Quote:
|
Originally Posted by anomaly These figures, do they account for inflation? And the 'average' household income could be affected by extremely high salaries, plenty of which existed. In 1990, the worker salary to CEO slary ratio was 1:90, in 2000 it was 1:425. Relative to their employers, workers' salaries have not increased in the least. But, yes, as for those figures, you have to account for inflation, which rises steadily, and also the outliers if you're measuring an average, since CEO's salaries grew throughout the 90's. The median is much more accurate as far as actual workers' salary growth, and these numbers (this is the rise by 12%, I assume) haven't increased much beyond the inflation rate over the decade. |
Did you even read the numbers I posted a link to? It lists the figures in real dollars, as well as 2002 dollars, which means that inflation WAS counted for.
You're right that the median is a better system than the mean to look at average family income. How are you going to tell me that increasing the average families median wealth by 12% BEYOND inflation is not a booming economy?
And you're right, the capitalist system failed in 1920. For one year. 85 years ago. And it hasn't happened again since.
You're right that capitalism can't survive without government intervention. The amount we have right now is more than enough. There needs to be some basic intervention, but socialism is NOT the answer.
Much of Europe currently practices a form of socialism, and enjoys a robust 1% GDP yearly increase, as compared to our 3.5%, China's 10%, and India's 20%.
There's no point trying to prove any of this to you though. I deal daily with anarchists, anti-capitalists, socialists and communists, and despite a failure rate of 100% and no economic data to back up their theories, they keep on plugging along, not acknowledging pesky things like facts.