RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock

RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cadenas -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/12/2009 5:18:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Underpaying is impossible in a free market. Actually it isnt, thats why jobs move abroad leaving people unemployed. Manufacturers go to the Country that pays the lowest wages, leaving the only way to hang on to those jobs is to accept lower wages. Workers have the upper hand when they are in high demand, employers have the upper hand when jobs are in demand. Workers don't ever have the upper hand. Even during the dotcom era, when programmers where in high demand, employers ended up getting the better deal out of them (by paying with home-made gambling tokens (called stock options) instead of cash, by making the employees work 80+ hour work weeks that ended up bringing the hourly rates back down in the $15-$20 range and sometimes less, and various other tricks). The reason is that labor is an inherently unbalanced market. You have about 100 times more people working than employers. In a free market, you'd have approximately the same on both sides. You have people who MUST work to avoid poverty, while employers can generally let positions go unfilled. You have people who MUST work simply to have access to a doctor or their medication - quite literally to survive! You have employers who have the resources to know a lot more about the labor market than the employees (why do you think do many employees have a policy that discussing your own salary is a firing offense? BTW, it's an illegal policy in California, but still widely practiced) And so on - there are many imbalances in the labor market, and it's very, very far from a "free market".

MmeGigs -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/13/2009 4:56:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You are factually incorrect that productivity hasnt and theoretically incorrect that it cannot increase so everyone shares in it prosperity. You're absolutely right about this. Over the last 25 years or so (prior to the meltdown) productivity did increase at a pretty good clip. Everyone could have been sharing in the prosperity, but the "trickle down" part of supply-side economics got lost in practice. A danged good argument could be made that if all of us had shared in the prosperity we wouldn't be in the economic pickle we're in today.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/13/2009 5:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You are factually incorrect that productivity hasnt and theoretically incorrect that it cannot increase so everyone shares in it prosperity. You're absolutely right about this. Over the last 25 years or so (prior to the meltdown) productivity did increase at a pretty good clip. Everyone could have been sharing in the prosperity, but the "trickle down" part of supply-side economics got lost in practice. A danged good argument could be made that if all of us had shared in the prosperity we wouldn't be in the economic pickle we're in today. Actually the "trickle down" part did work well. The number of people in poverty (defined as unable to afford the basic necessities of life) decreased, and the lower middle class's quality of life improved. It also improved for the very wealthy. Its the upper two thirds of the middle class that missed the rising tide, and only because they were the most impacted by the tech bubble, the housing bubble and 9/11 related stock market declines.

MmeGigs -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/13/2009 7:19:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Actually the "trickle down" part did work well. The number of people in poverty (defined as unable to afford the basic necessities of life) decreased, and the lower middle class's quality of life improved. It also improved for the very wealthy. Its the upper two thirds of the middle class that missed the rising tide, and only because they were the most impacted by the tech bubble, the housing bubble and 9/11 related stock market declines. "Trickle Down" most definitely did not work. The top 10% sucked up most of the benefits of the increase in productivity. The trickling stopped at the middle class. The trickle didn't make it much below the median wage line, and didn't make it down to the bottom quarter at all. According to the US Census Bureau, the poverty rate decreased pretty steadily from 1950 to the mid-1970's. The number of people at or below poverty level income increased steadily until the early 90's, dropped steadily through the Clinton years, then started increasing again. Since the mid-70's, the years that poverty increased were the years when we were most relying on "trickle down". The free-market capitalism theory has the same fundamental problem that the theory of communism has - it doesn't take greed into account. In order for either of these systems to work, the players have to behave in a way that is consistent with the theory - that contributes to the success of the system as a whole. People don't operate that way without a lot of transparency and accountability, both of which have been seriously lacking when the communist or free-market theories have been put into practice.

