someone that earns more and spread it amongst lower earners through programs
and such and you'll close that gap.  Though I don't agree that this is why
mobility was so high then.

  One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that  
  large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation.

Why is this always portrayed as some evil thing?  Hell, if I work my ass off
all my life and save up a nice nest egg, I should have the right to leave it
to my children (or anyone I want) without the gov't coming and taking a huge
chunk of it simply because they can.  I think the estate taxes are far more
immorral then a family leaving something to their children.  This is yet
another case of where something intended to penalize the rich tends to hurt
the small people far more in the long run anyway... people that do something
like start up a business and do well for themselves, then die.. and the
children can't possibly afford to pay the tax owed when the company is
transferred to them so it goes under.  Far more damage then taking a chunk of
money from a massively wealthy family.. which is all people for such taxes
tend to portray.

I note that there's absolutely no mention in the article, as to what people's
attitudes are and how they might be effecting the equation as well.  I don't
know if it's just me, but there seem to be a hell of a lot more people today
that seem to think that they're owed everything and won't work for what they
want then there were even just when I was younger.  Sure, that doesn't account
for the full change in the stats mentioned, but I'm betting it plays at least
some part in it.  Especially when you see that those who do still having
mobility just happen to usually be those that plan ahead, sacrifice when
needed, and work their asses off to get there.

Thomas Sowell has a few articles that touch on much of the same issues here,
especially the "rich" vs "poor" stuff and class warfare...

here are 2 of them:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030715.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030717.shtml

-- 
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Staff Engineer-http://www.miguelito.org
"If the government were to set technology standards," said Richard Diamond, a
spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, "we'd still be using
eight-track tapes right now."  ==> Article about the SSSCA/CBDTPA
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48567,00.html



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/