I believe someone recently contributing to this forum decried the fact that Architecture has fallen by the wayside, and that fewer folk were commissioning architects to design houses. I have combed thru the posts endlessly, but have not been able to find the relevant quotation.
In any event, my response to their observation is as follows:-
Architecture is, and always has been, the physical manifestation of the aspirations of a society.
In 1987, Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister at the time, wrote the epitaph for the decade when she declared that there is no such thing as society, just individual men and women and families. This was a philosophy shared by President Ronald Reagan.
If there is no such thing as society, there is far less need for Architecture, The West has embraced Margaret Thatcher’s philosophy, and as a consequence Architecture is now viewed as a commodity, to be bought and sold for maximum profit, and hence no different from hamburgers.
We can visit the cathedrals of Northern Europe, and learn what Medieval society believed. What of our time? What will our age have to show? Just a few gems. Folk living 700 years from now will only be able to discern that our age placed expediency before principle, and chose image rather than substance. It has lurched from the banalities of Walter Gropius to the absurdities of Frank Gehry.
In search of a lost post
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
It is my contention that dwellings for the non-rich (aka "vernacular" architecture) has always been built cheaply (and hence disposable) for the obvious reason of lack of resource availability of the owner. Thus, 500 years from now all traces of vernacular will have turned to dust and the only remaining structures will be the substantial architecture of the rich. These structures are then viewed as representative of the society for that time period. No, they are only representative of a small slice of the historic period.
As an extreme example, think of the shanty towns of Brazil. Are there any historical shacks that remain from 500 years ago that we can compare with today's version so that we can make our generalized comments regarding their society vs. our society?
Individuals who build, not to be confused with production builders, (using architects) do so for their individual reasons and reflect their individual needs, not those of society.
A large portion of the population needs shelter as opposed to architecture. No one "needs" architecture, but many individuals "want" architecture to fulfill some internal desire and increase their level of happiness.
Think of the apartment buildings built by the Soviets in Russia during the twentieth century. The "society" that built those endless look-alike communities that are ubiquitous and sadly non-individual.
I do not want the house that society would have me live in.
As an extreme example, think of the shanty towns of Brazil. Are there any historical shacks that remain from 500 years ago that we can compare with today's version so that we can make our generalized comments regarding their society vs. our society?
Individuals who build, not to be confused with production builders, (using architects) do so for their individual reasons and reflect their individual needs, not those of society.
A large portion of the population needs shelter as opposed to architecture. No one "needs" architecture, but many individuals "want" architecture to fulfill some internal desire and increase their level of happiness.
Think of the apartment buildings built by the Soviets in Russia during the twentieth century. The "society" that built those endless look-alike communities that are ubiquitous and sadly non-individual.
I do not want the house that society would have me live in.
I recently found the following discussion page, on which a number of (presumably) practicing architects discuss at length, and I think cogently, some portions of the question raised here:
http://network.aia.org/AIA/AIA/Discussi ... b67ca07c72
Then, on another site, one frequented by architects and students, we find this discussion, which also raises the question of architectural relevance and public vs professional concerns and values:
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads. ... 1_0_42_0_C
S
http://network.aia.org/AIA/AIA/Discussi ... b67ca07c72
Then, on another site, one frequented by architects and students, we find this discussion, which also raises the question of architectural relevance and public vs professional concerns and values:
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads. ... 1_0_42_0_C
S
The crux of your argument seems to be the inference
I could raise more questions, but the first remains the big one: how do you get from premise to conclusion?
I have no idea how this is supposed to follow. People have always needed buildings, and they still do. So you must mean something different by "Architecture" with a capital A - good architecture, presumably. I'm not aware that it's any more or less in demand than it ever was, as Ringstrom already pointed out. Nor am I aware that the (always miniscule) percentage of people commissioning architects to build their houses has changed much over the centuries. It may be down at the moment because of the world economy, and land-use restrictions make any building more expensive, but you seem to mean something longer range. What is that?If there is no such thing as society, there is far less need for Architecture
I could raise more questions, but the first remains the big one: how do you get from premise to conclusion?
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
I concur with Paul Ringstrom. Having been in practice designing houses for individual clients for some 44 years, I am unlikely to be an advocate for the social housing of Soviet Russia. It was never my intention to suggest such, nor to discourage individual choice and expression. Rather was to it advance possible reasons why Architecture is in decline in the Western countries at this time.