MzMia -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/13/2009 7:41:43 PM)
MmeGigs, I agree with basically everything you have said here. You have a way of explaining economics/and economic policies in a manner that makes it crystal clear. Thank you for your imput. [;)]

MzMia -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/13/2009 7:58:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse 45 % of Americans pay No Federal income tax, and that percentage is growing. Lets not blame the top 10 % for not paying enough. A quote from Margaret Thatcher " The trouble with socialism is, eventually the rich run out of money".. The reason that so many in the US pay no federal income tax has nothing to do with socialism. They pay no taxes because their income is low. We've replaced the decent-paying blue-collar jobs that we've sent overseas with poorly-paid retail jobs. Say it loud! So much for the global economy, and the great free market system! How is the free market system working for us these days? The wages for the decent-paying blue-collar jobs that are still here have been shrinking because those employers are competing for workers with retail rather than with other decent-paying jobs. This has done a great job of keeping prices down, but has left us with more folks who need financial help and fewer folks with taxable-level income. Even with that extra pressure on tax dollars, the effective tax rate for the top 10% has not changed much in a long time. These folks are paying more in taxes because their income has increased substantially. If you are able to even get a job, these days! I think we should make more taxpayers. We will have more taxpayers, when we get more quality JOBS. Where are the jobs these days? Raise the minimum wage to $15/hr and index it to inflation. Prices would go up some, but we'd be paying closer to the real cost of the things we're buying because wages wouldn't be subsidized with tax dollars through things like the Earned Income Credit and financial assistance programs for low-income workers. We'd not only end up with more tax payers, we'd end up with a smaller total tax bill.

MzMia -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/13/2009 8:16:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Underpaying is impossible in a free market. Actually it isnt, thats why jobs move abroad leaving people unemployed. Manufacturers go to the Country that pays the lowest wages, leaving the only way to hang on to those jobs is to accept lower wages. Workers have the upper hand when they are in high demand, employers have the upper hand when jobs are in demand. Bravo! This is a very important FACT, but people do not want to see this, and especially they do not want to admit this!!! Take the jobs abroad, and what are you leaving the people with these days? I still need to know how "the worker bee's" are benefiting from sending all these jobs offshore, and how the free market system is going to save our collective asses in the USA now.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/13/2009 11:12:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia Underpaying is impossible in a free market. Actually it isnt, thats why jobs move abroad leaving people unemployed. Manufacturers go to the Country that pays the lowest wages, leaving the only way to hang on to those jobs is to accept lower wages. Workers have the upper hand when they are in high demand, employers have the upper hand when jobs are in demand. You are too narrowly defining the market. If there is someone anywhere who is capable and willing to do a certain job at a certain wage, they arent being underpaid by definition. An employer is under no obligation to pay more than someone capable is willing to accept. If someone domestically wants to meet that salary (and there are no other exigencies such as being near his colleagues) then he can be hired as well. the last sentence is exactly why underpaying is impossible in a free market..there is supply and there is demand and except for short periods of economic hiccups they will remain in balance..ie they arent underpaid they are paid exactly what the market sets.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/13/2009 11:21:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Actually the "trickle down" part did work well. The number of people in poverty (defined as unable to afford the basic necessities of life) decreased, and the lower middle class's quality of life improved. It also improved for the very wealthy. Its the upper two thirds of the middle class that missed the rising tide, and only because they were the most impacted by the tech bubble, the housing bubble and 9/11 related stock market declines. "Trickle Down" most definitely did not work. The top 10% sucked up most of the benefits of the increase in productivity. The trickling stopped at the middle class. The trickle didn't make it much below the median wage line, and didn't make it down to the bottom quarter at all. According to the US Census Bureau, the poverty rate decreased pretty steadily from 1950 to the mid-1970's. The number of people at or below poverty level income increased steadily until the early 90's, dropped steadily through the Clinton years, then started increasing again. Since the mid-70's, the years that poverty increased were the years when we were most relying on "trickle down". I didnt say "poverty according to the Census Bureau" which has absolutely nothing to do with being able to afford the basic necessities. The numbers of those who cant have dropped steadily. Poverty isnt having only one flat screen tv or only having a 10 year old car. The free-market capitalism theory has the same fundamental problem that the theory of communism has - it doesn't take greed into account. In order for either of these systems to work, the players have to behave in a way that is consistent with the theory - that contributes to the success of the system as a whole. People don't operate that way without a lot of transparency and accountability, both of which have been seriously lacking when the communist or free-market theories have been put into practice. You are wrong on two counts. First of all, free market capitalism certainly does take greed into account. It assumes that each entity will act in its own best interest, which is the essence of "greed". Then you claim that the theories have problems, and then only talk about the practice of those theories...not the same thing.

