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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
You are factually incorrect that productivity hasnt and theoretically incorrect that it cannot increase so everyone shares in it prosperity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs



A theory that can't work in practice has fundamental problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs



A theory that can't work in practice has fundamental problems.

Hasnt worked perfectly != "cant work"

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."

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.

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