Mr Reidy:
As you note, people have always needed shelter, but it is important, as I am sure you will agree, not to confuse buildings with Architecture. As Bruce Goff stated, ‘Good building may be Architecture, but Architecture is always good building’.
Much of the built environment can be broadly characterized as folk building. The details are the base for all traditional construction, and they lead and are led by Architecture. Traditional folk building, such as one finds in an Italian hill town for example, is utilitarian and not self-conscious. Whereas folk building is concerned with the basic problems of providing shelter, Architecture has always been self-conscious building, with the practitioner seeking to express a concept, social, political or theological, in a harmonious manner.
The middle classes have always been the primary source of clients for architects working in the residential field. The poor never have the resources to commission such work, and the wealthy, with some very notable exceptions, build in revolting taste.
Currently the middle class is being diminished as a percentage of the population, most of those displaced joining the ranks of the poor. Consequently, the number of potential clients has declined.
This is part of a general malaise in Western countries, and whilst some of this can be attributed to the current economic conditions prevailing in such areas, the transition of economic and political power to Asia also has considerable bearing. Contrary to the assertion that the world economy is in the doldrums, Asia and Australia are booming. It is an error to consider that the world consists of the land masses between Washington State and the Caucasus.
In Medieval times in Europe, when the Church was all powerful, folk were concerned with saving their souls. People had a reason for living, and a reason for dying, Now, for a significant number of people in the Western countries, but less so in the U.S.A., science has destroyed that faith. Many, myself included, would consider that to not be a bad thing, but the diminution of a once powerful institution has resulted in a void in the lives of a mass of people.
A prosperous European medieval merchant would commission a market cross, a chantry chapel or some other public edifice, as a acknowledgement of the role played by the community within which he lived in supporting his business, and without whom he would not have been successful. Vestiges of this approach still persist in the U.S.A., but appear to be declining, and in other parts of the Western world are all but non-existent.
The Medieval concept of mutual dependence, its answer in the affirmative to the query of Cain in Genesis, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ is scarcely apparent in much of the Western world. It has been replaced by Margaret Thatcher’s concept that we are all individuals, each attempting to claw our way up over our contemporaries, by any means, fair or foul, and that it is every person for themselves. This philosophy defines individual greed as a virtue.
As always Architecture is affected by these political, economic and social movements. Previous eras and cultures have devoted their most valuable resources and labor to build public Architecture that expressed their values and beliefs. It is a paradox that much of the great Architecture of the past was designed and built during ages of tyranny, theocratic or political.
Architecture is, by definition, a social art. We in the Western world have yet to find a satisfactory way to combine the benefits of individual freedom, initiative and privacy with those of a sense of community, except in times of war. Until we do, our Architecture will continue to be characterized by the trivia generally exemplified during the previous 50-100 years.
In the absence of formal religion, I would suggest that the construction of significant buildings and works of art are sufficient reason for living. Their degree of permanence, so that future generations can learn of our toil and our highest values, a reason for dying. Our present epitaph may well be, ‘Their cult of extreme individualism, and their preoccupation with economics, ensured they found the right way too expensive’.
Mr Reidy:
As you note, people have always needed shelter, but it is important, as I am sure you will agree, not to confuse buildings with Architecture. As Bruce Goff stated, ‘Good building may be Architecture, but Architecture is always good building’.
Much of the built environment can be broadly characterized as folk building. The details are the base for all traditional construction, and they lead and are led by Architecture. Traditional folk building, such as one finds in an Italian hill town for example, is utilitarian and not self-conscious. Whereas folk building is concerned with the basic problems of providing shelter, Architecture has always been self-conscious building, with the practitioner seeking to express a concept, social, political or theological, in a harmonious manner.
The middle classes have always been the primary source of clients for architects working in the residential field. The poor never have the resources to commission such work, and the wealthy, with some very notable exceptions, build in revolting taste.
Currently the middle class is being diminished as a percentage of the population, most of those displaced joining the ranks of the poor. Consequently, the number of potential clients has declined.
This is part of a general malaise in Western countries, and whilst some of this can be attributed to the current economic conditions prevailing in such areas, the transition of economic and political power to Asia also has considerable bearing. Contrary to the assertion that the world economy is in the doldrums, Asia and Australia are booming. It is an error to consider that the world consists of the land masses between Washington State and the Caucasus.
