Ray Jay wrote:
http://www.toplst.com/the-10-top-invent ... centuries/

Do you actually realise how many of those 10 from the C20th benefitted or were even born through the 'meddling' of governments? Or involved unionised labour?

rickyp wrote:Geo, I guess Ray makes my point about Unions not getting credit?

Indeed!

geojanes wrote:

rickyp wrote:Geo, I guess Ray makes my point about Unions not getting credit?

Indeed!

Ray Jay:

P.S. Yes, there were many improvements from 1890 through about 1950.

I left out the words "from unions" in my P.S. My point is that there were some improvements as a result of unions until about the 1950's. However in modern times they have not been a productive force. Overall, our abundance is the result of capitalism and not the result of organized labor.

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/327/two-in-five-single-mother-families-are-poor

Rather than bantering about unions and the like, we could begin to look at the causes for poverty.

I offer the chart linked. Single motherhood gives a higher probability of poverty.

This forum is titled Income equality. What is causing the inequality? Could it be brought about from personal decisions? I know not everyone who is poor brought it upon themselves.

I want to know what people think the causes of poverty are. Try to not denigrate what others say, but just provide reasons.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:
http://www.toplst.com/the-10-top-invent ... centuries/

Do you actually realise how many of those 10 from the C20th benefitted or were even born through the 'meddling' of governments? Or involved unionised labour?

Benefitted, yes; born through, probably not so many. There's a lot more to the value of an invention then some initial research on the part of the government. It's the diffusion of those benefits to most of our everyday lives that is courtesy of capitalism.

Dan:

Also, it is not the 4/5 who profit most (and so who should be bearing the true costs), but the 1% (or whatever proportion the super-rich are). They love it when the middle class blame the poor or measures to mitigate poverty, because such false-conciousness diverts attention from what is really going on.

No, the 4/5ths benefit tremendously. The 4/5ths have phones (often smart ones), refrigerators, TV's, often cars, tons of food, life expectancies up to their 70's or 80's, computers, etc. Someone in today's 80th percentile has access to more education, more material goods, better clothing, more freedom, better hygiene, more nutrition, a longer life expectancy, etc. than someone in the top 1% of those born in 1890

Ray Jay wrote:Benefitted, yes; born through, probably not so many. There's a lot more to the value of an invention then some initial research on the part of the government. It's the diffusion of those benefits to most of our everyday lives that is courtesy of capitalism.

Hmm. I'm going to go through all 10, and let's see where we are:

1) Radio.

Actually the link is incorrect (as it claims to list inventions from 1 Jan 1901-31 Dec 2000 as C20th). Marconi patented his radio wave transmission/reception in 1896, and was producing wireless sets by 1898 - he was also able to buy out Edison patents from the 1880s. His initial work was sponsored by the GPO (Post Office).

However, on the 'diffusion' of them - Marconi and other radio pioneers originally started out as private innovators, but governments got involved early on to use them (creating stimulus demand) and promote them. Thus, the early uses of radio for military purposes were soon recognised, and it was used in the Russo-Japanese war and extensively in WWI, several years before commercial radio broadcasts started. In the UK, the first real radio broadcasts were by the BBC, then a joint concern between the Post Office and radio companies including Marconi.

While America may have seen radio expansion as primarily commercial, it was not that way everywhere

2) Internet.

Born from ARPANET (set up by the US DARPA Defence research agency, and then built up with connections to academic and computing companies, finally linking up with the networks in other countries (again, largely defence/comms/academic), the development of the core infrastructure relied on government sponsorship. Also, the expansion in the 1980s was sponsored by government (the bit of the Internet that Al Gore was able to claim credit for, even if he overstated it).

The real boost for the Internet came with the invention of the World Wide Web by Tim Berners-Lee. A government funded scientist who was working at CERN, who developed it as a side project for information sharing. Again, it propagated via government, academic and comms company networks - and remember that many communication companies outside the USA are (or were at the time) state-owned.

3) Television

Initially developed out of Cathode Ray research, culminating in Philo Farnsworth's version. The first widespread broadcasting of electronic television was by the BBC.

4) Antibiotics.

When it comes to the history of Penicillin, it is often forgotten that one of the first people who Fleming got to work on developing it was Charles Thom, who worked for the USDA. He developed the means to produce decent quantities of penicillin.

Antibiotics really took off when it was used for mass treatment. The US government soon funded development of it for use in the Armed Forces, and that's how Andrew Moyer got involved, increasing production yields (again with the USDA) for use in WWII. And then post-war, the government sponsored research and programmes to eradicate simple bacterial diseases saw a truly co-ordinated effort to apply antibiotics.

5) The submarine.

Again technically the article is wrong, because the first proper submarines date back to the 1860s (with the US navy having their first commissioned submarine in 1900, just before their window).