MmeGigs -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 5:18:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I didnt say "poverty according to the Census Bureau" which has absolutely nothing to do with being able to afford the basic necessities. The numbers of those who cant have dropped steadily. Poverty isnt having only one flat screen tv or only having a 10 year old car. Poverty according to the Census Bureau is real poverty. It's currently at about $20,000 for a family of 4. That won't pay for a year's worth of basic necessities. quote: You are wrong on two counts. First of all, free market capitalism certainly does take greed into account. It assumes that each entity will act in its own best interest, which is the essence of "greed". Free market theory assumes that folks will act with a kind of enlightened self interest, which is very little like greed. quote: Then you claim that the theories have problems, and then only talk about the practice of those theories...not the same thing. A theory that can't work in practice has fundamental problems.

cadenas -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 5:45:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Actually the "trickle down" part did work well. The number of people in poverty (defined as unable to afford the basic necessities of life) decreased, and the lower middle class's quality of life improved. It also improved for the very wealthy. Its the upper two thirds of the middle class that missed the rising tide, and only because they were the most impacted by the tech bubble, the housing bubble and 9/11 related stock market declines. "Trickle Down" most definitely did not work. The top 10% sucked up most of the benefits of the increase in productivity. The trickling stopped at the middle class. The trickle didn't make it much below the median wage line, and didn't make it down to the bottom quarter at all. According to the US Census Bureau, the poverty rate decreased pretty steadily from 1950 to the mid-1970's. The number of people at or below poverty level income increased steadily until the early 90's, dropped steadily through the Clinton years, then started increasing again. Since the mid-70's, the years that poverty increased were the years when we were most relying on "trickle down". I didnt say "poverty according to the Census Bureau" which has absolutely nothing to do with being able to afford the basic necessities. The numbers of those who cant have dropped steadily. Poverty isnt having only one flat screen tv or only having a 10 year old car. Obviously, you haven't seen poverty even from a distance. Here in California, we now have the phenomenon of the "wealthy" homeless - people too poor to afford rent, but still with too much money to qualify for welfare. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/26/local/me-assistance-denied26 And lest you think this is a California-only phenomenon, the same thing from Minnesota: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/05/05/8540/an_ever-more-common_journey_from_middle_class_to_just_hanging_on quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The free-market capitalism theory has the same fundamental problem that the theory of communism has - it doesn't take greed into account. In order for either of these systems to work, the players have to behave in a way that is consistent with the theory - that contributes to the success of the system as a whole. People don't operate that way without a lot of transparency and accountability, both of which have been seriously lacking when the communist or free-market theories have been put into practice. You are wrong on two counts. First of all, free market capitalism certainly does take greed into account. It assumes that each entity will act in its own best interest, which is the essence of "greed". Then you claim that the theories have problems, and then only talk about the practice of those theories...not the same thing. She is right on both counts, actually. Free market doesn't take greed into account. Self-interest and greed are not at all the same thing - in fact, a free market relies on all participants playing by the rules. Greed is the reason an unregulated market becomes a NON-free market. And unless I misread her, she didn't claim that the theories themselves have a problem, but that their problem is that they don't translate into practice. By themselves, the free market theory works just as well as communism does. And I'm sure there are probably dozens of other economic theories that might work very well - in theory.

MzMia -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 8:56:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas She is right on both counts, actually. Free market doesn't take greed into account. Self-interest and greed are not at all the same thing - in fact, a free market relies on all participants playing by the rules. Greed is the reason an unregulated market becomes a NON-free market. And unless I misread her, she didn't claim that the theories themselves have a problem, but that their problem is that they don't translate into practice. By themselves, the free market theory works just as well as communism does. And I'm sure there are probably dozens of other economic theories that might work very well - in theory. MmeGigs Rocks, of course she is right on both counts! You hit the nail on the head. The "free market theory" in and of itself is not a bad idea, in fact it could be a wonderful idea. When many of us think about "free market theory" we think unregulated and total GREED. That greed factor, and general lack of concern for any of the workers involved, applies to all of the countries involved.