In Medieval times in Europe, when the Church was all powerful, folk were concerned with saving their souls. People had a reason for living, and a reason for dying, Now, for a significant number of people in the Western countries, but less so in the U.S.A., science has destroyed that faith. Many, myself included, would consider that to not be a bad thing, but the diminution of a once powerful institution has resulted in a void in the lives of a mass of people.
A prosperous European medieval merchant would commission a market cross, a chantry chapel or some other public edifice, as a acknowledgement of the role played by the community within which he lived in supporting his business, and without whom he would not have been successful. Vestiges of this approach still persist in the U.S.A., but appear to be declining, and in other parts of the Western world are all but non-existent.
The Medieval concept of mutual dependence, its answer in the affirmative to the query of Cain in Genesis, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ is scarcely apparent in much of the Western world. It has been replaced by Margaret Thatcher’s concept that we are all individuals, each attempting to claw our way up over our contemporaries, by any means, fair or foul, and that it is every person for themselves. This philosophy defines individual greed as a virtue.
As always Architecture is affected by these political, economic and social movements. Previous eras and cultures have devoted their most valuable resources and labor to build public Architecture that expressed their values and beliefs. It is a paradox that much of the great Architecture of the past was designed and built during ages of tyranny, theocratic or political.
Architecture is, by definition, a social art. We in the Western world have yet to find a satisfactory way to combine the benefits of individual freedom, initiative and privacy with those of a sense of community, except in times of war. Until we do, our Architecture will continue to be characterized by the trivia generally exemplified during the previous 50-100 years.
In the absence of formal religion, I would suggest that the construction of significant buildings and works of art are sufficient reason for living. Their degree of permanence, so that future generations can learn of our toil and our highest values, a reason for dying. Our present epitaph may well be, ‘Their cult of extreme individualism, and their preoccupation with economics, ensured they found the right way too expensive’.
-
Palli Davis Holubar
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: Wakeman, Ohio
Is there a efficient way to archive the posts here? Copy and paste piecemeal is what I have done up to now. For example, could I transfer the perf thread to disc? Is there another program or technique for indexing & search that could be applied here by individuals?
Any info or tips about retaining info here will be appreciated; however please remember I am a Ludite out in the woods.
Any info or tips about retaining info here will be appreciated; however please remember I am a Ludite out in the woods.
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Margaret Thatcher was right (about a lot of things, like the inevitable decline of the Euro). Everything is up for sale, and everyone is on the make. The world-wide spread of capitalism and growth of the middle class in such countries as China and India, plus the dawn of the digital age (the most dynamic technological advancement since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago), are the causes for the demise of community, and will ultimately bring about the end of national sovereignty. The acquisition of wealth is now within reach of more people than ever before, and they will not be denied! The pinching of the Western middle class is a temporary phenomenon that will resolve in much less time than it took to emerge from the Great Depression (12 years), after which the re-emergence of the Hummer is at least as likely as the replacement of the internal combustion engine by batteries. (Gimme that ol' time religion!)
The American Experiment worked. It was to get away from the tight-knit, top-down oppression of European theocracies that people came here in the first place. The founding documents of this country all fixated on the rights of the individual (individualism not to be confused, as is often the case, with egotism) as opposed to the control of the masses by the ordained royals and clergy. But "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." It's scary. Conformity breeds comfort. Idolizing the Disneyfied quaintness of the "Old World" is the expression of a desire to return to the so-called simpler times of the past, without taking into account just how bad those good old days were. The long and short of it is that America found a new template for world order which much of the rest of the world is just catching on to, for better or worse. It's a sort of survival of the fittest philosophy. Ayn Rand's revenge.
What any of that has to do with the quality of architecture, I do not know. There are unlikely to be many Gothic cathedrals built in the future, but there will probably always be room for grand structures of some sort. Domiciles will always be necessary. The computer as part of the design mix is unlikely to go away, so it must be accommodated. Change on the order of the transition from hunter/gatherer to urban-centered cultures is on the horizon. Perhaps all of us analog dinosaurs have to die off before the digital age can truly begin, but it will happen, and people will adapt.