The majority of the world's submarines are military (ie: government). The development of submarines has been led by navies across the globe, from the French navy's Plongeur through to modern developments. The idea that this has been 'diffused' by commercial means to the rest of us is risible.

6) Rocketry

Goddard was funded by the Smithsonian (US government). German amateur rocketry pioneers only got anywhere when the Army took interest in 1930. Glushko worked in Soviet state academia. The US space programme, as we know, was based on US military research using German technology. The main imperatives to rocketry research were military and for space travel, the former totally driven by governments, and the latter almost exclusively until only quite recently. Apart from hobbyists and a small number of private space ventures, rockets remain primarily a government concern.

7) Automobile.

Again the article is wrong on dates - the automobile dates back to 1886 with Benz, and by the 1890s Daimlers were being produced. By 1897 there were proper factories.

Indeed cars are very much a private success story. But one that would be nowhere without the 'interference' of governments upgrading existing roads and building entire networks. It also received a massive boost from military applications and demand

8) Airplane.

Like radio, submarines and the automobile, WWI provided a major boost to the use of aircraft, due to the military applications. But yes, commercial air travel is dominant now, and much of the development outside of wartime has been privately based.

9) Personal Computer

A lot of people go back to Apple for the PC, but the history is older than that. Italian company Olivetti developed the first typewriter sized computers in the 1960s, with NASA being one of the first customers. The "Mother of All Demos" by Englebart was funded largely by DARPA and NASA. Of course, they are largely a result of private development and expansion

10) Nuclear Power

Would be nothing without large scale government research, investment and continuing subsidies.

So, three are not actually twentieth century, but let's count them anyway. I'll give you automobiles, aeroplanes, PCs and TV (the last of those is more borderline). The others all owe more than a little to government. Three (rocketry, nuclear power, submarine) are pretty much not a result of any real capitalist action at all.

As for unions... well, most of these rely on mass production, and mass production means an organised workforce. If anything, they created unions, and unions actually enable a workforce to work together with a responsible management to avoid conflict and represent the people who actually do the hard work of production.

No, the 4/5ths benefit tremendously. The 4/5ths have phones (often smart ones), refrigerators, TV's, often cars, tons of food, life expectancies up to their 70's or 80's, computers, etc. Someone in today's 80th percentile has access to more education, more material goods, better clothing, more freedom, better hygiene, more nutrition, a longer life expectancy, etc. than someone in the top 1% of those born in 1890

That is progress. But if you think it is entirely down to capitalism, and in spite of organised labour or governments, then you are right about there being an ideological slant here.

I would say they have all played their part, along with human ingenuity which would be there regardless of systems (and which I believe to be the prime reason).

And just because we are better off than our great-grandparents does not mean that we are not being fleeced - we are much more productive than they were as well.

bbauska wrote:http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/327/two-in-five-single-mother-families-are-poor

Rather than bantering about unions and the like, we could begin to look at the causes for poverty.

I offer the chart linked. Single motherhood gives a higher probability of poverty.

This forum is titled Income inequality. What is causing the inequality? Could it be brought about from personal decisions? I know not everyone who is poor brought it upon themselves.

I want to know what people think the causes of poverty are. Try to not denigrate what others say, but just provide reasons.

Thanks for trying to elevate the discussion. I think you are right.

For another reason, I highly recommend the movie Waiting for Superman ... it was put together by a guy whose previous documentary is very sympathetic to good teachers. However, his conclusion in this documentary is that education in U.S. cities profoundly suffers from tenured teachers who are of very poor quality. There are a few good teachers, but the system has no good way to get rid of bad teachers who infect the system. Parents are desperately trying to get their kids in to charter schools but there aren't enough spots. The teacher unions perpetuate this system by enforcing tenure and limiting funding to charter schools every chance they get.

bbauska

This forum is titled Income inequality. What is causing the inequality? Could it be brought about from personal decisions? I know not everyone who is poor brought it upon themselves

50 million people in the US are not poor just because of bad personal decisions.
And the portion of people living in poverty in the US is greater than in say Sweden...
So the Swedes just make better personal decisions?

Ray

Thanks for trying to elevate the discussion. I think you are right.

Really? Its all down to personal decisions now?

The link below takes you to an interesting examination of the "low wage social contract". This essentially describes the theory that most people in service industries (86% of US work force) will be paid low wages. And in part their life will be benefitted by low prices, low taxes and some social benefits.
Trouble is that costs for health care, and education have run away and that has destroyed the low wage/ low cost equation.For a time debt financed an allusion that this was working but then 08 happened... (The shrinking middle class and the stressed working class are thus formed.)
The Social Democratic system would be high wages, high taxes, high costs and high benefits. It seems to have worked well in the Nordic nations, but has problems inherent in dealing with globalization ...
By the way, Unions drove high wages......

http://www.newamerica.net/sites/newamer ... 2013_1.pdf

By the way, a point to be made about "inventions contributing to wealth and a healthy middle class... If 86% of the work force is now in service industries, and most of them in final delivery of service, the benefits of productivity through invention will not greatly accrue to them.