samboct -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 9:54:59 AM)
"Underpaying is impossible in a free market. Actually it isnt, thats why jobs move abroad leaving people unemployed. Manufacturers go to the Country that pays the lowest wages, leaving the only way to hang on to those jobs is to accept lower wages. Workers have the upper hand when they are in high demand, employers have the upper hand when jobs are in demand." Actually, the reason manufacturing moves offshore is a bit more involved than simply the costs of labor. For labor intensive industries- it can seem pretty clear why manufacturers move offshore- why pay $11 an hour when you can pay $11/day (or week?) But what about industries like chip manufacture which has very little labor costs associated with production since chips are made in automated lines? There the costs of manufacture are heavily dependent on capital costs and if you think that in a global economy capital costs are even across the board- think again! It's cheaper to build a plant in China than in the US because both real estate and the cost of capital (in addition to labor) is less expensive. From my perspective, the relocation of manufacturing to China has made very little sense because it leaves the company in an uncompetitive position- China is only now beginning to take other countries IP as slightly more than a sick joke (and this is pretty debatable.) So why do it? Companies in the states often don't relocate based on wage differentials, even a factor of two. There's a real competitive advantage in being close to your customers- which any company in China has basically thrown away. And as wages increase in China, the wage differential between US workers and Chinese workers is shrinking. So why relocate to China? Ans: cost of capital too. My hunch is the high cost of capital in the US has to do with our financial industry. How else could the financial companies pay their executives such bloated salaries if they weren't bringing in a lot of money? Well, the money that they make increases the cost of manufacturing in this country- and hence, manufacturings been moving to China at a very healthy clip. 30% of New York state's manufacturing has moved to China in the past decade. (heard this number at a meeting on energy.) It's not only the cost of labor thats driving this flight, it's the cost of capital as well. A CAD controlled machine tool does cost the same in the US or China, and manufacturing can be a very capital intensive business. That we haven't reformed our financial industry worries me a great deal..... Sam

willbeurdaddy -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 10:19:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs A theory that can't work in practice has fundamental problems. Hasnt worked perfectly != "cant work"

DomKen -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 11:17:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs A theory that can't work in practice has fundamental problems. Hasnt worked perfectly != "cant work" You sound just like the communists who try and give out newspapers at my "L" stop.

estah -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 11:21:09 AM)
To best honest Capitalism, like Communism, socialism and such are all ideas of paradise on paper, but when you bring in the random factor of mankind (person kind for the politcially correct) all such concepts are bound to fail. estah

estah -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 11:24:41 AM)
In small groups they will work, but the large the group the more random factors one brings into the higher the chances of disruption/corruption/destruction of the original ideas. estah

willbeurdaddy -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 3:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "Underpaying is impossible in a free market. Actually it isnt, thats why jobs move abroad leaving people unemployed. Manufacturers go to the Country that pays the lowest wages, leaving the only way to hang on to those jobs is to accept lower wages. Workers have the upper hand when they are in high demand, employers have the upper hand when jobs are in demand." And what part of that is "underpaying" in a global marketplace? It is a wage willingly accepted by the worker. It is paying exactly what that person thinks his time is worth for that job.

Politesub53 -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 4:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You are too narrowly defining the market. If there is someone anywhere who is capable and willing to do a certain job at a certain wage, they arent being underpaid by definition. An employer is under no obligation to pay more than someone capable is willing to accept. If someone domestically wants to meet that salary (and there are no other exigencies such as being near his colleagues) then he can be hired as well. the last sentence is exactly why underpaying is impossible in a free market..there is supply and there is demand and except for short periods of economic hiccups they will remain in balance..ie they arent underpaid they are paid exactly what the market sets. Thats not so, outsource jobs abroad changes the market and therefore lowers wages. You cant use the word domestically while we have a world wide market, therefore my definition isnt too narrow. Multinations move abroad claiming its a free market, many use children to work at a pitance, therefore causing domestic wages to be cut if one needs to compete. Companies both in the US and UK use illegal labour knowing they can pay low wages, as migrant workers fear being exposed to the authorities. You would be correct if there was a free market where everyone has an equal playing field, those conditions hardly ever exist though.

Politesub53 -> RE: I just did some calcs on the national debt clock (7/14/2009 4:54:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: estah To best honest Capitalism, like Communism, socialism and such are all ideas of paradise on paper, but when you bring in the random factor of mankind (person kind for the politcially correct) all such concepts are bound to fail. estah Nice post Estah.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125