The American Experiment worked. It was to get away from the tight-knit, top-down oppression of European theocracies that people came here in the first place. The founding documents of this country all fixated on the rights of the individual (individualism not to be confused, as is often the case, with egotism) as opposed to the control of the masses by the ordained royals and clergy. But "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." It's scary. Conformity breeds comfort. Idolizing the Disneyfied quaintness of the "Old World" is the expression of a desire to return to the so-called simpler times of the past, without taking into account just how bad those good old days were. The long and short of it is that America found a new template for world order which much of the rest of the world is just catching on to, for better or worse. It's a sort of survival of the fittest philosophy. Ayn Rand's revenge.
What any of that has to do with the quality of architecture, I do not know. There are unlikely to be many Gothic cathedrals built in the future, but there will probably always be room for grand structures of some sort. Domiciles will always be necessary. The computer as part of the design mix is unlikely to go away, so it must be accommodated. Change on the order of the transition from hunter/gatherer to urban-centered cultures is on the horizon. Perhaps all of us analog dinosaurs have to die off before the digital age can truly begin, but it will happen, and people will adapt.
God Help us if Ayn Rand-ism takes a stronger hold in our fair land. Indeed, "fair" will be a word of little meaning in such a future. The dominance of those with wealth and power grows apace, aided and abetted by the idea that "to the victor goes the spoils" -- a concept meant to be kept in check by an organized and aware community.
An NRA member was heard to proclaim, last year, that "those with the guns make the rules." Again, God help us . . . in the "Land of the Free ! and the home of the Save ! ". . .
S D R
An NRA member was heard to proclaim, last year, that "those with the guns make the rules." Again, God help us . . . in the "Land of the Free ! and the home of the Save ! ". . .
S D R
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
Not to quibble, but wouldn't the printing press be the most dynamic technological advancement at that time? The digital age would then represent the most dynamic technological advancement since then.Roderick Grant wrote:...the most dynamic technological advancement since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago
You say you want to abstract something admirable from the medieval spirit, leaving aside irrelevant details of political conditions, living standards, tooth-extraction techniques and the like. That something, I take you to say, is
- People had values ("a reason for living, and a reason for dying"), whereas they don't today;
- People engaged in private philanthropy, whereas they don't today (or at least not to put up buildings).
These are both bizarre and dead wrong, quite as bizarre as what you say about Margaret Thatcher. The first of these claims is too silly to be worth refuting, and the second is easy to refute. In Wright's career, private philanthropy built the Guggenheim, the Humphreys Theater and several churches. More recently, it has rescued and restored several of his buildings and opened them to the public. (Many say, from ample experience, that maintaining any Wright building is a philanthropic act, whether it becomes a house museum or not.) Just about any college campus, museum, hospital in the US stands in refutation of what you seem to think. Since these claims are wrong, any conclusions that follow from them are moot.
What remains true of the putatively-good-in-at-least-some-respects old days, versus our own, is that everybody seemed to hold the same values. (Actually they didn't, but that's another question.) Having ruled out what you claim to admire about the age of the cathedral builders, I see no way around the conclusion that this is what appeals to you. I'll take your word for it.
The rich in any era have built in revolting taste. Look at Versailles. Wright, for all his talk, rarely built for the middle class. Most of his clients were distinctly well-to-do. A case in point came up a few months ago when I toured Hanna, a house which Wright himself touted as a paradigm of middle-income house. The docent told us that the Hannas prospered as textbook authors and spent $35K on their house at a time when one could buy something quite livable for $4K.
I'm curious as to why you say "the middle class is being diminished as a percentage of the population." I recall this as a faddish journalistic notion some twenty-five years ago, but it didn't stand up under empirical scrutiny.
You tell us you're an architect, and a residential architect at that. This is an odd move rhetorically, as it announces that you have money at stake on people's decision to build architect-designed houses. I won't say that this makes you wrong or that this is why you believe what you do, but it needlessly raises questions that wouldn't have come up if you hadn't taken the initiative to tell us.
- People had values ("a reason for living, and a reason for dying"), whereas they don't today;
- People engaged in private philanthropy, whereas they don't today (or at least not to put up buildings).
These are both bizarre and dead wrong, quite as bizarre as what you say about Margaret Thatcher. The first of these claims is too silly to be worth refuting, and the second is easy to refute. In Wright's career, private philanthropy built the Guggenheim, the Humphreys Theater and several churches. More recently, it has rescued and restored several of his buildings and opened them to the public. (Many say, from ample experience, that maintaining any Wright building is a philanthropic act, whether it becomes a house museum or not.) Just about any college campus, museum, hospital in the US stands in refutation of what you seem to think. Since these claims are wrong, any conclusions that follow from them are moot.