Ricky:

Really? Its all down to personal decisions now?

No one said that it is ALL down to personal decisions.

Ricky:

This essentially describes the theory that most people in service industries (86% of US work force) will be paid low wages.

Like lawyers, doctors, accountants, middle managers, salespeople, actuaries, computer programmers ...

Ray Jay wrote:

geojanes wrote:

rickyp wrote:Geo, I guess Ray makes my point about Unions not getting credit?

Indeed!

Ray Jay:

P.S. Yes, there were many improvements from 1890 through about 1950.

I left out the words "from unions" in my P.S. My point is that there were some improvements as a result of unions until about the 1950's. However in modern times they have not been a productive force. Overall, our abundance is the result of capitalism and not the result of organized labor.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

RickyP,
Try to read what I said again. I did not say ALL poverty is caused by personal decisions. I gave a chart based upon fact that shows single motherhood is an indicator of poverty, NOT ALL 50 MILLION.

That is a bit of a reach. I asked for what you thought the causes were, and you show Sweden.

Do you think personal decision can have an effect on a person being in poverty?

bbauska

RickyP,
Try to read what I said again. I did not say ALL poverty is caused by personal decisions. I gave a chart based upon fact that shows single motherhood is an indicator of poverty, NOT ALL 50 MILLION.

That is a bit of a reach. I asked for what you thought the causes were, and you show Sweden.

Do you think personal decision can have an effect on a person being in poverty?

I read what you wrote. And essentially you're ignoring everything that has been presented about how the middle class evolved through the last century, and you're interested in setting aside the discussion on minimum wage, exploitative labor laws, inefficient government social mechanisms and focus on finding a way to blame the poor for being poor again. (Elstwise why are you not engaged on any of the ideas presented directly?)
Sure, single mothers tend to be poor. They also tend to have poor educations and very little access to public health or awareness of personal health options or inexpensive birth control.
And none, or very little, of that is directly their fault.
its also not their fault that often the sex education they are provided is inadequate or confusing...

Young women have been getting pregnant forever. because young people have always made bad choices.
The rates of teen age pregnancies go down when the teens have had a thorough education in matters sexual. (They also engage in premarital sex less by the way.)
If you want to break the cycle of teen age pregnancy educate, educate educate and provide free access to birth control.
If you think that would make a major impact on poverty, ok.
I think it would contribute some, and certainly cut down on social spending for the teen aged moms.

However in past discussion you've been uncomfortable with sex education from anyone but parents.... Who, as a group, have done a bang up job for centuries ....

I think about this topic a lot. The lot people have in life is due to a myriad of factors: people make crappy decisions, over and over, they have parents that make crappy decisions, they have crappy educational opportunities, they are socially isolated, and many have difficulty integrating into social life outside the underclass to which they belong. Illness--physical and/or mental—can have something to do with people’s lot in life, as well as really bad luck.

There are many ways these cycles reinforce themselves and you just can’t throw money at the problem and think you’ll solve anything. Socially, we have to throw some amount of money at it, but with the knowledge that that aid only goes so far and does little to break the cycle: in essence aid gives people the fish, but doesn't teach them how to fish.

What does work? Education is huge. Employment is even bigger. While I completely get why people want to raise the minimum wage, for some minority of folks it should be half or even less than what it is now, just to get certain people working, and learning the basic skills of getting up in the morning and getting to work on time. Don’t underestimate the importance of these skills, and that some people, adults, still need to learn them. Our solutions are not great, but we try, we have debates like this one. While we may disagree on the right solution, when we see a fellow American break that cycle and improve their life, we all feel good about that. There are some cultures where class mobility is not as welcome.

But where we really fail as a society is how we prey upon the poorest and most vulnerable among us. As I said earlier, the government does it with lotteries, casinos, and high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, and an extremely punitive justice system. But more than government, one in three Americans don’t have a bank account, and every time they cash a check, write a check (money order) they have to pay. It’s really, really expensive to be poor in America and the poorest among us have been yoked to a plow that makes money for others, money that people who have money generally don’t have to pay. It’s a shame, because it would be relatively easy to protect these most vulnerable, but there are too many powerful interests who just want to keep the status quo.

Oh, and American Express, with a business that largely does not have anything to do with making money off the backs of the poorest, funded the development of a documentary that shows how the unbanked are so very screwed in America.

http://www.spentmovie.com/

You only have to watch the trailer to get the idea.

I have no illusions why they did this: they're trying to the raise awareness of how many other financial institutions make their money, to increase the status of their own institution. But whatever their motivation, they certainly got it right.