Demand for employees could not be higher, eh? That must be why wages are going up; supply and demand, and all that. Except -- oops! -- they're not. Have you been unemployed in the past four years? I have, and I can assure you it's not an environment of "I'll quit my job if I don't like it because I can just get another one" out there.
If you can cite a source for that "double unemployment" claim, I'd be interested to hear it; according to our own Department of Labor, some "heavily socialized" countries have unemployment rates higher than ours, some lower; Sweden, possibly the most "heavily socialized" country in the world, is only a percentage point higher.
Capitalism is indeed a great thing, but it alone does not produce a high living standard for a broad population. The reason we have such a large and strong middle class in this country is not because of unfettered capitalism, but because we also had worker protections, the GI Bill, and antitrust laws, to name but a few. There's always room for discussion about an appropriate level of regulation, but the history of the robber baron era should demonstrate clearly that it can certainly "really go bad" at that end of the scale, too.
5.6% (2004 est.) is Sweden w/ a 3.6% (2004 est.) growth rate and a small population by any standard. purchasing power parity - $28,400 (2004 est.)
USA = purchasing power parity - $40,100 (2004 est.) 4.4% (2004 est.) growth rate.
That means the average american earns nearly double the average Sweden and that the growth in that income is almost a full point higher then the sweden.
Most of the "robber baron era" had there positions protected by contracts and laws they help create linking the government to their companies and protecting their monopolies. Thusly it was indeed the involvement of the government that aided in their power.
(no subject)
If you can cite a source for that "double unemployment" claim, I'd be interested to hear it; according to our own Department of Labor, some "heavily socialized" countries have unemployment rates higher than ours, some lower; Sweden, possibly the most "heavily socialized" country in the world, is only a percentage point higher.
Capitalism is indeed a great thing, but it alone does not produce a high living standard for a broad population. The reason we have such a large and strong middle class in this country is not because of unfettered capitalism, but because we also had worker protections, the GI Bill, and antitrust laws, to name but a few. There's always room for discussion about an appropriate level of regulation, but the history of the robber baron era should demonstrate clearly that it can certainly "really go bad" at that end of the scale, too.
(no subject)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ
5.6% (2004 est.) is Sweden w/ a 3.6% (2004 est.) growth rate and a small population by any standard.
purchasing power parity - $28,400 (2004 est.)
USA = purchasing power parity - $40,100 (2004 est.)
4.4% (2004 est.) growth rate.
That means the average american earns nearly double the average Sweden and that the growth in that income is almost a full point higher then the sweden.
Most of the "robber baron era" had there positions protected by contracts and laws they help create linking the government to their companies and protecting their monopolies. Thusly it was indeed the involvement of the government that aided in their power.