What remains true of the putatively-good-in-at-least-some-respects old days, versus our own, is that everybody seemed to hold the same values. (Actually they didn't, but that's another question.) Having ruled out what you claim to admire about the age of the cathedral builders, I see no way around the conclusion that this is what appeals to you. I'll take your word for it.
The rich in any era have built in revolting taste. Look at Versailles. Wright, for all his talk, rarely built for the middle class. Most of his clients were distinctly well-to-do. A case in point came up a few months ago when I toured Hanna, a house which Wright himself touted as a paradigm of middle-income house. The docent told us that the Hannas prospered as textbook authors and spent $35K on their house at a time when one could buy something quite livable for $4K.
I'm curious as to why you say "the middle class is being diminished as a percentage of the population." I recall this as a faddish journalistic notion some twenty-five years ago, but it didn't stand up under empirical scrutiny.
You tell us you're an architect, and a residential architect at that. This is an odd move rhetorically, as it announces that you have money at stake on people's decision to build architect-designed houses. I won't say that this makes you wrong or that this is why you believe what you do, but it needlessly raises questions that wouldn't have come up if you hadn't taken the initiative to tell us.
What is missing from post modernist architecture, and postmodernist theory and art as a whole, that was present in the works, ideas and writings of the great early modernists, (yes, I would include names like Mies, Le Corbusier, Gropius, etc.) as well as arguably the most important figure of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century, Wright, is the notion that architecture can and does impact the quality of people's lives. Interesting that the names of Thatcher and Reagan have been brought up, for under their watch, postmodernist architecture flourished. Image, the one liner, and facade, became the norm, fueled by a culture of cynicism and greed.
Now we find ourselves in a different and worse economic situation, partially due to the policies of the likes of Thatcher and Reagan. Maybe I am being optimistic, but I feel that younger contemporary architects are revisiting the thinking of the modern movement and its intense commitment to architecture as a tool for social change and the betterment of humanity. This seems to be in direct response to the excesses of postmodernism as well as the economic uncertainty of our times. If this indeed is the case, maybe we are not really at "rock bottom" as it seems Mr. Virr is suggesting, but on an upswing, perhaps not yet perceptible.
I strongly reject the idea that we need to passively accept that architecture should and will always only be for the rich, (or even the middle class...) and that the poor don't desire or deserve to live in a dignified and artful environment. I hope Roderick is correct in his prediction that the shrinkage of the middle class is a temporary phenomenon, and that wealth for all is around the corner. But if that is to happen, it will not occur organically as the result of a new technology, (as in the digital age...) but by real struggle.
Wright and his modernist successors did not make a distinction between their work and so called utopian thought, though they might have all come to different conclusions as to how to achieve it. Postmodernism cynically devalued altruism, replacing it with elitism and irony. We are still recovering.
Architecture and art for all is not luxury, but a necessity for our survival as a species.
Now we find ourselves in a different and worse economic situation, partially due to the policies of the likes of Thatcher and Reagan. Maybe I am being optimistic, but I feel that younger contemporary architects are revisiting the thinking of the modern movement and its intense commitment to architecture as a tool for social change and the betterment of humanity. This seems to be in direct response to the excesses of postmodernism as well as the economic uncertainty of our times. If this indeed is the case, maybe we are not really at "rock bottom" as it seems Mr. Virr is suggesting, but on an upswing, perhaps not yet perceptible.
I strongly reject the idea that we need to passively accept that architecture should and will always only be for the rich, (or even the middle class...) and that the poor don't desire or deserve to live in a dignified and artful environment. I hope Roderick is correct in his prediction that the shrinkage of the middle class is a temporary phenomenon, and that wealth for all is around the corner. But if that is to happen, it will not occur organically as the result of a new technology, (as in the digital age...) but by real struggle.
Wright and his modernist successors did not make a distinction between their work and so called utopian thought, though they might have all come to different conclusions as to how to achieve it. Postmodernism cynically devalued altruism, replacing it with elitism and irony. We are still recovering.
Architecture and art for all is not luxury, but a necessity for our survival as a species.
maybe in the us... in europe is only caused by the actual crisis... never before the world has so many people increasing the living standarsCurrently the middle class is being diminished as a percentage of the population, most of those displaced joining the ranks of the poor. Consequently, the number of potential clients has declined.
that is true... but we, as european, and you, as european descendants, have to change the mind about that... that thought could be better in a international political forum, right?It is an error to consider that the world consists of the land masses between Washington State and the Caucasus.
i´m not agree.. i think we have to make the distiction between the faith, the religion and the church (the power...)People had a reason for living, and a reason for dying, Now, for a significant number of people in the Western countries, but less so in the U.S.A., science has destroyed that faith. Many, myself included, would consider that to not be a bad thing, but the diminution of a once powerful institution has resulted in a void in the lives of a mass of people.
so... today we are more free... it is obvious
the europeans, and i don´t really know americans, live like god doesn´t exist (god is only a private thing)... i think is better for everyone, our lives are plenty of goods and love, not fears
it is a great success that in the western countries we leave behind those ages... you can not find any time in the history without massacres, wars o things like that... except thatIt is a paradox that much of the great Architecture of the past was designed and built during ages of tyranny, theocratic or political
it sounds nice... that has sense.Their cult of extreme individualism, and their preoccupation with economics, ensured they found the right way too expensive’.
you think so?... we are still hereMargaret Thatcher was right (about a lot of things, like the inevitable decline of the Euro).
remember that the born of the usa as potency wasn´t in a few days... so europe is the same... we are growing with each problem we face
okey... really interesting posts
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
The IMF disagrees:peterm wrote: I hope Roderick is correct in his prediction that the shrinkage of the middle class is a temporary phenomenon, and that wealth for all is around the corner. But if that is to happen, it will not occur organically as the result of a new technology, (as in the digital age...) but by real struggle.
"Despite the Great Recession, the per capita GDP of the average human being – that is to say, the value of goods and services that she consumes in a year – is now just over $11,000, up from about $8,500 (in today’s dollars) at the start of the century. If it continues to increase at this rate of just under 3% a year – as it has more than done for 60 years – then by the year 2050 the average citizen of Earth will be earning and spending over $30,000 a year in today’s money, roughly the same as the average American spends today. By 2100 she will be spending nearly $150,000 a year, or five times what an American now consumes
The economic growth of the past decade took a century to achieve in 1810 and took a millennium to achieve in 810. That acceleration shows no signs of stopping, indeed it may be about to redouble. The root cause of economic growth is the mixing of ideas: ideas on how to recombine the atoms and electrons of the world in such a way as to supply people’s needs and wants more efficiently. Bring down barriers to the mixing of ideas (barriers in trade, energy, communication and education) and you will cause faster growth whether you want to or not. Nothing has brought down barriers to the mixing of ideas faster than the Internet. Today a man in Shanghai and a woman in San Francisco can spark each other’s thoughts in seconds, where two decades ago they needed books or airplanes to have such mental *."
from: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/01/alm ... s-and.html
IMF source document: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo ... f/text.pdf
Poverty levels in the U.S. have steadily risen in the U.S. since the advent of the internet, despite what the International Monetary Fund says concerning "growth". Look at the data:
http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/povertyintheus
"In 2009, 14.3% of the US population was living below the poverty line. The percentage of the population that was poor in 2009 increased significantly from the level in 2008 (13.2%), and was up almost two percentage points over the poverty rate in 2007 (12.5%). With the exception of these increases, in recent years, the poverty rate has remained fairly steady, following a downward trend between 1993 (15.1%) and 2000 (11.3%)."
And this occurs during the 2000s, a decade of massive deregulation...
http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/povertyintheus
"In 2009, 14.3% of the US population was living below the poverty line. The percentage of the population that was poor in 2009 increased significantly from the level in 2008 (13.2%), and was up almost two percentage points over the poverty rate in 2007 (12.5%). With the exception of these increases, in recent years, the poverty rate has remained fairly steady, following a downward trend between 1993 (15.1%) and 2000 (11.3%)."
And this occurs during the 2000s, a decade of massive deregulation...
The writer of the piece Paul quotes above makes a flaw in his argument in the first sentence, does he not ? That is, Gross Domestic Product is a measure not of personal income but of the worth of goods and services produced. As has been pointed out by others, personal income kept pace with GDP through the 'sixties of the last century, after which various factors -- increased mechanization of production as well as growing inequity of distribution -- meant that the income of the average worker declined relative to GDP. In the decades since, workers first put in more hours to make up for this decline, two-earner households became more common, and, finally, more debt was incurred -- all in the name of maintained an expected "standard of living."
S D R
S D R